Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Laize]

/facepalm

Thanks for displaying your complete lack of knowledge! You basically show you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Most countries in europe ban guns for civilians.

Is that so? Because last time I checked, Switzerland had one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world (Behind only the US and Yemen), all 4 Scandinavian nations, Germany, France, Italy...

In fact it looks like the exact opposite of what you said, where firearms are legal in most countries in europe. For civilians.

In fact, it's possible (If unlikely) for a civilian to legally access select-fire weapons in Sweden. You can't even do that as retired military/LE personnel in the US.

So which European countries, exactly, ban guns? Because I'm having a tough time finding them. In fact, the European Union set a minimum standard for gun laws with regards to multiple non-ban forms of regulation (such as registries) that only the UK was not obliged to abide by as only their laws were more strict than the new EU law.

So help me out here. Which of the many countries in Europe besides the UK ban guns?

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 10:30 AM ----------

Your attitude towards .22's is extremely irresponsible and you're only working right now to reinforce the anti-guns' arguments.

On the contrary. My attitude toward .22s is no more irresponsible than my attitude towards airsoft guns, paintball guns, slingshots or rail/coilguns.

I take their safety extremely seriously. That doesn't mean I think they're too dangerous for children and require extensive regulation.

[PhaelixWW]

Even if they did switch to a hand gun. The assault weapons were designed to shoot the most possible bullets in shortest amount of time.

Handguns are capable of exactly the same.

It's both dishonest and illogical to say that an assault weapon capable of spraying a hundred bullets in under a minute is on par with a handgun with 30 bullets in it.

Once again, this proves that you don't understand what you're talking about because yes, they are definitely on par. They have the same potential magazine sizes and they fire just as fast.

They did it before. They only struck down PART of the law because it related to handguns and that's protected by right to defend yourself aka right to bear arms.

And I'll repeat, since you seem to have missed it from my last post, DC v. Heller had nothing to do with the FAWB. The FAWB expired in 2004. DC v. Heller was in 2008, and specifically concerned the completely separate firearms ban in Washington DC. It only addressed handguns because that's the type of firearm that Heller had attempted to purchase.

It's exactly the reason so many people were able to get around the ban because no one law clearly defined what it was. Let me repeat that..no single law defined what it was as in supreme court never did that nor even President Obama..yet.

Wrong. All the various assault weapons bans have defined the term... they've just defined it differently.

If you want the definition from Feinstein's new bill, here it is:

(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following,
..regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
.....(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a
.......detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
..........(i) A pistol grip.
..........(ii) A forward grip.
..........(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
..........(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
..........(v) A barrel shroud.
..........(vi) A threaded barrel.
.....(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity
.......to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device
.......designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber
.......rimfire ammunition.
.....(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment,
.......or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of
.......fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle
.......into a machinegun.
.....(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
.......detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
..........(i) A threaded barrel.
..........(ii) A second pistol grip.
..........(iii) A barrel shroud.
..........(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at
............some location outside of the pistol grip.
..........(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
.....(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the
.......capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
.....(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
..........(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
..........(ii) A pistol grip.
..........(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
..........(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
..........(v) A forward grip.
..........(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
.....(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Again it did not fail. It wasn't given time to mature.

The bill was written with a 10 year limit. It ran its full time. To say that the established time frame wasn't enough for the bill to mature means, by definition, that the bill failed.

You'd STILL be against it. People here are against even accepting the reality the supreme court might hear the case again. I very seriously doubt you would care either way what the data said. At least be honest about that part.

Don't try to put words in my mouth and then exhort me to "be honest" about it.

The reality is that the SCOTUS has only heard a very few cases on the 2nd Amendment. The last one before DC v. Heller in 2008 was US v. Miller in 1939. It's by no means guaranteed that the Supreme Court would ever be involved in another case in our lifetimes.

That's you're first warning. The second and you go back into Ignore Land again. You know the first time after you screamed to high heavens. I am no longer entertaining personal insults.

Oh, please, don't be a hypocrite. You said that pro-gun people were ignoring things; you called it tunnel vision. I said the same thing applied to you.

So apparently when you do it it's fine, but when I do it it's a personal insult? Get over yourself. Your warnings are meaningless to me. You can ignore what I say, you can ignore me if you want, but that doesn't stop other people from witnessing the hypocrisy of your statements.

