Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

Hey, more de facto bans on firearms in Maryland.

I really think this State would just like to make it illegal for anyone to own a gun who isn't a government employee.

Yeah I was surprised to not see NJ on there as well.

[tombstoner139]

I brought up Navy SEALs because they are an elite military unit that actively engages in combat. What better example to support my position that pistol grips are better than straight stocks for combat than to examine individuals or groups that are actively engaged in the combat. Sorry that the conclusion doesn't follow your premise.



SEAL's are a special snow flake, actually. Along with PJ's, Rangers, Delta, pretty much any elite military unit. They're all special snowflakes, whether you like it or not. They've trained longer and harder than other military units, and they are absolutely more valuable. It's not debatable.

If they ask for specialized equipment for a mission, they're much more likely to get it than a Marine. Most of the time they don't even need to ask, because they are already supplied with the best PPE available.

If you wish to solve the question is a pistol grip better for combat for any reason and thus is worthy of be part of a ban, just look at the history of firearms designed for combat. Every single modern assault rifle i could find has a pistol grip. weapons are designed with feed back from the people who use them; well engendered weapons are. it's easy to conclude that a pistol grip would then grant some benefit in combat. so if you wish to limit the combat capability of your civilian population you make pistol grips part of a ban.

if it is ergonomics then that is just a dum reason for banning them. if its accuracy. then its a different story. and comes down to engagement ranges during the crimes committed.... movie theater and school class room/hallway. to me those are short range situations that a pistol grip would have no affect.
Thus banning pistol grips is political only and has no impact on lethality.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 07:39 PM ----------

Hey, more de facto bans on firearms in Maryland.

I really think this State would just like to make it illegal for anyone to own a gun who isn't a government employee.

if you changed over to a compressed air system that tossed poisoned darts. it would still be considered a fire arm and just as dangerous as an
ar-15 or browning 50 cal.

[PhaelixWW]

The District of Columbia is moving to force firearms owners to purchase prohibitively expensive liability insurance.
California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania have also proposed forcing gun owners to buy liability insurance.
Democrat City Council member Mary Cheh proposed the law. It requires residents purchase at least $250,000 in insurance coverage before city government would consider applications to register a firearm.

The whole concept of firearm liability insurance is backwards and stupid.

I said it back on page 481, here:

Insurance for firearms is such a ridiculous idea. The whole point of insurance is to spread the cost of accidents evenly. Intentional damage isn't covered by insurance, it's counted as a fraudulent claim. To make all legal gun owners pay for the cost of people who intentionally commit acts of violence is as immoral as it is disgusting.

And here's an article that sums it up, too:

Gun Liability Insurance Bills Aren’t the Answer, Says Insurance Industry

...

Wherever these proposals surface, insurers have been telling lawmakers that such approaches would not only violate basic insurance principles but also be unworkable.

"Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts," said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.

According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.

"Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people," said Grande. "It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis."

...

[Svifnymr]

Jon Stewart, relevant political comedian when he's making fun of liberals. Paid comedian shill when he's pointing out NRA hypocrisy.

I used to watch the Daily Show, before Stewart, watched it for a long while after, but I just got tired of the repetition of it. Whether he's making fun of Republicans or Democrats, it's always the same joke. I started watching the clip linked, but don't really care to see a bunch of republicans talking about whatever politics they feel like going on about, so don't know what "NRA hypocrisy" he may have actually addressed.

[Tinykong]

if you changed over to a compressed air system that tossed poisoned darts. it would still be considered a fire arm and just as dangerous as an
ar-15 or browning 50 cal.

Don't let our General Assembly get wind of that idea, they will turn an air compressor into an "improvised projectile firing device" and make discharging one a Class A felony. Then, they will probably call a dart a "deadly missile intended to inflect mass causalities" and you'll wind up getting Federal terror charges for using a sophisticated potato gun.

[Svifnymr]

When the NRA politicians filibuster a bill that got 55 votes in the senate and has a 90% popularity among Americans (84% if you go with the absolute lowest poll) who then call it "tyranny" when their 52 senate vote bill gets filibustered... they're a pretty huge factor in gun ownership I'd say.

It would be interesting if the poll's asked "Do you support background checks on all private gun transactions?" just to see what the results would be.

[Poodles]

Let me re-ask the question since you didn't answer it. Where exactly are you getting that information?

I've read quite a few books detailing the differences in equipment, from body armor, pants, boots, to more advanced equipment. They even have their own knife named after the SEALs, the SOG SEAL knife 2000.

If you've read "No Easy Day," you would know exactly what type of equipment the SEAL's have access too, even though such information is supposed to be classified. I mean the four tube NVG cost $65,000 a piece. General infantry certainly isn't running around with those. But guess who is? The "rich kids of the military."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...-gear-12583172

Congrats, you just ignored 99% of my post that actually in some way agrees with you.

This is like shoveling against the tide here...

[Svifnymr]

The original bumpfire stocks that got banned had springs to push the weapon back forward instead of you pulling it forward with your hand. Very different animal.

Yeah, it was more a comment on "get ATF approval first", ATF changes their mind whenever the wind blows differently, so getting any letter of approval doesn't really mean much overall.

