Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[DjCrenshaw]

What about Michael Dunn?

I am unfamiliar with him.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

It varies from state to state, but even there, there are loopholes. For example, in some states, you need a background check for "over the table" sales (e.g. from let's say Wal Mart). While buying under the table, like from an individual, or at a gun show, requires no background checks.

The NRA opposes all regulations introduced in Connecticut after Newtown, including background checks (I believe the others were related to magazine restrictions).

The NRA opposes all background checks.

The NRA is also opposed to stiffer sanctions.

Basically, the NRA is blocking any sort of restriction, in multiple areas. Well, every area, really. They are, love them or hate them, an amazing lobbying group.

I mean holy hell, if there was an NRA for... the other amendments, America would be in great shape – well, except for you know, the crazy people getting their hands on semiautomatic rifles – but otherwise...

Way to misrepresent what the NRA opposes and supports and basic gun laws. In every state, if you want to buy a gun from any store and a lot of gun shows, you have to submit yourself to a background check. The NRA is very supportive of this. They just don't want a database of guns since there's a mistrust of who'll control it and what it'd be used for. The NRA opposes most magazine restrictions because they've proven to be ineffective at actually lowering gun crime and they essentially restrict almost every gun besides revolvers, shotguns, and single-shot rifles. The main thing the NRA wants to happen is see current gun laws enforced to their fullest extent and actually prosecute those that violate them, which doesn't happen if someone actually fails a background check.

As for semiautomatic rifles (supposedly the worst gun out there), those and rifles of any other kind accounted for only about 300 deaths in the last year the FBI compiled data. Handguns are still the major killer, yet semiautomatic rifles get singled out because of their looks and people's lack of understanding of semiautomatic vs. automatic.

 

[DjCrenshaw]

Way to misrepresent what the NRA opposes and supports and basic gun laws. In every state, if you want to buy a gun from any store and a lot of gun shows, you have to submit yourself to a background check. The NRA is very supportive of this. They just don't want a database of guns since there's a mistrust of who'll control it and what it'd be used for. The NRA opposes most magazine restrictions because they've proven to be ineffective at actually lowering gun crime and they essentially restrict almost every gun besides revolvers, shotguns, and single-shot rifles. The main thing the NRA wants to happen is see current gun laws enforced to their fullest extent and actually prosecute those that violate them, which doesn't happen if someone actually fails a background check.

As for semiautomatic rifles (supposedly the worst gun out there), those and rifles of any other kind accounted for only about 300 deaths in the last year the FBI compiled data. Handguns are still the major killer, yet semiautomatic rifles get singled out because of their looks and people's lack of understanding of semiautomatic vs. automatic.

Well that and they scare the government and media the most.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The current gun laws are a joke, and you know it.

Support universal background checks, close the loopholes with the gun shows, private sellers, and online sales and then we'll talk.

The main thing the NRA wants to see happen is for its backers to continue making money.

You know what's ironic? You citing government compiled data. Data the NRA doesn't even want compiled. Through their Republican pawns in congress, the NRA has defunded the CDC's research into gun violence statistics.

So, don't tell me what the NRA supports and opposes.

 

[DjCrenshaw]

The current gun laws are a joke, and you know it.

Support universal background checks, close the loopholes with the gun shows, private sellers, and online sales and then we'll talk.

The main thing the NRA wants to see happen is for its backers to continue making money.

You know what's ironic? You citing government compiled data. Data the NRA doesn't even want compiled. Through their Republican pawns in congress, the NRA has defunded the CDC's research into gun violence statistics.

So, don't tell me what the NRA supports and opposes.

Come on guy.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's crap. Nothing but lip service to safety, while supporting (and outright writing, I might add) terrible, irresponsible legislation.

 

[DjCrenshaw]

It's crap. Nothing but lip service to safety, while supporting (and outright writing, I might add) terrible, irresponsible legislation.