In you're point of view. Unless the President called you up and personally gave you the aurhotiry what could be taken as proof or not then I am baffled without more information to back it up. This is what I mean about replying to long winded statments with virtually no sources. It's a series of snide comments and one liners.

What the hell are you talking about? I said:

Re-read that line again:

But there is [some] evidence to [suggest] that it [may] have [modestly] [reduced] shootings [had it been in effect for a longer period].

This statement is couched in so many vague conditionals that it can't be taken as evidence or proof of anything.

How is that long winded? How is that no source?

Lets give it a chance to see if it will worked.

No. I don't think so.

That's right you don't care if it did or not. You know what. I know that. You will use anything to try to prove its not effecive even if it was by you're entire attitude and responses. Your a rapid defender of it even if information tipped out of you're way. I have serious concerns you would actually be the first to turn in you're weapon.

Wow, this is a load of BS. Don't you dare try to tell me what I believe. I will use the truth to prove that it wasn't effective, no matter how much you may deny it. The information doesn't even support your statement. The best you can say is that it might have been effective at some unknown time in the future.

And for the last time, I don't even own a firearm. I've never owned a firearm. I have serious doubts that you'll even remember me saying that 10 pages from now, since I've said it before and it hasn't stuck. But that's par for the course.

Oh, and stop the personal attacks. This is your warning.

A ton of weapons were not included in the original assault weapons ban. That should have been. If the 223 bushmaster was included in the ban and Gun Makers did not try to get around that loophole for profit then 26 school children would be still alive.

False statement. You have absolutely no evidence to support the fact that those people would not have still died at the hands of a madman with a shotgun and two handguns instead of an AR-15. But it seems like you don't care whether or not it's true as long as you can still appeal to emotion.

A person goes in to kill people. He starts blowing people away with a shotgun. Another person does it with a hand gun. Another does it with assault weapons. You're seriously going to say that the handgun wouldn't run out of bullets faster.

Ah, the same old failed argument. You seem to forget about the several times that I and others have stated that handguns can have ridiculously huge magazines just like rifles:



Maybe that'll get your attention this time.

And the Sandy Hook shooter had not just one, but two handguns, for example. A shooter with two handguns with 15-round magazines can theoretically shoot 30 rounds faster than a shooter with an AR-15 and a single 30-round magazine.

It worked for the VA Tech shooter, after all.

Are you so blind to why this weapon is favored in most of recent strings of mass killings.

And the other old Fused failed argument. It doesn't matter how many times I point out that there have been far more handgun mass killings recently than those with assault weapons. You just seem to ignore the truth every time, anyway.

And yet you ignore the findings of the research report made after the last ban. And the sheer stupidity of the "we need to pass the ban to see if it's effective" argument is staggering.

That emotion you call right there is anger. Further proof you don't care if it had a major impact or not. You don't really pass off as moral justice of Guns that would easily hand over you're weapons. Gun Owners get easily upset, irated frustrated. Isn't that emotion..all you people claim appeals to emotion. Look at this poster isn't he overcome with emotion. How can you say a rational logical debate when you get knee jerk reaction from Gun Owners resorting to insulting.

You know, I'm not sure I even have to take this seriously anymore. I mean, Fused is digging his/her own grave here. It seriously seems like Fused is getting unhinged trying to paint other people as angry, rabid, overcome with emotion.

I can't even fathom how Fused tries to imply all of that from the quoted statement of mine. Anyone else care to defend Fused's interpretation?

I think quite clear as the meaning ineffective. Meaning just that. When an effect does happen the laws of physics tell us that it had to had SOME effect.

Sure, go ahead and completely ignore the actual definition of the word, even though I so thoughtfully linked it for you. But I guess that we should rejoice, because public education can now be deemed effective since it's had at least a little bit of effect. The war in Iraq was effective because some change was made. We don't need medicine anymore because the placebo effect must be effective; after all, it has the word right in the description!

Again if you're going be honest at least you can admit you don't care what the report says.

Aren't you even the least bit ashamed at how insulting you're being when you try to put false words into another person's mouth? But I forgot, you don't insult people, so I guess I'm wrong.

For the record, I care what the report says, and it says that the previous ban was ineffective. Want another quote from the report?

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

I very seriously doubt the sincerity that you'd hand over you're weapon if the data suggests fewer lives can be lost. Your entire attitude is hostile, condensing and a few of snide insults. It just doesn't seem that way.

