Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[KalMart]

well, for what its worth, one can get a class 3, or fully automatic, weapon- it just takes a real hassle to get it. you have to wait 6 months in order to get it, go through a hell of a lot of paperwork, not to mention the price tags for these weapons are through the roof (think 5 digit prices)...

Yes, and it's really having no affect on gun crime anyway. Again, it's like trying to point to the sale of actual race cars to the few citizens who can afford/acquire them, regarding vehicular deaths.



But to be fair, cars aren't primarily designed, built, and used for the same purpose as a gun is.

 

[Hotwire]

KalMart, I'm curious. What other semi-automatic rifles have buffers in the stock that DON'T look like military hardware? I'm asking because, that's a key element in those kinds of rifles. It's there to absorb the recoil and allow the shooter to fire more rounds, over a longer period of time, without hurting their shoulder. As well as, enable them to keep the rifle on target better as they fire. I can see this as a factor in them being the weapon of choice for a mass shooter.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

KalMart, I'm curious. What other semi-automatic rifles have buffers in the stock that DON'T look like military hardware? I'm asking because, that's a key element in those kinds of rifles. It's there to absorb the recoil and allow the shooter to fire more rounds, over a longer period of time, without hurting their shoulder. As well as, enable them to keep the rifle on target better as they fire. I can see this as a factor in them being the weapon of choice for a mass shooter.

But semi-automatic rifles really haven't been used more than any other gun. Handguns are still the predominant weapon of choice since they are easily concealable, mobile, and fairly cheap when compared to other weapons. Shotguns, both pump-action and semi-automatic, are used more often too since they can be modified (mostly illegally) for concealability, are widely available due to their hunting purposes, and do well at close-range with multiple targets. People overlook the fact that shotguns were heavily used in the Aurora and Columbine attacks.

 

[KalMart]

KalMart, I'm curious. What other semi-automatic rifles have buffers in the stock that DON'T look like military hardware? I'm asking because, that's a key element in those kinds of rifles. It's there to absorb the recoil and allow the shooter to fire more rounds, over a longer period of time, without hurting their shoulder. As well as, enable them to keep the rifle on target better as they fire. I can see this as a factor in them being the weapon of choice for a mass shooter.

It's not unique to just having the buffer in the buttstock. I.e., that isn't something that makes a semi-auto rifle easier to fire than any other system without other things involved. For example, even a Ruger Mini-14 in the same caliber and semiauto isn't significantly harder or slower to fire. AND...and it's not like you don't feel any kick at all when firing an AR-15, and b) something like the Ruger can prove to be even more reliable since it doesn't have the same gas system. An AR-15 is also louder and can produce a larger muzzle flash compared to another platform, which can actually make it harder to shoot accurate follow-ups.

Basically, anything you can point to on a semi-auto AR-15 can be countermatched for lethality on many other platforms. It being a more tactical platform though...does that mean it can be abused and made particularly lethal compared to, say, a five-shot Browning Auto-5 shotgun? Probably, yeah. But if someone wanted to kill al lot of people and couldn't specifically get access to an AR-15, they could easily use something else just as effectively. Plus, there are probably more handgun crimes committed than semi-auto rifle ones. But it's the few school shootings with a rifle that get more headlines than the hundreds of stick-ups with cheap handguns.

 

[KalMart]

Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is looked at like a movie, partly because we're made so aware of guns in movies and entertainment/media. It's a much deeper, broader issue than what you see in a movie.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

It's not unique to just having the buffer in the buttstock. I.e., that isn't something that makes a semi-auto rifle easier to fire than any other system without other things involved. For example, even a Ruger Mini-14 in the same caliber and semiauto isn't significantly harder or slower to fire. AND...and it's not like you don't feel any kick at all when firing an AR-15, and b) something like the Ruger can prove to be even more reliable since it doesn't have the same gas system. An AR-15 is also louder and can produce a larger muzzle flash compared to another platform, which can actually make it harder to shoot accurate follow-ups.

Basically, anything you can point to on a semi-auto AR-15 can be countermatched for lethality on many other platforms. It being a more tactical platform though...does that mean it can be abused and made particularly lethal compared to, say, a five-shot Browning Auto-5 shotgun? Probably, yeah. But if someone wanted to kill al lot of people and couldn't specifically get access to an AR-15, they could easily use something else just as effectively. Plus, there are probably more handgun crimes committed than semi-auto rifle ones. But it's the few school shootings with a rifle that get more headlines than the hundreds of stick-ups with cheap handguns.

Lethality is sometimes more about shot placement/accuracy than just sheer volume. I remember seeing a kid with a lever-action rifle outshoot, both in speed and accuracy, someone with a modern AR-15.

