The Guns thread - Part 1

[Aximili86]

DJ, are you kidding me?

The Chicago handgun problem is with gangs. You really think tougher gun laws in surrounding states are going to somehow stop gang members from getting weapons?

The weapons are already out there. Short of doing a full gun-recall confiscation Australia style, you'd just be creating a more prosperous black market, those particular guys don't care what the law is.

And if we're talking Chicago specifically, that's not an AR-10/AR-15 thing, that's a concealable pistol thing. No significant number of states are going to start banning pistols, you'd have a literal mass public uprising. Even even as a non-gun guy here, they'd be right in their backlash to it.

 

[Donner]

It's so sad that people are so scared that they can't give up their guns. It's a very sick and weird obsession.

 

[squeekness]

It's so sad that people are so scared that they can't give up their guns. It's a very sick and weird obsession.

Makes some people feel powerful, other need them to feel safe. For me it's only really a problem when there's a powerful need to stockpile an arsenal.

 

[BillPardy]

DJ, are you kidding me?

The Chicago handgun problem is with gangs. You really think tougher gun laws in surrounding states are going to somehow stop gang members from getting weapons?

The weapons are already out there. Short of doing a full gun-recall confiscation Australia style, you'd just be creating a more prosperous black market, those particular guys don't care what the law is.

And if we're talking Chicago specifically, that's not an AR-10/AR-15 thing, that's a concealable pistol thing. No significant number of states are going to start banning pistols, you'd have a literal mass public uprising. Even even as a non-gun guy here, they'd be right in their backlash to it.

Wasn't "confiscation" it was a volunteer buy back program. As for black market cost of a weapon. The low end legal price of Ar-15 in the US is $600, cheapest pistol I could find online (in a two second search) is $250.

In Australia a restricted weapon on the black market is around $15,000, that's half some peoples annual wage!

Crime and poverty go hand and hand. If you can blow $15,000 on a hand gun to rob a 7-11, you probably don't actually need to be robbing that 7-11!

 

[Aximili86]

How many of these shooters have had arsenals, though, Squeekness? A lot of this stuff seems to be a guy with a single rifle, maybe a handgun as sidearm, and an extra clip or two for each.

You're not going to pass laws in the United States where that qualifies as an "arsenal". Stopping the Vegas guy from buying dozens? Sure. The public aren't going to accept two weapons as being the cutoff point though.

It's not really the number. It's the state of mind of the person with them. Maybe people who own need to be taken a look at every year or two or whatever, some sort of checking-in by a law-enforcement related shrink or something. A sane guy with 5 different rifles because he enjoys rifle range shooting isn't going to do anything. A loon with one or two is a danger.

Bill, yeah. And that's something you could try here, a voluntary turn-in. The point is though, a lot of the country's not going to see an AR-10/15 as something egregiously high-end that they should be handing over, plenty would just keep it. Only way you're actually getting these off the streets once and for all is by forceful mandate, and that's clearly not going to stand.

 

[squeekness]

Arsenals, I was thinking Vegas and the Aurora shooters.

 

[Aximili86]

Well, yeah. The Aurora guy had body armor and smoke grenades and all sorts of horrible crap no civilian should be able to get. Banning that stuff needs to happen, along with the bumpstocks.

The actual weapons though, he had a rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun. Maybe all three of those is the cutoff point, I guess, but individually none of those things is ever going to get banned. On their own, in the hands of someone without head issues and a desire to hurt people, they're not a problem. But that's just the thing, even one of those things in the hands of someone who shouldn't have a gun is a problem. Even if you could set a limit of "no more than one gun for any one person", that person's still going to go kill people with that one gun. Because they're ****ing crazy.

*Damn text formatting, not sure what happened there
​

 

[TheCardPlayer]

I still haven't seen a single argument to explain how, this only consistently happens in the USA versus everywhere else. Lots of handwaving. Not much content.

Lots of references to the Chicago gun fallacy, which is well...lies.

 

[Aximili86]

It's social stuff. It's a divided, angsty, uptight, solve-your-problems-with-your-fist society, with a huge prominence for fame even through infamy. Combine that with a crazy person and gun access and you're gonna have issues.

It's not any of those things in a vacuum, it's the whole picture totalled up.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I still haven't seen a single argument to explain how, this only consistently happens in the USA versus everywhere else. Lots of handwaving. Not much content.

Lots of references to the Chicago gun fallacy, which is well...lies.

From the column:

Chicago does not have the strictest gun laws in the country. It’s time for gun lovers to stop spreading that lie.

A decade ago that was indeed a title Chicago wore proudly. We were the only major city that still had an ordinance banning residents from keeping a handgun in their home.

The handgun ban made us the primary target of the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, and in 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court forced Chicago to fall into line with the rest of the country.

