Gun Control

Sorry...double post.

Seem like a bit paranoid or live in the hood. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Kansas City Kansas....it's not for amatuers!

dude....what the fuck does he have to do with anything?

Dick Cheney was brought up to show our congressional reps are unwilling to support sensible gun legislation. Why would congressman Cheney vote no to that? I don't get yout your reference to no plastic guns used in 911, nor do I understand why you think that legislation was use less. Someone suggested I am making an emotional argument? Did you read the federal judge's articles I cited? Is he being emotional? Or instead is he articulating a progressive view of the need for some gun controls laws? Read and argue with his point of view. Originally Posted by Johnny4455

Cheney was one of four people that voted against a law that did nothing. The law was made because of an irrational fear that came about because the Glock 17 was made in large part from polymer.

So A.) You are bringing up a vote from 24-25 years ago that had no real purpose.
B.) You bring up Cheneys name because of the general negavite association but not the other three that voted no at the same time.
C.) You say you brought him up to point out reps that were unwilling to vote for resonable legislation, but you fail to point out that there were only 4 people that voted against it. It had vast bi-partisan support and NRA support.

I will read the link you posted now. Honestly I blew it off because your hyperbole post and your Cheney post were signs that reading the link was not going to be worth my time.

Johnny, I will say that he made a reasonable arguement. I do think anything based off of the previous assult weapons ban will do little to nothing. Too much of it is based off of things that dont matter such as pistol grips.

Here are the items that I think are valid to debate with my opinions on them.

1.) Large capacity magazines -- Im currently undecided on limits. While I dont see a purpose for a 30 round magazine for a pistol, I have not decided whether I think it is worthwhile to ban it since the number of mass shootings isnt really going up even though it seems like it is. Even with the assualt weapons ban there were about 4 per year in the US before, during and after.
2.) Semiautomatic handguns and rifles. -- I think banning semiautomatic weapons is dumb. I was reading about the FBI's choices of firearms a while back where they found 11% of officers bullets hit the intended target. I think it would basically say citizens who want to defend themselves should be expected to be better shots then professionals is stupid since it might take multiple shots during an incident.
3.) Background checks for private firearm sales. -- I dont know that it is feasible. There is the so-called gun show loophole, but an ATF study found that only 0.8% of guns purchased for crimes came from gun shows. Over 1/3 came from family or friends, just under 1/3 were aquired illegally, and the difference was from not knowing where they came from or refusing to answer. I see this a probably being a cause of trying to legislate a small amount versus taking on the actual issue.
4.) Adding more ability to do mental health checks -- This is the biggest need, but the hardest to do.
5.) Stiffening penalties for violations for current gun laws. -- I would have to look more into the current penalties.
6.) Forcing banned guns and accessories to be turned in to the government. -- If this were to be on the table and looked like it had momentum, this would be about the only thing that would make me donate to the gun lobby cause. I would not send in my magazines or guns unless law enforcement showed up at my door with a warrant.

Things that get mentioned that will not help are
A.) Bans on visual characteristics such as pistol grips on rifles
B.) Bans on jacketed hollow point rounds (the few people that bring this up have zero understand of firearms)
C.) Bans on automatic weapons. Although it is possible to get an automatic weapon there are fees and waiting where not many people get them. I cant say noone has them in the US, but I can say virtually noone has them and it is highly regulated. Plus only 2 murders have occured with legally obtained firearms since 1938.

For starters the genie is out of the bottle -we have alot of guns in this country....making any ban ineffective. Then there is the constitution....and any ambiguity on a bill of rights issue should be resolved by erring on the side of the individual. Want gun control...ammend the constitution. There is a process in place for that.

Biden's group? They will probably come up with ammunition taxes, impossible insurance requirements, magazine limits, federal license requirements, etc. I guarantee there will be no mention of ammending the constitution. Some will cheer this manuever to circumvent the second ammendment....without pondering how outrageous it would be to do the same with the preceding ammendment.

Wow I didn't know I had logged on to ar15.com but here is my 2 cents
Just inforce the gun laws that are on the books we don't need anymore new ones!!

I have a feeling it will have an additional area for mental health. I expect multiple laws this time where they wont have to put all their eggs in one basket. To solve this problem they are going to have to shit over the constitution for some people. Actual logic would dictate that it would try to help the main problem and when you look at the people who are commiting the mass shootings, they have either officially document mental health issues, or obvious signs that are being ignored. And for the rest of murders, a disproportionate amount are happening in very populated areas with large percentages of minorites. So tackle the mental health issues and find a way to actually help minorities in urban areas.