 

[KalMart]

Lethality is sometimes more about shot placement/accuracy than just sheer volume. I remember seeing a kid with a lever-action rifle outshoot, both in speed and accuracy, someone with a modern AR-15.

Yeah, and an important point is that an AR-15 won't make someone a better shot by design. But just like a lot of things...some people do make up for ability with volume.

Look up Jerry Miculek if you want to see what can be done with just a plain ol' revolver.

 

[Super Kal]

in all of this talk, i dont see people addressing the real issue...

the real issue does NOT lie in the gun... the issue lies in the person, and the gun shop owner's irresponsibility. we have enough laws in this country about firearms. the problem is that mentally deranged individuals try to buy them, and shop owners let them buy it even though their background check says they're not right in the head.

the laws we have are fine. they just need to be correctly and strictly enforced. all these bills and laws do is make it harder for law abiding citizens, like me and other posters on here, to protect themselves... i said this before and I'll say it again: new gun laws are not going to stop criminals from buying guns from the black market.

 

[TheDevilIsMe]

For those who love guns...how do you feel about Ted Nugent being the poster child for the Second Amendment?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

For those who love guns...how do you feel about Ted Nugent being the poster child for the Second Amendment?

He's the most outspoken and famous person talking about guns (which is who the media likes), but the average gun owner is pretty safe and thoughtful about weapons.

 

[Super Kal]

i have no problem with Ted Nugent speaking his mind about the 2nd Amendment. i agree with him on a lot of issues, if not all of them... both Ted Cruz and Ron Paul share his concern about how the 2nd Amendment is being abused... like webfoot said above, Ted is only one among many... maybe some of the gun haters should listen to some of the survivors of shootings and the like who were actually armed, and defended themselves, or those who have a CHL, and protected themselves from others who got their guns illegally...

and for those who hate guns... how do you feel about Piers Morgan, a sacked UK journalist who openly endangered the lives of British soldiers by spreading false propaganda in the Daily Mirror, as being the poster boy for more gun control?

 

[TheDevilIsMe]

and for those who hate guns... how do you feel about Piers Morgan, a sacked UK journalist who openly endangered the lives of British soldiers by spreading false propaganda in the Daily Mirror, as being the poster boy for more gun control?

I wasn't aware that Piers Morgan was the poster-child for anti-gun legislation, no.

 

[KalMart]

in all of this talk, i dont see people addressing the real issue...

the real issue does NOT lie in the gun... the issue lies in the person, and the gun shop owner's irresponsibility. we have enough laws in this country about firearms. the problem is that mentally deranged individuals try to buy them, and shop owners let them buy it even though their background check says they're not right in the head.

the laws we have are fine. they just need to be correctly and strictly enforced. all these bills and laws do is make it harder for law abiding citizens, like me and other posters on here, to protect themselves... i said this before and I'll say it again: new gun laws are not going to stop criminals from buying guns from the black market.

Yes, in the person who decides to use the gun criminally...the gun does not cajole/transform a peaceful person into doing so.

And no, it is not a case of 'selling to deranged people'. For most if not all crime committed with legally obtained firearms, a background check or the like revealed nothing that would predict the act. You could have a mentally unstable person who has never been diagnosed or treated/institutionalized (don't we all know people like that?), even if they can actually afford it or get the medical attention for it....you could have a normal everyday person who one day loses it when they catch their spouse cheating on them....you could have a completely normal and sane person whose kid decides to steal the gun and do something malicious after being bullied. Background checks can't predict a future like that, nothing can...except the conditions and factors that cause it.

So since tackling the root causes is such a deep and complex undertaking, people feel that 'some action' needs to be taken...if for nothing else but a gesture as opposed to 'doing nothing'....when in reality a gun law may equally be doing nothing, but it puts on a better show. Essentially standing and doing nothing as opposed to sitting.

If they really wanted to make a difference, they'd have to ban gun ownership outright, stop businesses from selling them to civilians, go out and actually take the legally owned guns away from owners, and dig out the illegal ones as well. Otherwise any law right now won't do anything about the ones already out there legally and illegally...enough to be used in crimes for many years to come still, if so desired.

I do believe harder regulation is called for, but it needs to be accompanied by measures towards the 'harder stuff' in addressing root causes...be they economically, educationally, and so on. If we don't just want lip service with a gun-law-du-jour, then we shouldn't settle for so little.

 

[Hotwire]

I would say that, while the gun certainly doesn't cajole the person, as KalMart said, I do think it makes certain crimes far easier to commit. And when things are easier, they become a bit more enticing to someone already in the mindset of committing the crime. Sort of like leaving a six pack on the table in front of an alcoholic. That person is going to find a drink, one way or another, the beer being right there just made is easier.

