The Guns thread - Part 1

[Zarex]

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

The solution then is to (mostly) forget about the guns and place heavy federal regulations (and taxes) on ammunition manufacturers and dealers. Bullets ain't in the Constitution.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

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.

Haha my friend, you seem to watch too much crime tv. Criminals are criminals but the majority of them are not stupid. Filing off a serial # is an instant felony as soon as one is caught with it in their possession. Most criminals don't keep guns after use in a violent crime because they can then be implicated. If the gun comes back for a crime (which happens all the time) they are usually across state lines and able to provide an actual alibi. Criminals pay a premium for "clean" weapons that are fresh off the gun show circuit or recently stolen from a non-criminal.

 

[BillPardy]

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.

People can cover the actual lowering of crime, but I'm going to cover the "Safety" argument.

If the idea is, you'll be protecting yourself from a home invader, maybe you should look at one of the most basic tactics of home robberies. Now the stereotype is, it's 1am, a guy in a ski mask slides open a window with a flashlight and slips into your room looking for your jewels, or whatever people have they think is worth killing over.

But the reality is, most robberies happen during the day time... while the occupants should typically be at work. Because they're robbers, not killers, they don't want a confrontation, they want your stuff! They're average people, like most of us, and they don't want anyone to get hurt, themselves especially.

BUT! You maybe thinking, "What if they break in and are surprised to find you home rather than at work?! Huh smart guy!? Huh handsome?!" ... sorry getting off track.

Well that's where the robbers greatest weapon comes in... they knock on your door, they ring your doorbell. They get an answer? "Oh... sorry, I must have the wrong address..." Time to walk away.

They don't get an answer? Time to play a game called peekaboo! Check the windows, see if you find anyone, and if you don't, find something unlocked.

Get this, if they find something locked, they'll probably just walk away. People robbing houses aren't lock pick experts, and breaking windows is to noisy.

If you're concerned about serial killers, that's just irrational, statistically. Odds of being killed by a gun assault in the U.S are 1 in 370! Where the odds of being killed by a serial killer are astronomical! Greater then winning the lottery, which puts you somewhere in the 1 in 14 million range.

And if it's personal vendettas people are worried about, I think that requires a lifestyle change, rather than a .38 snub noised in your glove compartment.

Murders most often aren't premeditated. They're quick, spontaneous acts of violence. Most often committed by and to, two people familiar with one another.

Statistically, I'm most likely to kill my spouse, not some random stranger. ME! The greatest thing I can do to protect her, isn't own a gun. It's not be a scum bag.

 

[Aximili86]

Shooting at other gang members is an instant felony, too, DJ. Doesn't stop them from using the weapons, whether they're bought legally or illegally. They're still used for the same thing. "I'm doing drug deals, other groups are competition, I need a gun for protection".

Tougher gun laws in Indiana or Wisconsin or Missouri aren't going to change that equation. I'm not even against trying it, fine, whatever. It's just not going to fix the Chicago problem. They'll get their guns in other ways, given the Chicago problem is with the criminal element, not random law-abiding citizens shooting at one another.

 

[BillPardy]

Shooting at other gang members is an instant felony, too, DJ. Doesn't stop them from using the weapons, whether they're bought legally or illegally. They're still used for the same thing. "I'm doing drug deals, other groups are competition, I need a gun for protection".

Tougher gun laws in Indiana or Wisconsin or Missouri aren't going to change that equation. I'm not even against trying it, fine, whatever. It's just not going to fix the Chicago problem. They'll get their guns in other ways, given the Chicago problem is with the criminal element, not random law-abiding citizens shooting at one another.

That's not the argument. Obviously they'd just smuggle guns from one extra state over... which is why it has to be the whole country. The entire United States.

And yes, SOME career criminals will still get guns. But the black market prices would be exceptionally high, and the danger of smuggling weapons across the border from mexico will be the reason why.

I'm not wrong in assuming each state border isn't protected by a border control am I?

 

[Aximili86]

You're not going to ban handguns of all things across the entire US, though. You seriously think the citizenry is going to stand for that? The most basic, entry-level weapon available, is prohibited to anyone, for any reason?

It's not just going to be the NRA nuts opposing that. It's going to be Joe & Jane Average-Family, democrat or republican alike.

You *might* get AR-10's/15's banned. Might. Very unlikely, most of the population isn't going to side with that, but at least there's an argument to be made for it I guess.

Simple pistols, though (which are the issue in Chicago)? It's never going to happen.

 

[BillPardy]

You don't need an outright ban. For example, in Canada, you can own a handgun.

Step-one

You're required to take a safety course.


Step-two

Take the restricted course. Doing so will allow you to own a hand gun, or for example, AR-15.

Step-Three

Mail an application forum to the RCMP.

Step-Four

Wait for your license to show up in mail, and buy gun.

 

[Aximili86]

Which all doesn't sound that different from how most states in the US operate now. Safety courses not mandated, but then again, a loon isn't going to care about a safety course.

