Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Webfoot Hero]

And the "pro-gunners" want to address anything but the guns. The solutions are in the middle. They deal with doing something about the guns, doing something about mental health, and in my opinion, doing something about poverty. The problem that defeats any attempt to solve the problem is that, while neither side is willing to do much compromising, the pro-gun side seems much more stubborn. They refuse to make any compromise when it comes to regulating guns at all. As Marvolo said earlier, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Allowing everyone to own whatever gun they want with no restrictions is NOT a well regulated militia. It's a free-for-all.

There are already numerous gun laws on the books that just don't get enforced or are unenforceable due to budget/manpower constraints. I have no problem with increased background checks and mental health care, but only dealing with one aspect of the issue is what bothers a lot of pro-gun people. They feel like they are being singled-out for stuff that criminals, who won't follow the new or old laws, did and have to keep giving up rights. They are also tired of this whole debate being driven by a very narrow section of people and don't think they are getting their say in the debate.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

The firing rate of guns should be regulated as well as high capacity magazines. There needs to be some ideal medium between gun ownership and the ability to mow large crowds of people down to injury or death very quickly.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

The firing rate of guns should be regulated as well as high capacity magazines. There needs to be some ideal medium between gun ownership and the ability to mow large crowds of people down to injury or death very quickly.

Considering semi-automatics are already limited by the ability of the shooter to pull the trigger, there's really no bill that could effectively limit firing rates of guns allowed to be owned by civilians.

 

[Fading]

This is gonna be disagreed with but we cant allow thousands to die yearly to uphold the ideas and laws of 200+ years ago to the letter. Do you honestly expect that in 200+ they will follow our laws to the letter? Its self destructive, and this world is radically different and quite frankly our founding fathers dont have much of a damn clue what they are talking about in relation to the 21st century. Just like I dont have a damn clue what the situation will be in 200+ years. Our founding fathers would never propose some of their ideas if they were living today. Its a neat idea upholding the constitution to the letter and all their ideas but it just isnt always practical nor is it always smart.

Agreed, times change. Restricting sales of certain types of weapons does not equal all guns being banned. We had our free for all in the wild west. Times, and laws changed, and we're no longer the old west, yet still have guns. Guns also have changed as we have guns that can single handedly pump out more bullets per minute than a platoon of minutemen could ever hope to achieve.

There needs to be a balanced approach, but something does need to be done. That doesn't necessarily mean punishing responsible gun owners. It's like our nations debt though, we're all going to have to give some for the greater good. Simply saying nothing will work, and walking away just leaves us at square 1.

As a side note, I'm seriously getting sick of all the "new civil war" talk I've been hearing on the news. Some people need to grow up, it's getting disgusting.

 

[Marvolo]

Considering semi-automatics are already limited by the ability of the shooter to pull the trigger, there's really no bill that could effectively limit firing rates of guns allowed to be owned by civilians.

You can increase the trigger weight and lengthen the reset. My glock comes with a 5 pounds trigger. In new york that trigger pull has to be 10 pounds. These type of things tho can affect the ability for someone to defend themselves because a little old woman or heck anyone who is unused to guns or inexperienced can struggle with a heavy trigger pull. A too light trigger pull is also equally problematic.

The reset length is the amount of distance a trigger must travel forward after it has been fired before it will reset so it can be fired again.

Increasing both will reduce the fire rate on a semi-automatic. However it is stupid easy to reduce the trigger weight and the pull so factory guns with longer pulls and lighter triggers could be modified by a criminal easily. Honestly guns are incredibly easy to mod if you have google and the ingenuity so criminals will always be able to do this stuff. With the right cheap part I can turn my glock into a full auto in less than five minutes. See the issue?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Who wouldn't want a gun that is slow and only holds seven bullets?

Also you should have to fill out paper work whenever you want to reload.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Agreed, times change. Restricting sales of certain types of weapons does not equal all guns being banned. We had our free for all in the wild west. Times, and laws changed, and we're no longer the old west, yet still have guns. Guns also have changed as we have guns that can single handedly pump out more bullets per minute than a platoon of minutemen could ever hope to achieve.

Welcome to the 1830's.

 

[Fading]

Welcome to the 1830's.

1830's, great scott! I set the time flux capacitor for 2030!

 

[Grievous]

Who wouldn't want a gun that is slow and only holds seven bullets?

Also you should have to fill out paper work whenever you want to reload.

Would doing test and background checks really stop that many crazy people from getting a gun though? Most of these violent people are the ones that people never saw coming. What is to keep someone from just faking everything so they can get ammo?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Would doing test and background checks really stop that many crazy people from getting a gun though? Most of these violent people are the ones that people never saw coming. What is to keep someone from just faking everything so they can get ammo?