If you think about a robber, for instance. They are certainly more intimidating if they have a gun, as opposed to say, a knife or baseball bat. Or a murderer. It's far easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with just about anything else.

So, while the gun isn't the root cause of the problem, it does facilitate things. So, because of that, there needs to be strict laws AND enforcement in place to keep those people from getting their hands on guns. New laws could help with that, BUT ONLY, if they are enforced with severe punishments!

 

[Handsome Rob]

[YT]uisHfKj2JiI[/YT]

That guy (Miculek) is amazing! It's a wonder that Feinstein doesn't include him in the list of semi-automatic weapons to ban, given her "depth" of knowledge on the subject!

 

[KalMart]

I would say that, while the gun certainly doesn't cajole the person, as KalMart said, I do think it makes certain crimes far easier to commit. And when things are easier, they become a bit more enticing to someone already in the mindset of committing the crime. Sort of like leaving a six pack on the table in front of an alcoholic. That person is going to find a drink, one way or another, the beer being right there just made is easier.

If you think about a robber, for instance. They are certainly more intimidating if they have a gun, as opposed to say, a knife or baseball bat. Or a murderer. It's far easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with just about anything else.

So, while the gun isn't the root cause of the problem, it does facilitate things. So, because of that, there needs to be strict laws AND enforcement in place to keep those people from getting their hands on guns. New laws could help with that, BUT ONLY, if they are enforced with severe punishments!

I agree, and we do need to really take stock of what it is that facilitates these crimes in addition to the instruments themselves.

But again...there's already tons of guns out there that could be used in future crimes for a long time to come. Just because laws are affecting guns yet to be sold doesn't mean it's doing anything about those. They can't really do anything about those right now except by force.

The responsibility lies in both sides really...anti gunners need to look beyond the sensationalism, and gun defenders need to acknowledge that guns for some become an attractive instrument to commit wrongdoing.

 

[Hotwire]

I agree, and we do need to really take stock of what it is that facilitates these crimes in addition to the instruments themselves.

But again...there's already tons of guns out there that could be used in future crimes for a long time to come. Just because laws are affecting guns yet to be sold doesn't mean it's doing anything about those. They can't really do anything about those right now except by force.

The responsibility lies in both sides really...anti gunners need to look beyond the sensationalism, and gun defenders need to acknowledge that guns for some become an attractive instrument to commit wrongdoing.

We seem to think alike on this. It's certainly hard to get the illegal guns off the streets but, I think it could be done. Again, it comes down to strict enforcement.

 

[KalMart]

We seem to think alike on this. It's certainly hard to get the illegal guns off the streets but, I think it could be done. Again, it comes down to strict enforcement.

I think it'll have to come down to better enforcement too when it comes to illegal firearms, though. How do you sniff them out? Can we legalize random searches in suspected areas? I'm not sure a deterrent approach will really make a dent. Would we be willing to give up some of our privacy to help uncover some of this stuff?

 

[Hotwire]

I think it'll have to come down to better enforcement too when it comes to illegal firearms, though. How do you sniff them out? Can we legalize random searches in suspected areas? I'm not sure a deterrent approach will really make a dent. Would we be willing to give up some of our privacy to help uncover some of this stuff?

It would be tough to find the guns. Maybe something along the line of instituting harsh punishments for being caught with an illegal gun. Something like 10 years in federal prison, just for simple possession. Then, once that's implemented, you give people something like a one time amnesty period where they can turn them in, no questions asked. Not sure if it's feasible but, it's a thought.

 

[KalMart]

It would be tough to find the guns. Maybe something along the line of instituting harsh punishments for being caught with an illegal gun. Something like 10 years in federal prison, just for simple possession. Then, once that's implemented, you give people something like a one time amnesty period where they can turn them in, no questions asked. Not sure if it's feasible but, it's a thought.

I just don't quite see harsher penalties making a dent. It's not going to make a black-market gun that's already out there come out and say "Here I am, i give up", and all it takes is one murder with it and the penalty for that is already as high as it gets and as it ever was. I don't think they'll turn them in, either (they tried a guns for cash thingy a little while back in LA, think). The only way to get them is to go and hunt them and dig'em out somehow. Maybe along the way they'll also stumble across some illegal drugs and stolen goods, too.

 

[mrvlknight21]

It would be tough to find the guns. Maybe something along the line of instituting harsh punishments for being caught with an illegal gun. Something like 10 years in federal prison, just for simple possession. Then, once that's implemented, you give people something like a one time amnesty period where they can turn them in, no questions asked. Not sure if it's feasible but, it's a thought.