You still have to wait while your application is processed though, you don't walk out with gun-in-hand the same day, you come back once your background check is finalized.

 

[Tao43]

You still have to wait while your application is processed though, you don't walk out with gun-in-hand the same day, you come back once your background check is finalized.

Not in Texas. Last time I bought a handgun (last year), the application took ten minutes to process and I took it home the same day.

 

[squeekness]

Not in Texas. Last time I bought a handgun (last year), the application took ten minutes to process and I took it home the same day.

That seems a little quick. How thorough is a ten minute check?

 

[Tao43]

That seems a little quick. How thorough is a ten minute check?

Might have been quicker for me, since I work for a NASA contractor. The Federal government knows a lot about me already.

 

[squeekness]

Might have been quicker for me, since I work for a NASA contractor. The Federal government knows a lot about me already.

Ah, okay.

 

[Texas Zombie]

That seems a little quick. How thorough is a ten minute check?

They run a criminal background check not unlike what you would get applying for a state or federal job. They try to find out if you have any priors, if you have any misdemeanors in the past then you’re generally looking at a bit longer wait.

 

[Texas Zombie]

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.

Depends, without a metal plate in the vest to stop the bullet then yeah it’ll probably go through a Kevlar vest. Not to mention consecutive shots. You keep saying AR-10 which uses a .308 which is generally a very large round. It’s basiclaly the standard smallest size for hunting larger game.

 

[Aximili86]

Not in Texas. Last time I bought a handgun (last year), the application took ten minutes to process and I took it home the same day.

Sure I'm going to sound like a d*ck here, but I don't buy it. Never lived in Texas personally, just Oklahoma briefly, but never heard of anyone even in that part of the country walking out same-day with a ten minute check. Michael Moore would have people see it that way, but generally it's a higher hurdle.

Texas is an odd one though, clearly the looser end of the spectrum.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Shooting at other gang members is an instant felony, too, DJ. Doesn't stop them from using the weapons, whether they're bought legally or illegally. They're still used for the same thing. "I'm doing drug deals, other groups are competition, I need a gun for protection".

Tougher gun laws in Indiana or Wisconsin or Missouri aren't going to change that equation. I'm not even against trying it, fine, whatever. It's just not going to fix the Chicago problem. They'll get their guns in other ways, given the Chicago problem is with the criminal element, not random law-abiding citizens shooting at one another.

This is a good example of a logical fallacy/red herring. You are trying to equate shooting someone as a "felony" as if it is something that happens with the same frequency of an individual carrying a gun.

Obviously, shooting someone is a serious crime, but people do not walk around shooting people and then standing there after the crime is committed.

Any individual carrying a gun with it's serial number filed off is getting an instant felony the moment they are caught by the police. No questions asked.

Do you honestly not see the difference between these two things?

Which all doesn't sound that different from how most states in the US operate now. Safety courses not mandated, but then again, a loon isn't going to care about a safety course.

You still have to wait while your application is processed though, you don't walk out with gun-in-hand the same day, you come back once your background check is finalized.

Sure I'm going to sound like a d*ck here, but I don't buy it. Never lived in Texas personally, just Oklahoma briefly, but never heard of anyone even in that part of the country walking out same-day with a ten minute check. Michael Moore would have people see it that way, but generally it's a higher hurdle.

Texas is an odd one though, clearly the looser end of the spectrum.

Any gun show you can walk in, submit ID for a check, and walk out same day with multiple weapons and ammunition. I know this for a fact here in FL and GA.

There is also nothing done by the government for people purchasing the weapons and then "gifting" them to individuals that may not pass these checks. If folks were responsible for this type of scenario we would see a drastic reduction in these types of transactions.

 

[Tao43]

Sure I'm going to sound like a d*ck here, but I don't buy it. Never lived in Texas personally, just Oklahoma briefly, but never heard of anyone even in that part of the country walking out same-day with a ten minute check. Michael Moore would have people see it that way, but generally it's a higher hurdle.

Texas is an odd one though, clearly the looser end of the spectrum.

There is no waiting period in Texas. If your background is clean, you walk out same day. It took me longer to fill out the paperwork than it did for the background check to come back. Buy it or not, that is what happened.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

It doesn't take so long because it's right in the name of the background checking program, National Instant Criminal Background System. Some states put waiting periods on finalizing purchases but for the most part, they're just waiting to see if people aren't just making an impulse buy and actually follow through to come back for the weapon. If you're a government employee or contractor, you will likely sail through since you've already been screened prior to your employment.

 

[conan69]

You don't need an outright ban. For example, in Canada, you can own a handgun.

Step-one

You're required to take a safety course.


Step-two

Take the restricted course. Doing so will allow you to own a hand gun, or for example, AR-15.

Step-Three

Mail an application forum to the RCMP.

Step-Four

Wait for your license to show up in mail, and buy gun.

This is already required in many states. Safety courses, personal and employment references, medical background check,etc.
The wait for a pistol permit in N.Y. can be over and year and half.