Since then, the courts have peeled off so many layers of our once stellar gun ordinance that it’s barely recognizable.


And thanks to the Illinois General Assembly, which was pressured by the federal courts to pass a concealed carry law in 2013, people can walk the streets of Chicago with a gun attached to their waist and another strapped to their ankle.

Sorry, gun lovers, your attempts to use Chicago as a prop to bolster your claims that gun control laws do nothing to curb gun violence just don’t hold up.

New York, in fact, has stricter gun laws on the books than Chicago. And guess what? Its homicide numbers are heading toward historic lows. Los Angeles has some pretty tough gun laws too. Its homicide numbers also pale compared with Chicago’s.

Those kinds of details don’t fit the conservative, pro-gun narrative, though. To use New York as a talking point, they’d have to admit that strict gun laws might actually have an impact on homicide rates.

We don’t make excuses for our ghastly homicide numbers in Chicago. With 762 people killed last year, no one has to remind us that we have a serious gun problem. We own it. And we have to do something about it.

But we are tired of Donald Trump and pro-gun advocates using our city to promote their political agenda.

This also caught my eye for the pure... Sadness of it.

Spoiler

 

[Donner]

Well that's horribly depressing and shame on anyone who still thinks nothing can be done. Something has to be done. For ****s sake.

 

[LTuser]

Why take the chance? Especially during the teen angst years. Even if they didn't go after anyone else, they could use them for suicide. A gun is all too easy.

If you keep them locked up, it shouldn't be an issue. Most every person I know who keeps a gun in the house, has one of those fingerprint lockboxes, or ones with a code. So the kid can't get at it, to do anything stupid..

PITY one of my former co-workers on my last ship didn't follow that logic. He was a range master for our ship, and kept one in his room, and the DUNCE SHOT HIMSELF pulling it out of the holster he kept it in (FULLY loaded as well)..
Luckily after that, his gun qual was stripped for a 4 mo period, while he had to do a LOT of retraining..

It's so sad that people are so scared that they can't give up their guns. It's a very sick and weird obsession.

And with the # of crimes rising all over the place, i find it strange that so many people are willing to trust their own safety to cops, who are often 5+ minutes away.

For me it's only really a problem when there's a powerful need to stockpile an arsenal.

But who decides what's an aresnal? 3 guns? 5? 10?

What of those who have lots, cause they are disaster preppers??


As a q for those who feel the owning a gun age should be raised to 21, cause people are NOT emotionally mature at 18..
What do you then say to those states who are wanting to LOWER the voting age to 17 (or 16 even), cause they DO FEEL teens are much more "Mature"??

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/13347080/voting-age-election-16

http://www.youthrights.org/issues/voting-age/top-ten-reasons-to-lower-the-voting-age/

How can one be 'emotionally mature' for one thing (voting) but NOT emotionally mature enough for others (owning guns/drinking)??
Additionally if you DO push to get the age upped to 21, does that then also mean those who go into the military at 18, should not be given guns for their job?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Uh... What? First off why are you conflating the two issues just because some states are looking at changing said laws on voting? I think that's stupid, to lower the voting age. OKAY, what the hell does that have to do with common sense gun regulation?

I'm sorry but that is like the essence of deflection there. I think we should have more gun regulations and I think the laws on the books should ALSO be enforced (a TOTALLY disingenuous position proffered by the Right BTW, that they don't want new regulations they want the laws now to be enforced but that's bovine excrement of the highest order as they've spent decades attempting to nullify, curtail or overturn the laws we do have on the books AND their enforcement) and I think that lowering the voting age from where it is now is also stupid.

So the point of bringing that up is beyond my ability to understand. How about this as an idea... Maybe voting age, use of guns and the draft age of selective service should all be RAISED to 21 so there's no hypocrisy across the board? There's an idea.

As for the idea of some kind of Apocalyptic crime wave across the nation, despite the click bait articles and the paranoia of some of our fellow citizens... It's not quite that in the least when we look into the numbers.

Richard Berk, a professor of statistics and criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, disputed the suggestion that the national numbers suggested any sort of trend, pointing out that crime occurs on a local level.

“The fundamental thing is, national summaries are really sort of empty calories,” Berk said Monday. “There’s no real information in there to guide policy, or citizen concerns, because the action is all very local.”

Berk added: “Some cities that have more problems than others, and in those cities some neighborhoods have more problems than others, and to talk about national anything is just politics.”

The Brennan Center for Justice, a New York-based law and policy institute, said Monday that the murder rate increase was fueled by an increase in killings in some of the country’s largest cities — with Chicago accounting for more than a fifth of the nationwide murder increase last year.