Federal Penalties for possessing certain illegal firearms:

18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861. Punishable by up to 5 or 10 years
imprisonment, depending upon specific violation.A. Any machine gun, fully automatic firearm or any part designed or intended exclusively for
use in such weapon;
B. Any firearm silencer, including any device, or part thereof, designed to silence, muffle or
diminish the report of a firearm;
C. Sawed-off shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18" or overall length less than 26";
D. Sawed-off rifle with a barrel length of less than 16" or overall length less than 26";
E. Destructive device;
F. Semi-automatic assault weapon manufactured after October 1, 1993; OR
G. Any firearm which lacks a serial number or contains an altered or obliterated serial
number.

I just don't quite see harsher penalties making a dent. It's not going to make a black-market gun that's already out there come out and say "Here I am, i give up", and all it takes is one murder with it and the penalty for that is already as high as it gets and as it ever was. I don't think they'll turn them in, either (they tried a guns for cash thingy a little while back in LA, think). The only way to get them is to go and hunt them and dig'em out somehow. Maybe along the way they'll also stumble across some illegal drugs and stolen goods, too.

That's correct. I have spoken here about several large undercover operations here (Augusta, GA) that have taken hundreds and hundreds of guns off the street and often drugs and stolen goods as well. These operations ended up generating TONS of arrests and convictions on the state and federal level.

Yet, despite 3 of these operations in the same city in the last few years, netting hundreds of guns and arrests, there are still 10 times that many on the street and another operation would still generate more arrests and will recover more firearms.
Most of the firearms (and other items) recovered have been stolen from residences and vehicles and that is how they initially find their way into the hands of felons, gang members, and so on.

 

[Hotwire]

Penalties for possessiong certain illegal firearms:

18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861. Punishable by up to 5 or 10 years
imprisonment, depending upon specific violation.A. Any machine gun, fully automatic firearm or any part designed or intended exclusively for
use in such weapon;
B. Any firearm silencer, including any device, or part thereof, designed to silence, muffle or
diminish the report of a firearm;
C. Sawed-off shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18" or overall length less than 26";
D. Sawed-off rifle with a barrel length of less than 16" or overall length less than 26";
E. Destructive device;
F. Semi-automatic assault weapon manufactured after October 1, 1993; OR
G. Any firearm which lacks a serial number or contains an altered or obliterated serial
number.




That's correct. I have spoken here about several large undercover operations here (Augusta, GA) that have taken hundreds and hundreds of guns off the street and often drugs and stolen goods as well. These operations ended up generating TONS of arrests and convictions on the state and federal level.

Yet, despite 3 of these operations in the same city in the last few years, netting hundreds of guns and arrests, there are still 10 times that many on the street and another operation would still generate more arrests and will recover more firearms.
Most of the firearms (and other items) recovered have been stolen from residences and vehicles and that is how they initially find their way into the hands of felons, gang members, and so on.

The actual punishments vary from state to state. I'm talking about a minimum federal sentence of 10 year just for having an illegal firearm. Anything from a stolen pistol to one of those on that list. This would be on top of any sentence for whatever crime was committed. Say a guy gets pulled over for expired tags. The vehicle gets searched and they find an unregistered handgun and the driver has none of the required permits. Bang, 10 years in federal prison. In fact, I'd like to see that jump to a minimum mandatory 20 years if they use any gun, legal or not, in the commission of a crime! Think about that, a criminal robs a store. He's convicted of armed robbery and gets 5 years in a state prison. But, because he used a gun, he also gets to sit in federal prison for another 20 years! If those kinds of punishments were in effect and actually enforced without exception, you would probably see a decline in gun crime.

 

[mrvlknight21]

The actual punishments vary from state to state. I'm talking about a minimum federal sentence of 10 year just for having an illegal firearm. Anything from a stolen pistol to one of those on that list. This would be on top of any sentence for whatever crime was committed. Say a guy gets pulled over for expired tags. The vehicle gets searched and they find an unregistered handgun and the driver has none of the required permits. Bang, 10 years in federal prison. In fact, I'd like to see that jump to a minimum mandatory 20 years if they use any gun, legal or not, in the commission of a crime! Think about that, a criminal robs a store. He's convicted of armed robbery and gets 5 years in a state prison. But, because he used a gun, he also gets to sit in federal prison for another 20 years! If those kinds of punishments were in effect and actually enforced without exception, you would probably see a decline in gun crime.

What I listed are the Federal penalties.

Sorry if that wasnt clear. I edited my post to reflect this now.

 

[KalMart]

I've always felt that for dealing drugs, you get 10 years for your first sentence, death or life imprisonment for the second. Prisons cost money, though....and if state's are already cutting budgets for things like police and education....

 

[mrvlknight21]

I've always felt that for dealing drugs, you get 10 years for your first sentence, death or life imprisonment for the second.

HA! If only that was the case. Speaking for my local area, most dealers get probation the first time (sometimes the second time as well) and less than 10 years for a second similar conviction.