Let's just agree they need to enforce their legislation that is on the books first.

 

[Thundercrack85]

And the NRA should stop undermining said existing legislation?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/

"A review of congressional legislative records, federal lobbying disclosure forms, as well as interviews with former ATF agents, shows how the NRA has repeatedly supported legislation to weaken several of the nation's gun laws and opposed any attempt to boost the ability of the Bureau of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to enforce current laws, including:

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. This law mandated that the ATF could only inspect firearms dealers once a year. It reduced record-keeping penalties from felonies to misdemeanors, prohibited the ATF from computerizing purchase records for firearms and required the government to prove that a gun dealer was "willful" if they sold a firearm to a prohibited person.

The Tiahrt amendments. Beginning in 2003, the amendments by then-representative Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., to the Justice Department's appropriation bill included requirements such as the same-day destruction of FBI background check documents and limits on the sharing of data from traces.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act. Most recently introduced in 2011, the bill proposed changing several regulations, including redefining the burden of proof for agents investigating firearms dealers accused of selling to prohibited individuals and capping fines for other violations."

And that's just a lazy google search.

 

[DjCrenshaw]

I just said enforce the laws on the books.... undermining aside.

 

[mrvlknight21]

The current gun laws are a joke, and you know it.

Support universal background checks, close the loopholes with the gun shows, private sellers, and online sales and then we'll talk.

What "loophole" are you talking about regarding online sales?

I also want to point out that there is no gun show loophole. Its only private sellers at gun shows that can sell without a background check, so if you want to call anything a loophole, then the private sales would qualify.

Im not sure how many of you have ever been to a gun show, but I have been to at least 20 in my life and 1 as recently as last month (Jan 2014). The gun shows that I have attended have been about 90-95% FFL dealers (actual gun stores) as the vendors. These brick and mortar gun stores usually work as vendors at guns shows as a way to increase revenue.
Obviously, these FFL dealers HAVE to do the standard background check to legally sell their guns or face losing their FFL and potential federal prison time.

The remaining 5-10% of vendors at gun shows are private sellers. These individuals do not have to conduct any background checks, because it is a private sale. It makes no difference whether it takes place at a gun show, in an abandoned parking lot, at a person's house, or elsewhere. A private sale is a private sale. Some may argue that the gun show is the catalyst for these transactions to take place, but people use Craigslist, yard sales, Newspaper ads, Armslist, and other websites (like www.theoutdoorstrader.com ) to meet up and buy, sell, and trade firearms with other citizens. Regarding Georgia law, sellers (private) are supposed to verify that the buyer is a Georgia resident (again, assuming that the seller is also a Georgia resident). I realize that even that simple check doesnt happen everytime and, even if it did, it certainly isnt on par with any form of background check. The reason I am even bothering typing all of this is because the "gun show loophole" is a misnomer of sorts and people and the media throw it around without actually knowing the information that I mentioned above.

I would also point out that the VAST majority of these private sellers typically have rusty old shotguns, bolt action rifles, and other antique "collectible" type firearms as opposed to Ar15s, semi automatic pistols, "high capacity" magazines, etc. Now, in late 2012, after the Sandy Hook shooting, when "panic buying" was going on in record numbers, many more individuals showed up at gun shows as customers, meanwhile wearing signs around their neck offering personal firearms for sale because they knew they could make a sizeable profit over what they paid. This practice has slowed down immensely, as gun manufacturers have caught up with demand for many of the sought after firearms (including the AR15).

 

[Anubis]

Yeah, please enlighten us cuz I totally need to get an MP5 with no questions asked.

 

[DjCrenshaw]

Yeah, please enlighten us cuz I totally need to get an MP5 with no questions asked.

How often are mass shootings carried out with said mp5 weapons?

 

[Kelly]

How often are mass shootings carried out with said mp5 weapons?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

 

[Webfoot Hero]

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

Not very many then.