Yet more personal insults. How very hypocritical.

Both. It IS awkward and clumsy. It can be both that and dangerous. Their design what makes them so dangerous. The ability to shoot a massive amount of bullets in a short amount of time.

Wow. If you think that assault weapons are awkward and clumsy, and if you think that the features of an assault weapon (pistol grip, forward grip, etc.) make them more dangerous because they make the firearm more manageable (which, let's face it, is the only possible argument for why a pistol grip makes something more dangerous), then I shudder to think of how you'd describe a standard rifle. Oh, wait, shotguns use the same grip don't they, so they must be even more clumsy and awkward than assault weapons, huh?

That's completely asinine logic. Try again.

Let's not forget they can be modified to an assault weapon making them even more dangerous and unusual. That kinda thing is banned under the right to bear arms therefore not protected. However we will not know this till supreme court takes up the case.

Oh, FFS. No, they can't readily be modified to automatic (which is what I'm guessing you were trying to say). We've proved this to you before.

And another fail: automatic firearms are not banned, merely heavily regulated under the NFA.

And we don't need the SCOTUS to tell us what's been law for almost 80 years.

Clearly when I asked Lazie. GreatOaks and that other poster if supreme court would even HEAR the case. You along with others follow in line to deny reality. You forget they already hear the case once.

You're denying enough reality for this entire thread. And I've never said that it's impossible for the issue to come up before the SCOTUS. Most people have simply said that it's a moot point because they're confident the ban will never pass in the first place. If it doesn't pass, then there'll be nothing to challenge.

You cannot ban it then next day expect crime to go down. Like with most things it takes time. However that entire post is moot. Because you.don.t.care. It could have a massive effect. You'd still refuse it. You're hiding behind one data that suggests it didn't have an effect. While I found an article saying it did you're attitude still wouldn't change.

Fused, your entire argument is laughable, as are your attempted attacks on me. I've got shittons of data to support the fact that the previous AWB was ineffective. And your source doesn't even support your own view. You've misconstrued what it says in a desperate attempt to cling to some kind of credibility.

I don't expect you to be logical that a decrease in access to weapons would decrease number of bad guys using that and that weapon.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that, despite the fact that such a ban would have an effect on the availability of said firearms, it wouldn't (and didn't) have any meaningful effect on the overall crime and homicide rates, simply because other, equally-lethal firearms were still readily available (like semi-automatic handguns).

You mean like NRA does ALL THE TIME. Again. You can appeal to both emotion and logic at the same time.

Don't try to use the NRA against me. I've already said that I don't support the NRA, nor do their actions and beliefs speak for me.

I'm sure you think Gov is out to take you're weapons. Guess what that's motivated by fear which is an EMOTION should we dismiss everything you say because it appeals to you're personal fear of you're weapons being taken away.

Jesus, Fused, I guess you don't even understand what an appeal to emotion is.

But first, no, I don't think the government is out to take any firearms. Not like I even own firearms for the government to potentially take, anyway. But you try to argue that I'm motivated by fear (which I'm not), and that such an emotion should invalidate what I say. No, you really don't get the concept of an appeal to emotion. An appeal to emotion is when you try to rouse emotions in others to try and get someone to agree with something that they otherwise logically wouldn't.

Actually in the NewTown school massacre he only used ONE weapon to murder 26 kids. He used a handgun if that qualities on himself at the end. No that part wasn't added later. It's what took place.

Now you're ignoring what was quoted. You said that if the AWB had been strengthened instead of being let to expire that Sandy Hook would have been prevented and all those lives saved because the shooter wouldn't have been able to get his hands on the weapon he used. And I pointed out that he got his hands on some other firearms that wouldn't have been covered by the ban and that he very likely would have just used handguns instead of the AR-15 during the incident. So you cannot prove that any lives would have been saved.

Again in the movies he had about five minutes. In that time he killed half the number of people that newtown shooter did. Less break this down the guy who shot up the crowded movies had about five minutes at best. He managed to kill 10 people roughly half of the children killed in that massacre wondering several others. Again you're point. is moot.

The Aurora shooter opened fire on a packed theater with complete surprise. There's no real comparison, although the same end result could till have occurred with only handguns as the weapon of choice.