“The FBI’s data show trends similar to what we’ve found for crime, murder, and violence in 2016,” Ames Grawert, a counsel in the Brennan Center’s Justice Program, said in a statement Monday. “Crime remains near historic lows, with an uptick in murder and violence driven in part by problems in some of our nation’s largest cities. At the same time, other cities like New York are keeping crime down.”

Despite the terrible individual crimes that grab national headlines, like this mass murder at a school on Wed. the truth is that the country as a whole has crime rates akin to rates in the early 60's (remember... THE GOOD OLD DAYS CONSERVATIVES ALWAYS GO ONE ABOUT?) and even the uptick in violent crime isn't seen correctly because it's not a national phenomenon it's due to an uptick in a handful of cities and even then, usually in those cities it's the murder rate in specific neighborhoods.


I know for sure, that even with the CONSTANT THREAT OF TERRORISM that I as a New Yorker face riding the subway every day, and no, that's not hyperbole, I take a system every single day that is one of the prime targets of terrorists in the entirety of the country, and even knowing that... I can't imagine a world where I have to worry about every person on the subway being armed. That would not in the least make me feel safe, nor do I think the outcomes would be what gun advocates expect were such a thing to become a reality. A subway car full of folks all armed, and suddenly gunfire erupts... Even with all passengers having a minimum of training (and lets be honest... Most regular folks would barely have time for "training" so it would be the most basic of skills that the average person would posses) that is going to be a bloodbath.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Personally I can’t stand when people suggest banning handguns, revolvers, or bolt action rifles, but I have absolutely no problem with restrictions on people owning semi automatic rifles.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Truth be told though... Is the sentiment of "banning handguns, revolvers, or bolt action rifles" actually a real legitimate policy position a large amount of the reputable Democratic office holders of consequence in the U.S.? Has the party platform ever included a total ban on firearms? Has a Democrat with a real sizable following ever seriously put forth such a proposal? Is this even a majority opinion among the rank and file of the party, much less of elected officials?

Or...

Has the boogie men of "the slippery slope" been used as a cudgel for decades now to paint the Democratic Party and it's members as some kind of extremist group out to oppress the masses when in fact the vast majority just want common sense regulation?

 

[Texas Zombie]

It’s a bad political move for any major democratic politician that wants to become president.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

It’s a bad political move for any major democratic politician that wants to become president.

Again though... Is this an actual sentiment you have heard or read from the majority of either elected or rank and file members of the Democratic Party? Point blank is it something you have ever actually seen, read or experienced? If so... How many times? I mean, I am sure there are those out there that hold that kind of zero tolerance sentiment, but realistically how many are there? Historically has the party ever actually en mass put forth the kind of proposals you are afraid of, again, I'm not talking background checks or waiting periods. How often and at what level of intensity has the Democratic Party in the last 45 years made the outright banning of handguns, shotguns, bolt action rifles, revolvers etc. a part of their policies on a Federal level? I'm sure you could find some outliers but if it's a handful of fringe types with no actual political power then the idea that there is a mass movement based in the Democratic Party to totally disarm every American becomes a pretty suspect possibility to be actually afraid of.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Nah I mean, I agree. The only politician’s who take a hard stance when it comes to gun control are trying to appeal to a radical base, not the majority.

 

[Doug_Moore]

Taking away a Constitutional right is one step closer to a tyrannical government.

 

[samsnee]

There isn’t going to be a one size fits all solution to this. Will taking everyone’s guns do it? First it’s not realistic, and secondly even I don’t believe it would. It’s going to have to be a combination of things. The frustration comes from the stubbornness that we can’t even the debate that tighter laws can be part of the solution.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Taking away a Constitutional right is one step closer to a tyrannical government.

How often has the taking away of this right been seriously floated in even the last 30 years? Or... Is it your contention that things like proper regulation, background checks and the like are qualitatively no different than a blanket, zero tolerance ban on a Federal level?

 

[Aximili86]

As the other guy with the graphs said, shootings are down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.9e9e50293b24


The WP, hardly some bastion of conservatism or gun-proponents.

There are more guns flowing around the country than in 1993, but significantly less murders with them.

Personally I can’t stand when people suggest banning handguns, revolvers, or bolt action rifles, but I have absolutely no problem with restrictions on people owning semi automatic rifles.

Out of curiosity, why though? Most modern handguns are semi-automatic, just like an AR-10 or an AR-15. A lot of these hold 14 bullets, comparable to an AR-10 or AR-15. The rounds may be smaller, but the firing rate's about the same.

Accuracy is a little easier for a total novice with an AR-10, but with a little basic training that gap closes with a handgun. A handgun, with two extra clips, you've got 42 bullets with a similar firing rate/capacity to an AR-10, they're both semi-automatic.