 

[Kelly]

The current gun laws are a joke, and you know it.

Support universal background checks, close the loopholes with the gun shows, private sellers, and online sales and then we'll talk.

The main thing the NRA wants to see happen is for its backers to continue making money.

You know what's ironic? You citing government compiled data. Data the NRA doesn't even want compiled. Through their Republican pawns in congress, the NRA has defunded the CDC's research into gun violence statistics.

So, don't tell me what the NRA supports and opposes.

I don't necessarily think the laws themselves are a joke, I do believe they need to be updated and get much more strict on online sales of both guns and ammunition....but IMO, the enforcement of those laws are lacking, especially at the Federal level.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't necessarily think the laws themselves are a joke, I do believe they need to be updated and get much more strict on online sales of both guns and ammunition....but IMO, the enforcement of those laws are lacking, especially at the Federal level.

What is a law but its enforcement though? Well, perhaps, I should have reworded it.

My main issue with semiautomatic rifles (for anyone who cares) isn't how often they are used in mass murders, but the fact that I don't see a need for the average citizen to have access to that kind of firepower.

I believe in a (reasonable) right to self-defense. Why did Adam Lanza's mother living in Newtown, Connecticut (post frontier days) need an AR-15? Were her handguns, and shotgun (and whatever else) not sufficient for home or self-defense?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of semiautomatic rifles. They're cool. Hell, a few years back, I probably would have bought one, if I had money to throw away. But after massacre, after massacre you have to start wondering if it's worth the price. And it simply isn't.

If you need an AR-15 for home defense, hell, you're probably living in an area where the law is irrelevant anyway.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

What is a law but its enforcement though? Well, perhaps, I should have reworded it.

My main issue with semiautomatic rifles (for anyone who cares) isn't how often they are used in mass murders, but the fact that I don't see a need for the average citizen to have access to that kind of firepower.

I believe in a (reasonable) right to self-defense. Why did Adam Lanza's mother living in Newtown, Connecticut (post frontier days) need an AR-15? Were her handguns, and shotgun (and whatever else) not sufficient for home or self-defense?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of semiautomatic rifles. They're cool. Hell, a few years back, I probably would have bought one, if I had money to throw away. But after massacre, after massacre you have to start wondering if it's worth the price. And it simply isn't.

If you need an AR-15 for home defense, hell, you're probably living in an area where the law is irrelevant anyway.

But the thing with AR-15s is they really aren't that high-powered in comparison to most hunting rifles, which fire rounds substantially larger and deadlier than a glorified varmint round. Plus, their firing rate isn't all that different from a handgun. It gets old seeing the media and anti-gun advocates pass off false information about AR-15s in order to get them banned, when they are no more deadlier than handguns and shotguns they don't go after.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Handguns and shotguns (although this might spark a debate of a whole new kind) are excellent for personal protection / home protection. I also don't think it's excessive.

I just don't see that with semiautomatic rifles. There's hunting (not with an AR-15, hopefully), but I doubt a lot of these crazy people were big on that.

It's true, if you want to lower total gun deaths, obviously go after the number one cause: handguns. But I'm not Piers Morgan. I actually believe in a reasonable right to self-defense. But there needs to either be more restrictions on the guns, the clips or who can own them (or both).

I think the AR-15 is just the most iconic now, because it has been used in several high profile massacres and it's easily mistaken for an actual assault rifle.

I think I might just give up on this subject though.

 

[mrvlknight21]

What is a law but its enforcement though? Well, perhaps, I should have reworded it.

My main issue with semiautomatic rifles (for anyone who cares) isn't how often they are used in mass murders, but the fact that I don't see a need for the average citizen to have access to that kind of firepower.

I believe in a (reasonable) right to self-defense. Why did Adam Lanza's mother living in Newtown, Connecticut (post frontier days) need an AR-15? Were her handguns, and shotgun (and whatever else) not sufficient for home or self-defense?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of semiautomatic rifles. They're cool. Hell, a few years back, I probably would have bought one, if I had money to throw away. But after massacre, after massacre you have to start wondering if it's worth the price. And it simply isn't.