Again you can modify an AW to change fully Automatic thus changing the rate of bullets that is fired. Yes it's possible I'd even dare to say it's...dangerous and Usual..

No, you're wrong wrong wrong. How many times does it have to be said for you to get it? If these firearms were capable of being easily converted to automatic, then the law would treat them as automatic, per the NFA.

Most current fully automatic trigger groups will not fit their semi-automatic firearm look-alike counterparts – the semi-automatic version is specifically constructed to reject the fully automatic trigger group by adding metal in critical places. This addition is required by the ATF to prevent easy conversion of Title I firearms into machine guns.

If AR-15s were easily convertible, the ATF would simply consider them automatic firearms and regulate the shit out of them. So stop make that claim.

The weapon he used is not a tool. It's a weapon. Like a knife it has other uses like cutting meat spreading jelly on bread and cutting people up. My point is other weapons of murder normally have other uses they are used as objects to carry out their plans. A gun only has a single use. That's to kill.

A single use that almost none of the firearms in existence actually do? No. The main purpose of most firearms is for sport shooting, shooting paper targets, cans, etc.

You must been replying to someone else. I never argued cosmetic features of the weapon.

Not everything is directed at you. You could simply have looked up at the "Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes" in my quote.

This is actually a game changer for first time since 1994 we're taking serious step for protection for the public. That I think makes you most mad that it can. Not that it will but possibility of it happening makes you foam at the mouth you cannot even admit it could happen.

Once again, the personal attacks. If the only way you think you can defeat my argument is by trying (and failing) to make it look like I'm some angry villain, then you have no case. You have no support and you know it. Go ahead. Try to say that I'm "foaming at the mouth" again. You lose a little more credibility every time you do.

Lemme just make something a bit more clear. If you want to respond to me that's fine I enjoy a discussion. However when you quote about ten separate quotes from me taken over a period of a week. You cannot seriously expect me to use my time and energy to quote every single one of those condensing remarks.

Your sense of time seems to be as warped as your understanding of this topic, I guess. The first post of yours I quoted was from 2/21/13 @ 7:54am. The last post of yours I quoted was from 2/21/13 @ 10:43pm. Feel free to check.

Your "period of a week" was actually less than 15 hours. If you can't even keep track of your own posts for that short a time...

I just find it a tad annoying when no one shows up for a week. Then quotes me. Then foams at the mouth with insults when I don't reply in a timely manner because they're feelings are bruised I didn't respond directly to them. If you're going reply would it be so much to ask to do so in a single statement.

I can't tell if you're lying, grossly mistaken, or just hallucinating here. Not show up for a week? I've posted over 20 times in the last 4 days. And now I'm "foaming at the mouth" again, for... what? I didn't say that you didn't reply in a timely manner. And I'll reply any damn well way I please. If you want to isolate your responses to my posts to one or two things, that's fine by me. It gets to be exhausting correcting all the errors you've made in your arguments against me, anyway.

I decided just not to respond to last four comments. Because seriously you should be reasonable and logical not quote everything I said from a WEEK ago then respond to it.

And again, a "week", this time in capital letters! I guess that must have been a very intense 15 hours, huh?

[lockedout]

A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the
.......capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

That would be pretty stupid in a handgun since the length of the pistol's grip determines the capacity the magazine holds.

[PhaelixWW]

Thats also why I stated that a 30 year ban would have more effect, because I would assume a 30 year old gun would either be hard to find or broken.

Not really. Take the standard AR-15 model, for example. The lower receiver is "the gun" for the purpose of sale, transfer, registering... and grandfathering:



You can replace the rest of the firearm as much as you want, but as long as that lower receiver holds up, it's still legally the same firearm. And since the lower receiver has absolutely no moving parts, it'll conceivably never wear out or break until we're all using laser guns or something.

As for your substition effect i'm just gonna say that the semi-automatic rifles are much more potent than a simply handgun.

And that's just not true. Please provide some evidence to support this claim. The only real natural advantage rifles have over pistols is accuracy at long range, and since most of the shootings we talk about are at ranges of less than 10-20 yards, that accuracy really isn't the issue.

And for the very few shootings where the range is much higher, a non-banned semi-automatic rifle or even a bolt-action rifle would be just as effective.

Let me repost something from earlier:

Most handguns are also semi-automatic. They're far more concealable. They can also carry large magazines. They're far cheaper than rifles. And despite common misconception, handgun calibers are generally much heavier than the standard AR-15 round.