Mental health and criminal histories are only as accurate as the information available. More often than not, the mental health of a person isn't entered into the system since many doctors/mental health providers cite doctor-patient confidentiality. Plus, the severity and/or treatment of mental illness is not always reported correctly/fully so that the patient would be disqualified from getting a firearm(s) in the first place. Perfect example is the Virginia Tech shooting:

The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report faulted university officials for failing to share information that would have shed light on the seriousness of Cho's problems, citing misinterpretations of federal privacy laws.[56][57] The report also pointed to failures by Virginia Tech's counseling center, flaws in Virginia's mental health laws, and inadequate state mental health services, but concluded that "Cho himself was the biggest impediment to stabilizing his mental health" in college.[1] The report also stated that the classification detail that Cho was to seek "outpatient" rather than "inpatient" treatment would generally have been legally interpreted at the time as not requiring that Cho be reported to Virginia's Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE) and entered into the CCRE database of people prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Would doing test and background checks really stop that many crazy people from getting a gun though? Most of these violent people are the ones that people never saw coming. What is to keep someone from just faking everything so they can get ammo?

Well crazy people will do what crazy people do. If they don't shoot a bunch of people dead, they'll plow a car into a crowd.

I don't have a problem with background checks.

 

[Hotwire]

There are already numerous gun laws on the books that just don't get enforced or are unenforceable due to budget/manpower constraints. I have no problem with increased background checks and mental health care, but only dealing with one aspect of the issue is what bothers a lot of pro-gun people. They feel like they are being singled-out for stuff that criminals, who won't follow the new or old laws, did and have to keep giving up rights. They are also tired of this whole debate being driven by a very narrow section of people and don't think they are getting their say in the debate.

Actually, what seems to bother the pro-gun people is putting any gun restrictions on the table at all. As far as many of them are concerned, guns aren't even a factor in this violent equation.

 

[Hotwire]

You can increase the trigger weight and lengthen the reset. My glock comes with a 5 pounds trigger. In new york that trigger pull has to be 10 pounds. These type of things tho can affect the ability for someone to defend themselves because a little old woman or heck anyone who is unused to guns or inexperienced can struggle with a heavy trigger pull. A too light trigger pull is also equally problematic.

The reset length is the amount of distance a trigger must travel forward after it has been fired before it will reset so it can be fired again.

Increasing both will reduce the fire rate on a semi-automatic. However it is stupid easy to reduce the trigger weight and the pull so factory guns with longer pulls and lighter triggers could be modified by a criminal easily. Honestly guns are incredibly easy to mod if you have google and the ingenuity so criminals will always be able to do this stuff. With the right cheap part I can turn my glock into a full auto in less than five minutes. See the issue?

So, we make them harder to modify.

 

[Marvolo]

So, we make them harder to modify.

It really isnt that easy. The only way you could make it harder to modify a gun would be to encase the workings in a sealed case within the gun which would be impractical because you couldn't replace worn out parts. As long as the parts are exposed which they have to be to function someone can find out how to mod them. Take cars for example. People say european cars are hard to work on and companies make it harder to do your own maintenance. They do but you can do your own maintenance if you really want to. It all comes down to just how much a person wants to do something.

Even if the mod parts were all rounded up tomorrow any gunsmith could smith the parts and anyone can train to be a gunsmith. So if you are a smith or know a smith you can make any part for a gun you want and do whatever you want with a gun.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Actually, what seems to bother the pro-gun people is putting any gun restrictions on the table at all. As far as many of them are concerned, guns aren't even a factor in this violent equation.

Most are okay with doing increased background checks since the typical legal gun owner will pass okay. It's the singling out of guns and gun accessories, based on looks and incorrect facts, by people who don't know a thing about guns that pisses pro-gun people off in the whole gun debate. They see laws being passed or proposed that don't have solid reasoning behind them and past efficacy in other areas is minimal. Pro-gun people also see a bit of hypocrisy coming from anti-gunners in the media and government in the sense that they can hide behind a wall of security with guns yet the average citizen is finding it increasingly more difficult to own a gun to protect themselves if they want.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'd say a fundamental issue is that a lot of people on the other side don't believe in the Second Amendment.

Look at New York.

They don't want gun control. They want a total gun ban, but grudgingly settle for gun control where they can't make it impossible for people to legally obtain firearms.

 

[Marvolo]

I'd say a fundamental issue is that a lot of people on the other side don't believe in the Second Amendment.

Look at New York.

They don't want gun control. They want a total gun ban, but grudgingly settle for gun control where they can't make it impossible for people to legally obtain firearms.

Well New York can kiss my ass if they think they will ever get a total ban. The guns I own now will stay with me until I see fit to give them to my grown children or I sell them. Any future guns I own will follow the law but what I own now is mine and were bought legal.

 

[Phallic]

A couple points that I would like to address after reading the past few pages.