 

[Tao43]

I have been around firearms my whole life. I was five or six years old the first time I shot a .22 rifle and have shot everything from single shot black powder to semi-automatic versions of AK-47s. The idea of an AR-15 for home defense is still something I cannot wrap my head around. Especially in a sub-urban or urban environment where houses and/or apartments are so close together. That bullet is leaving the barrel at 3,000 feet per second. I have seen videos of that round going through 4 panels of sheetrock spaced ten feet apart. The worst part is that bullet will most likely splinter into separate pieces. I would not want to take the chance of putting a bullet through my neighbors house and hurt or kill them trying to defend myself. Better off with a shotgun loaded with #8 birdshot. I hate the home defense angle which gets incessantly spouted out concerning that weapon.

The AR is a good varmint weapon if you live out in the sticks and don't have to worry about collateral damage. It's not very good for hunting depending on the size of the game you are tracking. Where I grew up, you could not use a 22 caliber (meaning .22 rimfire, .222, or .223 IE 5.56) sized round for deer hunting for many years.

The AR-15 seems to be more of a vanity thing than anything else.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Please, for the love of god, please listen to your population's voice America. Now, if not, WHEN ?

 

[LTuser]

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?

Cause its making a link. IF you are on the one hand, saying kids are more emotionally mature, thus should have the right to vote. THEN YOU SHOULD NOT on the other hand, be saying they are LESS emotionally mature, and thus shouldn't be allowed to own a gun till they are 21..

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.

Which is what i was trying to make as my point.

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.

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.

Great point Ax.. Besides range (which often is not an issue since most o these mass shootings are often in such close quarters), what exactly makes semi-auto pistols OK, but not semi-auto rifles?

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

Especially when that right says "Shall not be infringed" in its wording..

and I believe every gun owner should have mandatory training in all aspects of responsible gun ownership.

And that's something i can fully get behind. Just like we require people to periodically get tested, to ensure they know what they are doing, for drivers licenses (especially commercial), so too, should we test someone who wants a gun. AND most every gun owner i personally know of, has NEVER had an issue with people saying that.
Where they do get antzy, is when people say things like
"you shouldn't be allowed to own more than X number of guns". or
"You should only be allowed to own certain types of guns".

The solution then is to (mostly) forget about the guns and place heavy federal regulations (and taxes) on ammunition manufacturers and dealers. Bullets ain't in the Constitution.

Well, since liberals love using the expression that's being racist, cause you are disenfranchising the poor from voting, when the idea of voter ID laws are put out', how is uberly taxing ammo, NOT also disenfranchising gun owners, by in effect, heavily restricting the right of the poor to own one?

Which all doesn't sound that different from how most states in the US operate now. Safety courses not mandated, but then again, a loon isn't going to care about a safety course.

You still have to wait while your application is processed though, you don't walk out with gun-in-hand the same day, you come back once your background check is finalized.

Not in Texas. Last time I bought a handgun (last year), the application took ten minutes to process and I took it home the same day.

Maybe that's part of the problem. EACH state has their OWN laws, on how easily (or hard) it is to get guns..

Might have been quicker for me, since I work for a NASA contractor. The Federal government knows a lot about me already.

Lucky you! But then that's like me. Former navy, always held at least a secret security clearance, if not a TS..
So i've already been backround checked out the wazoo. Maybe that's why it took less than 2 days from when i submitted my paperwork for my CCW permit to get it.

 

[Jericholyte]

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

That is simply not true. EVERY constitution in the world has in-built mechanisms for changing the constitution.....that's why amendments exist!!! The 2nd Amendment is archaic at best as guns aren't doing **** in the event of a tyrannical government as the power and technological gap between the individual (or militia) and the US GOVERNMENT is too great for guns to overthrow.

Secondly, the idea of forming a militia was formed at a time when even local law enforcement was pretty much non-existent never mind state or federal law enforcement!

There is simply no logical reason other than the political influence of the NRA among others, why this amendment shouldn't be subject to scrutinisation.

 

[Jericholyte]

Where they do get antzy, is when people say things like
"you shouldn't be allowed to own more than X number of guns". or
"You should only be allowed to own certain types of guns".

This is what I don't get. The Las Vegas shooter had something like 40 guns and to quote an article, a "plethora" of ammunition. Why can this be possible, I can't even buy more than two packets of paracetamol at a time when I go shopping.

Now, apart from the argument that, "because it's my constitutional right I don't need a reason..." WHY would anyone need so many guns? Why would anyone NOT have a problem with a personal cap on the number of firearms? Surely one gun in the house for preventing intruders / family protection and something higher powered if you're a hunter.

I'm not trying to poke a bear or anything, but I just genuinely do not understand why people feel the need to stockpile so much.

 

[squeekness]

I think all the shootings pretty much show that we, the American people, are simply not mature enough as a society to properly handle having so many guns around. As a parent, when your kid can handle something, you usually take it away before they for something. Maybe we just need a time out for a while in the form of tight regulations.