Take the AR-15 round, with a diameter of .223 in (5.56mm) and a bullet weight of 55-69 grains. Typical handguns range from the smaller 9mm (.355 in), bullet weight of 115-147 grains, to the larger .45ACP (11.5mm), bullet weight of 185-230 grains. So handgun ammo is typically 60-100% wider and 100-300% heavier than your standard "assault weapon" ammo.

As for the rest of your post, you're wrong on most of it because you assume the 1994 ban was ineffective based off the results, when in reality the ban had no effect because it was filled with loopholes and expired before it had a chance to take any effect.

It was ineffective based on the results. But it was also ineffective because it didn't even begin to address the real issues. Even the NIJ report in the aftermath of the ban stated that assault weapons were only used in 2% of shootings before the ban. So at best the ban could only ever account for a 2% drop in homicides. And that's if all previously existing assault weapons would just *poof* disappear and if the substitution rate magically stayed at 0%.

Considering that our firearm homicide rate is down over 55% in the last 20 years, there are obviously much better ways (cultural, socioeconomic, etc.) than waiting 30+ years for at most a 2% drop.

[Deleted]

Damn nice firearm been thinking about picking one up myself.

I read that the Czech make the best ones I need to do more research.

And I would be proud to own one.

I also was published before I was 25. Hold a BA in information technology with a emphasis on military intelligence, and a associates in psychology and another in business.

So just cause your opinion is anti-gun it sure as hell doesn't make you smarter, or better then anyone else on this message board.

No such bloody thing.

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 07:21 PM ----------

I take comfort in knowing that fanatics like you are the minority and shall remain so for the foreseeable future.

I mean jesus christ, even the Scandinavian nations let you have guns.

In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.

Incorrect, we only ban handguns and full auto weapons, I own a few firearms myself. You can own a .50 BMG rifle here if you want one.

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 07:22 PM ----------

I could have sworn the UK banned everything except extremely simple, single-round hunting rifles (Which no one in their right mind considers a "gun". Those are toys fit for 10 year olds to operate in most countries).

Very wrong, where do people get these ideas about the UK?

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 07:23 PM ----------

I first fired a .22 caliber rifle when I was in summer camp. I'm not sure I was even 10 at the time.

It's a gun in the same sense that an airsoft is a gun.

They're bolt action and aren't going to kill anything. I mean I don't even think you can use them to hunt deer in the US... the projectile isn't damaging enough to kill instantly.

If you want to consider a .22 a gun, be my guest.. but I won't "apologize" just because I view a .22 as more of a BB-gun 2.0 than an actual firearm and you view it as a legitimate weapon.

People have hunted moose with a .22, so go ahead thinking they are just toys.

[brirrspliff]

Yes I support this move. The less guns = the better. Countries with less guns have lower gun deaths and that's a FACT. I don't care about so called "responsible guns owner"s and whatever. This country has a gun problem, and it will only get worse untill we do something about it. I'm so SICK of the people who say assault rifles and freaking weapons that can kill masses in seconds are not the problem. You kind of people constantly setup the right type of environment for these type of situations to happen because of your attitude of "Well I did not do it, but that crazy guy did, so everyone should be able to still own assault rifles and guns lolololol".

Yeah lets just arm everyone. Yes we will have more stories of people who stopped someone from shooting people, but we will also have 2, 3, 4-fold more gun deaths along with that number.

your post was on the first page, and you already said everything important concerning the question from the topic. yet i'm sure the less intelligent people will manage to fill another few hundred pages with posts of illogical and brainwashed crap, triggered by fear and ignorance.

the second "wild west" amandment and it's adherents. pathetic since 1791.

[Deleted]

If you get shot in the fucking head.

So can an airsoft or slingshot.

I guess Israel should consult you when outfitting their special forces then.....



---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 07:28 PM ----------

/facepalm

Thanks for displaying your complete lack of knowledge! You basically show you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Most countries in europe ban guns for civilians.

Actually, MOST don't ban guns for civilians, they just regulate and restrict them better than the USA.

[PhaelixWW]

At ten yard, shooting 200 rounds per minute, with an assault weapon, you could easily hit a human target 100 times. The gun isn't going to go flying out of your hands. Lean into it and hold on. You'll be fine.