If you need an AR-15 for home defense, hell, you're probably living in an area where the law is irrelevant anyway.

Regarding home defense, the issue is, the bad guys have Ar15s and Ak47s, so unfortunately, to even the odds, a AR15 by your bed for home defense could be a good idea.

I have worked in law enforcement since 1999, and I have seen people killed by the cheapest Hi-point semiautomatic handgun (about $99) and by Ak47s and Ar15s (one particular crime was the first murder I ever worked and two guys tried to force their way inside a home, when the resident slammed and locked the door, they turned the house into swiss cheese, killing him and putting dozens of holes through the home-they used an Ar15 and Ak47).

The last scenario I mentioned occurred in what was formerly a quaint small town (still very small) out in the country. This small town is surrounded by farms and everyone in town knows your name. A lot of local people consider moving there when they retire. However, in the last 10 or so years, a thug culture has created a violent crime wave and I responded to more violent offenses there than I did in several other local counties. It was very common to find these thugs armed with Ar15s or Ak47s.

But the thing with AR-15s is they really aren't that high-powered in comparison to most hunting rifles, which fire rounds substantially larger and deadlier than a glorified varmint round. Plus, their firing rate isn't all that different from a handgun. It gets old seeing the media and anti-gun advocates pass off false information about AR-15s in order to get them banned, when they are no more deadlier than handguns and shotguns they don't go after.

All true. Although you are referring only to the 5.56 Nato and .223 Remington rounds, which are by far the most common Ar15 caliber. I talk about this further below.

My belief is that IF there are laws in the near future that may affect this subject, it will be in regards to magazines with capacity over 10 rounds. I think they could attempt to ban the future production of these magazines. That seems like the easiest route to enact some sort of action. That way, politicians on both sides can say "we arent taking your guns" while providing some sort of "well, we are working to control gun violence" proof.

I certainly agree that the media has made the Ar15 the pariah of the firearms world to the general public.

Handguns and shotguns (although this might spark a debate of a whole new kind) are excellent for personal protection / home protection. I also don't think it's excessive.

I just don't see that with semiautomatic rifles. There's hunting (not with an AR-15, hopefully), but I doubt a lot of these crazy people were big on that.

It's true, if you want to lower total gun deaths, obviously go after the number one cause: handguns. But I'm not Piers Morgan. I actually believe in a reasonable right to self-defense. But there needs to either be more restrictions on the guns, the clips or who can own them (or both).

I think the AR-15 is just the most iconic now, because it has been used in several high profile massacres and it's easily mistaken for an actual assault rifle.

I think I might just give up on this subject though.

I have mentioned this MANY times previously in this thread, but hunting with an Ar15 is quite common here in Georgia. I don't hunt, but personally know several people that hunt deer, coyotes, and wild hogs with Ar15s. I don't see any problem with it at all. If that is the platform that you trained with, are accustomed to, and will get the job done, then great. If I were to go hunting, it would pretty much HAVE to be with an Ar15, since those are the only rifles that I own and I may not know how to sufficiently operate some other platform, as I have never trained with any other.

I think some people have this image of a guy in a tree stand with an Ar15, just unloading a full 30 round magazine like Rambo, yelling while he does it, into Bambi and they don't like it. I could be wrong, but that's what I picture when I hear people argue that someone shouldn't be hunting with an Ar15. I really don't understand the argument.

To add to that, because the Ar15 is very versatile, that same firearm COULD be used for home defense, along with TONS of fun at the range (every person I have ever taken to the range and allowed to shoot one of mine wanted one immediately after), thus making the Ar15 quite a value because of all the things that you can do with it. On the contrary, a bolt action .308 rifle (also popular for shooting deer) would be a terrible home defense choice and not nearly as much fun at the range.