1) Somebody claimed that violent crime decreased as a result of tightening gun restrictions in other countries. This is patently false. There are many more examples of increases in violent crime following gun bans than decreases.

2) The wild west argument is amusing given the violent crime rate during those days were LOWER than they are today.

3) The 2nd amendment was never intended for hunting or recreational shooting. There is ample historical evidence that indicate beyond a doubt that defense was the sole purpose of it. Defense of one's life and defense against governments, both foreign and domestic. It's true that we have the strongest military in the world to render foreign invasion highly unlikely. The important thing to note is that the 2nd amendment was intended to also allow us to defend ourselves against THEM as well.

4) With 3D printing technology, a magazine capacity limit will do absolutely nothing to curb violent crime. To think otherwise is patently naive and ignorant. The only people turning in their magazines will be law abiding citizens, the people who contribute less than 1% to the overall crime rate. There are plenty examples of people being assaulted by 4+ people. Good luck defending yourself against that many people with fewer than 10 rounds per magazine. The case of the woman in Georgia unloading 5 rounds center mass into a burglar, only for him to drive away is reason enough for people to have "high capacity ammunition devices." It's never a good idea to base your decisions on the country's future on movies and video games.

5) Additionally, we can't even stop PEOPLE from jumping our borders and stop illegal drugs from being smuggled. Don't think for a minute that the illegal gun trade won't spike, resulting in even MORE crime.

6) The argument that 1,000s of deaths are being caused by the perceived "lax" gun laws is horribly ill-informed. Given that more than 90% of violent crimes are committed by illegally obtained firearms, that just simply doesn't hold up to the facts.

The New York AWB is a terrible law, and there will be no decrease in crime. But the law wasn't intended to reduce crime, it was intended to disarm the populace. The fact that people can support such a hackjob of a bill is downright shocking, and at the end of the day they will reap what they sow - a likely sharp INCREASE in violent crime.

The solution isn't to do nothing. I've personally laid out plenty of approaches to this issue. The reason why the focus on guns is a mistake is because historically gun bans and tight regulations have done nothing to reduce violent crime. As I've said before, as gun laws have been loosened over the past decade, violent crime has been on a steady decline. Whether there is causation here is a moot point - if looser gun laws really resulted in increased crime, this wouldn't be the trend. This country has a lot of things to sort out, but the "gun culture" is not one of them.

 

[dnno1]

Considering semi-automatics are already limited by the ability of the shooter to pull the trigger, there's really no bill that could effectively limit firing rates of guns allowed to be owned by civilians.

Semi-autos can be modified to shoot at faster rates (approaching that of machine guns). I proved that earlier. If you limit the capacity of the magazine to 6-10 rounds then at least there is that turnaround time during reload were there is a chance to stop a shooter.

 

[dnno1]

...1) Somebody claimed that violent crime decreased as a result of tightening gun restrictions in other countries. This is patently false. There are many more examples of increases in violent crime following gun bans than decreases...

Even in a country like the United Kingdom, which probably has the worse crime rates of any EU nation, the violent crime rate is lower than the United States.

2)...The wild west argument is amusing given the violent crime rate during those days were LOWER than they are today...

Yeah... and they didn't have semi-automatic assault weapons back then either. Maybe we should go back to those days...

3) The 2nd amendment was never intended for hunting or recreational shooting...The important thing to note is that the 2nd amendment was intended to also allow us to defend ourselves against THEM as well...

No that's not true since the same Constitution calls that (waging war against the government) treason. The intent of the Second Amendment was to maintain a militia of armed people that could be called up to defend the country if needed.

4) With 3D printing technology, a magazine capacity limit will do absolutely nothing to curb violent crime. To think otherwise is patently naive and ignorant. The only people turning in their magazines will be law abiding citizens, the people who contribute less than 1% to the overall crime rate. There are plenty examples of people being assaulted by 4+ people. Good luck defending yourself against that many people with fewer than 10 rounds per magazine. The case of the woman in Georgia unloading 5 rounds center mass into a burglar, only for him to drive away is reason enough for people to have "high capacity ammunition devices." It's never a good idea to base your decisions on the country's future on movies and video games.

3D printed/plastic/ceramic firearms would fall under the Undetectable Firearms Act, which is up for re-authorization this year. It is illegal to manufacture a firearm without some feature that can be detected by an airport metal detector, with the exception that you are a licensed manufacturer who is fabricating one for testing. As it is right now, you don't see very many plastic guns for them to be a threat.

5) Additionally, we can't even stop PEOPLE from jumping our borders and stop illegal drugs from being smuggled. Don't think for a minute that the illegal gun trade won't spike, resulting in even MORE crime.