[tombstoner139]

Don't let our General Assembly get wind of that idea, they will turn an air compressor into an "improvised projectile firing device" and make discharging one a Class A felony. Then, they will probably call a dart a "deadly missile intended to inflect mass causalities" and you'll wind up getting Federal terror charges for using a sophisticated potato gun.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/fire...echnology.html

The term “firearm” is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include "(A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon…." Based on Section 921(a)(3), air guns, because they use compressed air and not an explosive to expel a projectile, do not constitute firearms under Federal law — unless they are manufactured with the frames or receivers of an actual firearm. Accordingly, the domestic sale and possession of air guns is normally unregulated under the Federal firearms laws enforced by ATF.

I was joking about the dart gun sort of... the potato gun however.... if you are using wd40 and a spark plug for ignition with a spud stuck in the other end. by the above definition it is a fire arm.... so no folding stocks, pistol grips or extended mags for you spud gun.

[steale]

It would be interesting if the poll's asked "Do you support background checks on all private gun transactions?" just to see what the results would be.

Can't go around asking direct questions like that, it would negatively impact desired results.

[Deadvolcanoes]

It would be interesting if the poll's asked "Do you support background checks on all private gun transactions?" just to see what the results would be.

We've already had that question asked. "Background checks for private and gun show sales."

[lockedout]

We've already had that question asked. "Background checks for private and gun show sales."

Where did they conduct these surveys/polls?

[Deleted]

Where did they conduct these surveys/polls?

My guess would be an anti-gun website, judging from the bad use of firearm nomenclature (clips) and the misinformation (background checks for gun shows).

[Deadvolcanoes]

My guess would be an anti-gun website, judging from the bad use of firearm nomenclature (clips) and the misinformation (background checks for gun shows).

LOL...Something I disagree with! Must be an anti-gun website.

It's Pew Research, so I'm guessing it's a scientific poll, just like all their other polls. You can do the legwork if you'd like.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...gun-purchases/

[Dolus]

Interesting article...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...rimes-plummet/

"And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source."

"A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center."

[jugzilla]

Interesting to me about this poll is how many folks would want to ban semi-auto weapons. That is pretty much every non hunting weapon in existence. And how is the support for banning semi auto weapons higher than banning assault weapons, wich according to media nomeclature is only a subset of semi-autos? My guess, people don't really even know what semi auto means.

[Deleted]

LOL...Something I disagree with! Must be an anti-gun website.

It's Pew Research, so I'm guessing it's a scientific poll, just like all their other polls. You can do the legwork if you'd like.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...gun-purchases/

Well, that website seems rather unbiased from the bits I've read, despite the 'clips' bit, probably just not super knowledgeable about firearms. Seems like most people don't have much of a clue then, like jugzilla said.

Interesting to me about this poll is how many folks would want to ban semi-auto weapons. That is pretty much every non hunting weapon in existence. And how is the support for banning semi auto weapons higher than banning assault weapons, wich according to media nomeclature is only a subset of semi-autos? My guess, people don't really even know what semi auto means.

I'd like to add that I find it funny that they focus on semi-auto RIFLES and SHOTGUNS but not handguns, which make up a large majority of firearm related deaths and that in those killings, there are rarely more than 10 shots fired. Just feel-good politics, like many weapon related legislations.

[hakujinbakasama]

LOL...Something I disagree with! Must be an anti-gun website.

It's Pew Research, so I'm guessing it's a scientific poll, just like all their other polls. You can do the legwork if you'd like.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...gun-purchases/

I generally try to ignore most of your posts as they usually offer so little substance, but this one stood out among the poorest.

I'd like to take a moment to point out how fucking useless "polls" often are but specifically this one.

1. Background checks.
Saying you X supports Y with zero standards or confines doesn't yield any substance. A person can "support" capital punishment but not support the use of capital punishment in many arenas.

2. "High Capacity Clips"
This isn't even a real thing. It's a misnomer, incorrect, and unfounded. What is "High capacity?" It isn't a universal. Again, without parameters this question and any subsequent answer isn't informative.

3. Ban on Semi-automatic weapons.
This question probably pisses me off the most. Does the public polled actually know the difference or mechanics in question, or are they responding off of Media Sensationalism and answering what they "believe" is relevant here? Another immensely broad and vague question which yeilds zero reliable information as there isn't any specific intelligence.

4. Ban on Assault Style Weapons.
Refer back to no.3. Extremely vague, non specific, semantic question with zero resulting data.

[lockedout]

LOL...Something I disagree with! Must be an anti-gun website.

It's Pew Research, so I'm guessing it's a scientific poll, just like all their other polls. You can do the legwork if you'd like.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...gun-purchases/

I can see its pew research what I am asking is where did pew research conduct these polls or surveys, like what venue?

People will sign anything http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Qobbn6880

[Deadvolcanoes]

I generally try to ignore most of your posts as they usually offer so little substance, but this one stood out among the poorest.

I'd like to take a moment to point out how fucking useless "polls" often are but specifically this one.

You clearly have no basic understanding of statistics or scientific polling data by independent organizations. You don't agree with the results, so all you have left is to insult the intelligence of the individuals taking the poll.

Do me a favor, and continue ignoring my posts.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 08:05 PM ----------

I can see its pew research what I am asking is where did pew research conduct these polls or surveys, like what venue?

I'm not sure I understand what your asking. What venue?

Pew usually conducts their polls by randomized telephone calls. I guess I'll do the legwork for you:

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted January 9-13, 2013 among
a national sample of 1,502 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the
District of Columbia (752 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 750 were
interviewed on a cell phone, including 369 who had no landline telephone). The survey was
conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey
Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial
samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews
were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by
randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell
sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18
years of age or older.