Also, the AR15 can be chambered in larger calibers (most stripped lower receivers are marked "multi-cal" these days) so that one can hunt larger game as well.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Come on guy.

I support the NRA's principles, but the organization under Wayne LaPierre has become an absolute joke.

 

[The Endless]

Why do you need a gun for self defense? Is it perhaps because every other ****er out there has a gun? What if there was no guns? You'd use your bare hands for self defense, like a real man!

Or a giant sea bass...

 

[mrvlknight21]

Why do you need a gun for self defense? Is it perhaps because every other ****er out there has a gun? What if there was no guns? You'd use your bare hands for self defense, like a real man!

Or a giant sea bass...

Not sure if trolling, but you are half correct. If guns did not exist, people would use their fists for self defense. Although there are plenty of other deadly weapons out there that attackers and defenders could/would use, such as knives.

 

[Anubis]

I'd use a sling shot with M80's.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Thundercrack85, I get the feeling you aren't very knowledgeable when it comes to guns; that's not intended as an insult - plenty of people aren't and that's okay. Where the problem comes in is when people base opinions and arguments on this lack of/incorrect information...it's like me, having little knowledge of cars walking into a mechanic's shop and telling him that he shouldn't be using that impact wrench to remove his tires, because a news reporter said that they cause forest fires and the whirring of the wrench is actually whispered anti-Semitic remarks.

I just don't see that with semiautomatic rifles. There's hunting (not with an AR-15, hopefully), but I doubt a lot of these crazy people were big on that.

See, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about...the idea that hunting with a semi-automatic rifle (an AR-15 style in particular) is somehow an insane and dangerous idea...The only way this would be insane is if you used it to try and hunt anything larger than a prairie dog. The ammo (.223) most AR-style rifles used is called the "varmint" round for a reason - it's totally underpowered for anything else. The fact is, your standard hunting rifle/ammo used for medium to large game is FAR more powerful and accurate over MUCH longer distances than the AR-15 you seem to think is so dangerous to use. And the only reason most hunting rifles are bolt-action instead of semi-automatic is because bolt-action are far more accurate (more on that later)...

So in one corner we have a semi-auto AR-15, and in the other corner we have your typical hunting rifle that uses a larger bullet, has a longer range, AND is more accurate...What you're saying is that because it has camouflage paint and shoots half a second slower, it's not nearly as deadly as the weaker, less accurate AR...Do you see how that doesn't make any kind of sense?

My main issue with semiautomatic rifles (for anyone who cares) isn't how often they are used in mass murders, but the fact that I don't see a need for the average citizen to have access to that kind of firepower.

First off, the majority of modern firearms are semi-automatic; that goes for rifles, pistols, and yes, even shotguns. So why are the semi-auto rifles more dangerous than the others?

Secondly (and most importantly), a gun's firing mechanism (single action, semi-auto, full-auto, etc) has nothing to do with the "firepower". Firepower in this instance refers to the power of the bullet itself. How big is it? What's it's velocity? How much gun powder is used? Is the bullet designed to "punch through" the target, or break up inside and bounce around? How far will the bullet travel? None of these things are affected by the firing-mechanism of the gun.

Which has more "firepower"? This single-action revolver or this semi-automatic rifle?

Answer? The single-action revolver.

The semi-automatic pictured here fires a small .22 Long Rifle round, which has a velocity of 1,080 ft/s (feet per second). The single-action revolver fires a larger .44 magnum round which has a velocity of 1445 ft/s. Hopefully this illustrates my point - the mechanics of the firearm itself holds no bearing on it's "power", as a gun's "firepower" only refers to the bullet it fires, not the mechanics of the gun.