Tackle mental health issues, put armed police officers and even tougher entry into schools, smart gun control laws,... Not one of these is a panacea but all can help

That is the only way to put a big dent into the issue. I worry that the only thing that will happen from the Feds is the gun control route without trying to do anything else. That will be a recipe for failure. Its hard for me to see something they can do that will actually work.

Im undecided on a lot of the gun control issues in general, Im just pissed that I was going to wait until my tax return to get a new pistol and the day after the shooting the prices went up $150 on it when I can find it listed anywhere at all.

Anything can be made a deadly weapon even in the eyes of the law (including a cane from an elderly man recently) so if someone steals a pistol from my house and kills someone with it, how is that different from someone stealing a baseball bat and killing someone with it? Originally Posted by bigryan222

This gets parroted a lot, and it's a galactically stupid argument. If it's no different, buy a bat. We have progressed from prehistoric clubs (your bat) to modern carbines because modern weapons have far more firepower, better range, and (most importantly) require far less skill and training to wield w/ deadly force.

Gun control laws just don't work period. Just look at Mexico and see how well their gun control laws worked for them...

Criminals are always going to find a way to get firearms.

All gun control laws are going to do is impede law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd amendment rights and being able to protect themselves.

Back in 1996, a similar school massacre occurred in Dunblane Scotland. 16 children and one adult.
While England did end up taking the extreme approach of banning all private gun ownership in the UK over this, it has not stopped the violence.
In 2010 they had another 12 person massacre in Cumbria, England.

The problem here in the US has always been either criminal or mentally unstable individuals in possession of firearms with intent to inflict harm.
That problem is the hardest of all to solve as they will find a way to possess the weapons regardless of any ban limiting the types of weapons or possession of them all-together.

Now as far as full auto weapons, suppressors, and other "class 3" classed weapons, they are already under VERY strict and effective control.

This guy was using a standard off the shelf AR-15 with 30 round mags. Not some souped up super weapon with 100 round mags and piston based action.
Would not have mattered if he only had 10 round mags as the outcome would have been the same.
Reloading only takes seconds regardless of the weapon being used. Even less if you just drop the expended mag and have new ones ready to slap in.
He would have been able to pull off the same outcome with the Glock or Sig handguns he had as well because there was nobody there that was equipped to fight back.

Obviously security at schools needs to be drastically improved to change that.
I'd be more than happy to volunteer my time to protect a school anytime.

This gets parroted a lot, and it's a galactically stupid argument. If it's no different, buy a bat. We have progressed from prehistoric clubs (your bat) to modern carbines because modern weapons have far more firepower, better range, and (most importantly) require far less skill and training to wield w/ deadly force. Originally Posted by kuhoplite

My point was more from a liability standpoint not the over they should ban baseball bats too arguement. Comments like yours are also a problem with the debate. You didnt understand my point so you say its a "galactically stupid arguement".

I remember the "plastic gun" bill. The left said that these guns were designed to beat airport metal detectors but that was not true. The barrel, the firing spring, other moving parts, and the firing pin were all metal and they were picked up by a competent technician. That is why people voted against it. If you don't want to buy that then think of what you are proposing; the pro gun people WANTED a gun that could snuck on an airplane. Show me something that suggests that was true.

Another question; what is a high capacity magazine. How many rounds does it hold? What kind of ammunition does it hold? Can it be made in a basement (thus defeating a ban) by merely competent person? I here the term thrown around but I would like to hear your definition.

A competent shooter can change a magazine in about 2 seconds or carry a second firearm.

So far it has been interesting to read the opinions expressed here. I travel a lot, here is what they are saying around the country.

West Texas (hill country) "Let them try"

Alabama " Our National Guard are good ol boys, anyone who tries will be sorry"

Kentucky "Can't discuss it on the phone, they may be listening. We will talk about it the next time you come back"

Our founding fathers gave us a great gift, The Bill of Rights. Our current government is doing its best to remove those rights. Think "Patriot Act".

The efforts underway to strip us of our 2nd amendment rights could well put this country on a path that will rip this country to shreds.

Either "for" or "against" we all need to be concerned. It will affect us all.