The question isn't really whether you could hit a single stationary target 50% of the time, it's whether you'd be able to shoot at multiple moving/hiding targets with enough accuracy to actually hit more often than if you had take a little more time and fired more slowly.

If it's more effective in that scenario to fire more slowly, then the whole 200/min thing is somewhat of a red herring, no?

If you're talking a crowded theater, with seated targets, no real cover, and very limited egress options, then bump-firing a drum magazine might be more effective, but that's very, very, very uncommon (and thankfully those drum mags are more likely to jam).

[Dillon]

I guess Israel should consult you when outfitting their special forces then.....

Actually, MOST don't ban guns for civilians, they just regulate and restrict them better than the USA.

Yeah .22 caliber is absolutely lethal. The idea that they are somehow a toy or less deserving of the respectful reverence of safety I think is a very bad one.

.22 is manageable, small, light, quiet, cheap and reasonably accurate to moderate ranges. It really is a fantastic caliber, and as a 30 grain projectile traveling at 530 meters per second, it is most certainly not a toy.

For restrictions, I say as long as a sane, law abiding citizen can get their hands on just about anything they would like, have all of them you would like, because at the end of the day, sane and law abiding people have never been the problem. Let them be and own what they might.

As long as there is inward aggression in the human race, the ability to defend yourself will always be inherent, no matter who might scream, shout or whine. It is not given by a piece of paper. It is not given by a country, a government, or even another person, and most importantly none of these things can take it from you- you can only give it up. As a human being, having climbed from the depths of our race's utmost mortal infancy, the right to repel aggression has and always will be entirely inherent, without question or circumstance. I hold these truths to be self-evident.

[Deleted]

Yeah .22 caliber is absolutely lethal. The idea that they are somehow a toy or less deserving of the respectful reverence of safety I think is a very bad one.

.22 is manageable, small, light, quiet, cheap and reasonably accurate to moderate ranges. It really is a fantastic caliber, and as a 30 grain projectile traveling at 530 meters per second, it is most certainly not a toy.

Most common hitmans weapon if rumours are to be listened to. Very quiet, easy to suppress and very cheap makes it a great disposable assassins weapon, the idea that it won't penetrate thick bone is just bullshit.

[Svifnymr]

I don't really mind. I like a lot of people in this thread, even if I vehemently disagree (and come across as hostile.) Dillon is fine - as is Sfiljayr or whatever his name is for example. Seem like lovely, intelligent people. I've said I don't believe gun owners are evil. I just think they're heavily misled - not uncommon in history and not a moral defect either.

I think a big part of it is the vast variety of folks that all get lumped in together. There are plenty of shall we say "upper class" gun owners that believe they need a gun but the "common folk" don't (i.e. anyone that's not in their group of peers). There are die-hard militia types, I've met them and they're as much a reason for my "don't discuss politics in conversations" policy as the die-hard liberals, you either agree with them or you're an idiot in their eyes, so I just don't talk. Plenty of hunters used to feel that "assault weapons" were a threat to their rights because they "gave guns a bad image", a lot of them changed their minds when a couple Feinstein-likes decided that bolt action guns were all "sniper rifles" and needed to be banned.

I mean, heck, folks think the NRA is extreme? Go read about Jews For The Preservation of Firearms or Gun Owners of America. GOA is a bit extreme, and maybe JFPF has calmed down some, but they used to basically say "if the government tries to take my guns, it's because they want another holocaust!". I'm not saying that's impossible to happen or anything, but it's certainly not the first step in a conversation about gun rights for me.

But the point is that the people defending them clearly have no more intrinsic knowledge than those wanting to ban them. It screams hypocrisy about needing to fire a weapon to understand it, for example, or debate policy where certain types of gun are banned, when you literally don't know what the hell's going on and won't apologise when caught in a brazen lie.

I consider 22's to be firearms, and shotguns too, but I think Laize was more going for hyperbole rather than lying. It'd be like a sword ban that bans every blade over 3", so one guy is screaming "you can't have a blade!".

Of course, he's also inaccurate in that (unless all the Brits in this and other threads are part of a conspiracy to lie to us) they CAN have guns of many calibers, though IIRC they're not semi-automatic (I recall they could have AR15's, as long as they had no gas system to cycle things, could be wrong there.). The other guy is also wrong, since most European nations have varying levels of firearm possession through registration/ licensing setups. (Tough I do think they're all "May Issue" vs "Shall Issue".)

He means national bans. Localised bans aren't comparable.

I'm from Florida, and back when NY was making a big deal some years ago about "gun runners from the south!" I looked into it a little bit, but it's from memory so take it with a grain of salt. It's like the Mexico situation in some ways, it's not criminals buying guns legally here and running them up there. It's simply a larger market for firearms, along with a bunch of loud-mouth new yorkers that vacation down here and/ or have dual residence. They can't buy guns at home, they can buy them here. If they take them home to NY, it's now a crime even if that's the only crime involved. (Like the soldier guy that had high cap mags, yes he broke the law, but it wasn't part of a larger crime.)

As an example that sticks in my mind, there used to be this old French Canadian couple with dual-residence (Quebec and Florida). Nice people, definitely the nicest french canadians I ever met. They (legally) owned a couple guns here and a couple there. She got terminal cancer, he couldn't live without her, so double overdose suicide. I know this because ATFE did a trace on the firearms found at the scene and the agent and I got along. So yeah, another stat for "guns from USA traced to Canada crime!", but not exactly a gun-runner situation.

I'm by no means saying that gangs don't run guns across state lines, but I think it's more of a larger problem, not a specific operation. (The guns are circulating among the um, "underworld" as it were, not being bought when needed.) People are moving around and bringing guns with them, rather than organizing gun running operations.

[PhaelixWW]

Doesn't the proposed ban also include pistol grips on shotguns?

Only on semi-automatic shotguns.

[Svifnymr]

Most common hitmans weapon if rumours are to be listened to. Very quiet, easy to suppress and very cheap makes it a great disposable assassins weapon, the idea that it won't penetrate thick bone is just bullshit.

I think I'd disagree with "kill a man at 400 meters", but they're certainly lethal. The pictured Israeli guns as for handicapping people, from what I recall, not actual soldier battle rifles. So, I guess that's the gun to "maim" that another poster kept talking about some hundred pages back.

Even unsuppressed, the 22 isn't that loud. IIRC, that's how Mossad killed one of those guys in Europe back in the old days. Beretta 87, emptied the magazine into the back of his head in a public street and walked off as people thought it was firecrackers or something.

Unless things have changed, 22lr is actually the caliber linked to the most deaths (not homicides specifically) in the USA.

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 02:59 PM ----------

And a National Institute of Justice memo thingee from the NRA page, for those interested;
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf

I didn't find a direct link from the NIJ itself.

[PhaelixWW]

Anything that is deemed a public menace can have laws enacted against it.

Owning a firearm is not a public menace. Openly carrying a firearm in public might be considered a public menace. Certainly waving it around in the air and/or firing off a couple shots are considered a public menace. Which is why there are generally laws to prevent such behavior. But there shouldn't be laws preventing the simple act of ownership for someone who has proved with a background check to not be a credible threat.

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 12:06 PM ----------

Australia or Gaza. Japan or Iraq. Pick your model. In each choice, one has American-levels of gun ownership, and one doesn't.

And guess which one is the developed country and which one barely qualifies.

Those types of country comparisons are worthless, since there are far, far more differences between the two countries than guns per capita.

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 12:12 PM ----------

Wait what? They're the same gun except one is automatic and the other is semi-automatic.

That's like saying that a bicycle and a motorcycle are the same thing except that one has an engine.

If that one difference is a huge, fundamental change in the capabilities, then it trumps the more visual similarities, does it not?

[FusedMass]

So anyways. All this talk about Gun Proposal and the fierce debate back and forth. Obviously their is some heated conflict. I'm curious purely in a hypothetical situation. (so do not explode with rage) I'm curious to what Pro Gun Owners would do if the old ban was put back into place. (Please kindly do not foam at the mouth screaming at me it will never happen) remember, this is a hypothetical situation.

I saw Alex Jones and other people talking about they would start shooting people. I'm honestly interested if they decide to ban all assault weapons and there was no legal war against it. Would you accept the ban or would you protest, refuse to return in you're weapons. The reason I'm interested because I'm curious of how many people will actually go rogue and attack our own Gov as Alex Jones has been put on suggestion a civil war would break out. Any Responsible Gun Owner may reply to this question.

[Laize]

No such bloody thing.

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 07:21 PM ----------



Incorrect, we only ban handguns and full auto weapons, I own a few firearms myself. You can own a .50 BMG rifle here if you want one.