"But wait!" You might say. "The rifle shoots more bullets faster and takes less time to reload". Well...even THIS line of thinking is flawed. As I'm sure many have said ad nauseam, a semi-automatic weapon only fires ONE bullet per trigger pull. This is the same as single-action and dual-action pistols, bolt-action rifles, and pump-action shotguns that you claim are "acceptable". And the reload speed? Well, true, in THIS instance, a magazine-fed gun DOES reload faster than a six-shooter (if one were to ignore the quick-loaders designed to fix that), but I chose this example to illustrate the effects of the LOOK of the weapon has on the uninformed. Again, that has no bearing on the danger of the firing mechanism - single and dual action guns also come in the magazine variety, most in fact do these days.

The problem with this line of thinking is that a weapon being semi-automatic automatically makes it more dangerous. This isn't true. First, ACCURACY and RELIABILITY are more of a factor than the speed of firing, which has an increasingly negative affect on both factors the faster you shoot. Anyone who knows anything about guns will tell you this. Secondly, every type of firing mechanism is designed to be fired as quickly and as easily as required without sacrificing it's individual strengths.

You're probably okay with pump-action shotguns because you think they're slow and cumbersome to fire...the truth is that the pump-action actually has a quite fast cycle rate and can be fired as fast as (if not faster in some cases) than a semi-automatic. Yes, it's slower when it comes to reloading, but many companies make magazines designed specifically for pump-action shot guns. And let's not forget that shotguns can fire a large variety of cartridges with varying degrees of pellet size and spread, making it the most dangerous weapon to use against groups of people. Bolt-action rifles are the "slowest" of modern firearms, but I use that term VERY loosely. That being said, the bolt-action's design means there are less moving parts, making bolt-action rifles HIGHLY accurate and reliable. Single-action firearms means you have to pull the hammer back after each trigger pull. I think this video speaks for how little that affects speed: http://youtu.be/cGaYqd9Pjlg?t=7s

Dual-action is basically the same as "semi-auto" but with minor differences in the mechanics. Like all the others I've mentioned, they both only shoot one bullet per trigger pull. The difference is that the next bullet is chambered immediately. This is only "faster" if you're simply looking at the number of steps a shooter has to do manually - One less step has no bearing on it's level of "deadliness", especially when considering that semi-automatic firearms, due to the larger amounts of moving parts, use smaller rounds, are less accurate, and are also the LEAST reliable (if you've noticed, nearly every mass shooting with a semi-automatic involves the gun jamming, forcing the shooter to switch to another weapon, usually a shotgun).

One can deny it all they want, but the ONLY reason people have rallies against semi-automatic guns (the military style ARs in particular) is because the media TELLS them it's this "highly advanced, uber-deadly assault rifle", and since these people see similar looking guns in Call of Duty, they believe this Grade A bull ****.

It's true, if you want to lower total gun deaths, obviously go after the number one cause: handguns. But I'm not Piers Morgan. I actually believe in a reasonable right to self-defense. But there needs to either be more restrictions on the guns, the clips or who can own them (or both).

The number one reason why any gun owner would show trepidation towards new gun laws is because 99.9% of the time, the people who are clambering for and writing these laws have demonstrated time and time again that they have absolutely NO understanding of guns. Last I checked, it's categorically a STUPID idea to have people force change and write laws about things they know NOTHING about. You wouldn't want a middle school drop-out that pushes shopping carts for a living to write laws concerning nuclear power, would you? But when the gun owners say "Wait a second..." these wackos scream even louder and call them psychos, potential murders waiting for any excuse to kill, living in a fantasy world, etc... Ug. Now I've got myself all worked up, I'm out.

 

[wiegeabo]

A lot of times I think that when people hear the term semi-automatic, they instinctively picture movies like Rambo or something where the trigger gets pulled back and a spray of bullets rips through a crowd of bad guys.

They don't realize that that is a fully automatic weapon. They only hear the automatic part and don't see/know a difference.

They also don't realize that if you spray bullets like that, you're not going to hit much of what you're aiming at.