Why is one cool and not the other? They're very, very comparable in killing power. No reasonable person is going to be out there preaching about how we should ban handguns because they're too dangerous. An AR-10's really not all that much more serious a weapon than a modern glock, aside from the heavier rounds. Performance-wise? They're pretty comparable.

 

[Texas Zombie]

As the other guy with the graphs said, shootings are down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.9e9e50293b24


The WP, hardly some bastion of conservatism or gun-proponents.

There are more guns flowing around the country than in 1993, but significantly less murders with them.








Out of curiosity, why though? Most modern handguns are semi-automatic, just like an AR-10 or an AR-15. A lot of these hold 14 bullets, comparable to an AR-10 or AR-15. The rounds may be smaller, but the firing rate's about the same.

Accuracy is a little easier for a total novice with an AR-10, but with a little basic training that gap closes with a handgun. A handgun, with two extra clips, you've got 42 bullets with a similar firing rate/capacity to an AR-10, they're both semi-automatic.

Why is one cool and not the other? They're very, very comparable in killing power. No reasonable person is going to be out there preaching about how we should ban handguns because they're too dangerous. An AR-10's really not all that much more serious a weapon than a modern glock, aside from the heavier rounds. Performance-wise? They're pretty comparable.

The accurate distance of a handgun is around 50ft for a skilled shooter. Law enforcement vests are enough to deal with handgun rounds, but rifle rounds are going to go straight through Kevlar. The performance is completely incomparable in terms of accuracy, range, and controllability. The ballistics of the rounds they use is completely different in terms of velocity achieved, to say that they are similar isn’t true. If you’ve ever fired a handgun, you would know that recoil is uncontrollable when you’re firing in quick patterns.

I’ve decently shot coke cans from a distance of 100 yds with an iron sight on a rifle, but that’s impossible with a handgun.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

DJ, are you kidding me?

The Chicago handgun problem is with gangs. You really think tougher gun laws in surrounding states are going to somehow stop gang members from getting weapons?

The weapons are already out there. Short of doing a full gun-recall confiscation Australia style, you'd just be creating a more prosperous black market, those particular guys don't care what the law is.

And if we're talking Chicago specifically, that's not an AR-10/AR-15 thing, that's a concealable pistol thing. No significant number of states are going to start banning pistols, you'd have a literal mass public uprising. Even even as a non-gun guy here, they'd be right in their backlash to it.

Uh, yes, stricter gun laws across the country well help limit access to weapons. As I stated before "the guns are already here so may as well do nothing about it" is the equivalent of saying cars play a part in killing people say may as well not doing anything to make sure cars are safe.

Personally I can’t stand when people suggest banning handguns, revolvers, or bolt action rifles, but I have absolutely no problem with restrictions on people owning semi automatic rifles.

As a Texan I would hope you understand that "semi-automatic" is a buzz word. Every pistol and most rifles besides bolt action (technically) are semi-automatic.

I am a gun owner and ex-military and I am all for stricter gun control, in-depth background checks with restrictions on mental health, and I believe every gun owner should have mandatory training in all aspects of responsible gun ownership.

 

[Aximili86]

Is a regular standard/civilian-issue AR-10/15 round a "cop-killer" (going through vests) round though, Texas? I don't even know, but I'm assuming they're not. From what I understand all armor-piercing rounds are currently banned, basically in every state.

The range of an AR-10 is higher, agreed. And they're easier/more accurate for a total novice with zero experience. But a modern handgun, with some hours at a range, a basic understanding of how to work them, is pretty accurate too. And the firing rate's basically the same. Both semi-auto.

Your point about recoil is valid, though with the caveat for total novices. You do a couple dozen hours at a civilian shooting range with an instructor, and you're proficient enough to counteract that. So I kind of fail to see how knee-jerk banning AR-10s/15s is going to fix this - the loons will just play it cool & calm & Joe Citizen, get some easy training at a range, and be as dangerous with a Glock as they would have been with the AR-10. It's an obstacle, sure, but not much of one, basically a minor inconvenience.

So, what, it'll cost them a couple hundred extra bucks and a few weeks of range training to be a proficient killer. Hardly some insurmountable obstacle.

And yeah, most of these school shootings aren't 100+ yards dealios, they're close-quarters mowdowns.

DJ, hell, personally I'd be willing to support the tougher gun laws more generally across the midwest. It can't hurt. I'm just also extremely skeptical it's going to do anything, too. If you're already in a street gang and engaging in activity where you feel you need to own a handgun for protection, you're not going to give two ****s where you procure that handgun from, whether it's above-board or not. So you just do a deal interstate, gang-to-gang, and get it off the books with the serial number filed off. No harm no foul, from the criminal's perspective, you're intending to commit crimes with it anyway.