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 07:22 PM ----------



Very wrong, where do people get these ideas about the UK?

If that's the case then I'm flat wrong and I'm okay with that. You're the only one to suggest that, though.

People have hunted moose with a .22, so go ahead thinking they are just toys.

I never denied they could be dangerous if improperly handled. I even said I completely respected safety procedures when handling them.

What determine what a "gun" is anyway? Sure, legally it's the receiver. As mentioned, though, an airsoft gun has a receiver... I wouldn't consider that anything but a toy, though.

A coilgun does not have a receiver... I'd consider a well-made one much more dangerous than a .22, though.

[Dillon]

So anyways. All this talk about Gun Proposal and the fierce debate back and forth. Obviously their is some heated conflict. I'm curious purely in a hypothetical situation. (so do not explode with rage) I'm curious to what Pro Gun Owners would do if the old ban was put back into place. (Please kindly do not foam at the mouth screaming at me it will never happen) remember, this is a hypothetical situation.

I saw Alex Jones and other people talking about they would start shooting people. I'm honestly interested if they decide to ban all assault weapons and there was no legal war against it. Would you accept the ban or would you protest, refuse to return in you're weapons. The reason I'm interested because I'm curious of how many people will actually go rogue and attack our own Gov as Alex Jones has been put on suggestion a civil war would break out. Any Responsible Gun Owner may reply to this question.

Alex Jones peddles fear to make money. I have no respect for him or what he says, and more so than that I disagree with him that there will be civil war.

The political climate is much different now than when the AWB passed the first time. The economy is sketchy. People trust politicians less than ever before. I don't have a crystal ball to see what will happen, but I do know that many gun owners don't want to give up their arms. Some will see it as a direct infringement upon some of our enumerated rights. How each individual with the numerous varying facets of their lives will respond, I do not know, because I am not them.

In the end, it isn't the bans themselves that are truly hated, or the registration. It is what many fear comes next: confiscation.

Confiscation is a different story entirely. You mean to take through force what a lot of Americans consider their last resort of defense against criminals and tyranny. Would forced disarmament be seen as tyranny by gun owners? I don't ever want to find out.

[Deleted]

If that's the case then I'm flat wrong and I'm okay with that. You're the only one to suggest that, though.



I never denied they could be dangerous if improperly handled. I even said I completely respected safety procedures when handling them.

What determine what a "gun" is anyway? Sure, legally it's the receiver. As mentioned, though, an airsoft gun has a receiver... I wouldn't consider that anything but a toy, though.

A coilgun does not have a receiver... I'd consider a well-made one much more dangerous than a .22, though.

I don't see people out hunting with coilguns, .22's are very deadly indeed in skilled hands. It would be my choice of caliber in a SHTF situation due to the common availability of the round, the low weight and the ability to drop anything short of an elephant with a well placed round. I can carry 2000 of them for the weight of 300 5.56.

[FusedMass]

Alex Jones peddles fear to make money. I have no respect for him or what he says, and more so than that I disagree with him that there will be civil war.

The political climate is much different now than when the AWB passed the first time. The economy is sketchy. People trust politicians less than ever before. I don't have a crystal ball to see what will happen, but I do know that many gun owners don't want to give up their arms. Some will see it as a direct infringement upon some of our enumerated rights. How each individual with the numerous varying facets of their lives will respond, I do not know, because I am not them.

In the end, it isn't the bans themselves that are truly hated, or the registration. It is what many fear comes next: confiscation.

Confiscation is a different story entirely. You mean to take through force what a lot of Americans consider their last resort of defense against criminals and tyranny. Would forced disarmament be seen as tyranny by gun owners? I don't ever want to find out.

You do understand they cannot take your weapons. Hand Guns are protected as self defense under the law. I'm curiously trying to dive into the thought train of a Pro Gun user to figure out why they believe so strongly believe the Gov will come to take their weapons. They had a hand Gun ban and it was struck down. If they wanted to steal you're weapons wouldn't they have to corrupt the supreme court to overturn the laws. I personally from the outside looking in just don't see how that is possible.

So you don't believe their would be riots in the street. No major civil fights in the streets or anything of the kind

[Extrazero8]

I'm loving this new trend of gun companies(makers, dealers, accessory vendors) that have stopped selling to the police items banned from civilian ownership or sale in their state.