A lot of that is because we have a gun lobby (the NRA) that is preventing us from producing meaningful legislation that would curb that. If straw sales were prohibited, the gun show loophole were closed, and the capability of tracing fireams were restored we could make some serious inroads towards reducing those types of crimes.

6) The argument that 1,000s of deaths are being caused by the perceived "lax" gun laws is horribly ill-informed. Given that more than 90% of violent crimes are committed by illegally obtained firearms, that just simply doesn't hold up to the facts.

Like I said before, virtually all firearms are initially obtained legally. The fact that we are not allowed to trace a firearm, record the transfer of the same nor perform background checks on private sales just exacerbates the issue. The truth of the matter is that thousands of deaths are being caused by firearms in states that have lax gun laws. In fact some of your highest incidents of gun deaths occur in states with the loosest gun laws.

The New York AWB is a terrible law, and there will be no decrease in crime. But the law wasn't intended to reduce crime, it was intended to disarm the populace. The fact that people can support such a hackjob of a bill is downright shocking, and at the end of the day they will reap what they sow - a likely sharp INCREASE in violent crime.

That's just speculation. We will have to see how effective it will be in the future.

The solution isn't to do nothing. I've personally laid out plenty of approaches to this issue. The reason why the focus on guns is a mistake is because historically gun bans and tight regulations have done nothing to reduce violent crime. As I've said before, as gun laws have been loosened over the past decade, violent crime has been on a steady decline. Whether there is causation here is a moot point - if looser gun laws really resulted in increased crime, this wouldn't be the trend. This country has a lot of things to sort out, but the "gun culture" is not one of them.

You do noting and you get a little more than one mass shooting with an assault weapon a week and who knows how many more school shootings (there was another yesterday). We should do something since that is what most people want. Have you looked at the polls lately?

 

[Destructus86]

Even in a country like the United Kingdom, which probably has the worse crime rates of any EU nation, the violent crime rate is lower than the United States.



Yeah... and they didn't have semi-automatic assault weapons back then either. Maybe we should go back to those days...



No that's not true since the same Constitution calls that (waging war against the government) treason. The intent of the Second Amendment was to maintain a militia of armed people that could be called up to defend the country if needed.



3D printed/plastic/ceramic firearms would fall under the Undetectable Firearms Act, which is up for re-authorization this year. It is illegal to manufacture a firearm without some feature that can be detected by an airport metal detector, with the exception that you are a licensed manufacturer who is fabricating one for testing. As it is right now, you don't see very many plastic guns for them to be a threat.



A lot of that is because we have a gun lobby (the NRA) that is preventing us from producing meaningful legislation that would curb that. If straw sales were prohibited, the gun show loophole were closed, and the capability of tracing fireams were restored we could make some serious inroads towards reducing those types of crimes.



Like I said before, virtually all firearms are initially obtained legally. The fact that we are not allowed to trace a firearm, record the transfer of the same nor perform background checks on private sales just exacerbates the issue. The truth of the matter is that thousands of deaths are being caused by in states that have lax gun laws. In fact some of your highest incidents of gun deaths occur in states with the loosest gun laws.



That's just speculation. We will have to see how effective it will be in the future.



You do noting and you get a little more mass shooting with an assault weapon a week and who knows how many more school shootings (there was another yesterday). We should do something since that is what most people want. Have you looked at the polls lately?

Polls are pointless because people want a fast solution. They don't want to deal with the situation, they just want to bury it under laws so they feel better about it.

Ban guns and you will likely see more public bombings, because at that point it will be extremely easier to build a bomb than find an assault rifle.

 

[SuperT]

A couple points that I would like to address after reading the past few pages.

1) Somebody claimed that violent crime decreased as a result of tightening gun restrictions in other countries. This is patently false. There are many more examples of increases in violent crime following gun bans than decreases.

There may be an increase directly after these laws are instituted, but on a consistent basis countries such as the UK and Australia that have far stricter gun bans and amendments don't even see half as high gun related deaths in a year in comparison to the United States.

 

[dnno1]

Polls are pointless because people want a fast solution. They don't want to deal with the situation, they just want to bury it under laws so they feel better about it.

Ban guns and you will likely see more public bombings, because at that point it will be extremely easier to build a bomb than find an assault rifle.

That's what you and the NRA might want to say. The truth of the matter is that people felt the same way back in 2004, in 1993, and in 1989. I seriously doubt that you would find the general public in favor of arming people who are mentally ill or criminals ever. We are not trying to ban all guns here, just assault weapons. Let's not try to turn the issue into something that it's really not. Furthermore, I am pretty sure that we have bombings under control.

 

[SuBe]

What's the definition of "Assault Weapon"?

 

[dnno1]

What's the definition of "Assault Weapon"?

That all depends on what state you live in. If you are in Florida, that would fall under the federal definition, which can currently be found on page 38 of the ATF Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide.