Near Future & Gun Control
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=190849
Printed Date: 03 November 2025 at 9:12am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Near Future & Gun Control
Posted By: SSOK
Subject: Near Future & Gun Control
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 2:31pm
|
With the mess of the recent shootings, massive heartbreak, media field day, and extreme anti-gunners already drafting bills (With that I mean those like Feinstein, people who have been trying for years anyway, not the casual brady bunch member) I am curious to see what many of you think might happen. I feel that any amount of these could be possible, but their likeliness I am unsure of. What I am talking about is: -Rehash of 1994 AWB. I'm not drinking NRA kool aid on this one, but it is no secret that there are people in Washington who want this. Question is, how many and what backing do they have. -Tax hike on firearms and ammunition. -Increase in red tape to buy a firearm. Truth be told, this might not be bad. In NJ you need an Firearms ID to buy longarms and then you are good to go and now that I have it I really don't mind it. The downside is that the Government and LEO's abuse the system and always screw with people trying to get IDs. -Some BS involving handgun ownership. Unlikely and I don't think it is going to happen. -Modernizing the Mental Health system in the country and actually getting people help, along with reporting everything to NICS. Turns out the kid in CT was a major whackjob in Highschool yet nothing ever happened. From what I read, plenty of red flags turned up in this kids past. Somehow, I don't think this is going to happen, yet I think it is necessary. I've said before that people who shoot up malls and schools are going to kill people regardless of firearm ownership. McVeigh killed close to 5x the amount of people with an improvised explosive, and people like him will continue without society weeding them out. I don't want to sound like I drink the NRA kool aid, but I am kind of concerned that those people who have been attempting to ban 'assault weapons' since 2004 will use this as an opportunity to get what they want while not fixing the problem. Maybe if a ban attempt gains momentum I'll buy a crate of AR lowers and sell them for 3x the price if a ban takes place. I am curious to see what you guys feel about this. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 3:20pm
|
One of the problems is the political agenda on guns in general. Blaming the 'toll' not the tool user is a political band-aid on a serious bleeder. Many a society have military style assault weapons 'bans' and draconian enforcement, yet every time a 'revolution' hits, somehow everyone and thier second cousin has an AK. How can you control something that already permiates our society, how many 'assault' rifles are out there and what will be the definition, politcal or reality. A ruger 10/22 can be considered a 'assault' weapon, and semi-auto can be defined as an 'assault' weapon. Why do we not ban autos that go over 65, auto accidents claim far more lives per year than firearms, or alcohol, that contributes to the highway death toll. Knee Jerk idiocy only creates a greater problem, The 2nd Amendment has been a target for a long time, incrimental attacks to see what sticks, once the government figures out how to circumvent part, they will go after the whole, and then what amendment is next, the 1st since 'Free Speech' contributes to violence and political discourse. Once that door is opened, we will never get it closed again because we will never again have the means to shut it. Target the mental health issue, and the 'gangs', not the legal gun owner, but who is easier and weaker in the arguement, some farmer in Nebraska with a 10/22 for 'pest' control, a gangbanger in LA, or a mentally ill individual protected by laws that place his/her right above the 'rights' of the society who can not be allowed to know of his/her illness. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 3:38pm
|
Mr. anti-gun Bloomberg is probably walking around with a half-stock at the idea of more fodder for his campaign to eliminate firearms from the state of NY. ------------- ? |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 4:28pm
| Pretty sure the shooter violated countless gun laws that are already on the books. You can not legislate morality. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 5:32pm
You and I and anyone else familiar with this side of the argument understand this. But from the other side of the fence, if guns of certain types or capabilities are harder to obtain, even by lawful citizens, then they'll be harder to steal or obtain by people willing to use them against humanity. Its a flawed and fairly simplistic logic, but its one that's going to gain traction in the next few months. ------------- ? |
impulse418 wrote:Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 5:34pm
|
Pretty sure CT has their own AWB. Didn't stop this kid from using one. What more can they regulate, to prevent this. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 8:13pm
|
Safe storage laws, expanded background checks, and restrictions on the scarily mentally ill from owning firearms would be a decent start, as well as rebuilding our mental health care system. As politics is, I don't see anything new happening in health care, or a compromise on gun control. Congress is stupid enough to put something out there that would be politically impossible now, and possibly try putting a ton of funding behind it from a lobbying and PR standpoint and doing nothing for a long time. I can't see Feinstien putting forth anything less than a tighter version of the 1994 ban, focusing on the weapons and trying to give the whole country laws like CA or NYC, and not on any type of systemic change. We'll see if anybody wants to play ball on things that aren't likely to dramatically upset gun owners. They'd be better of modifying existing laws to be more effective, but they will try to put together some sort of massive bill and give it a fancy name, and both sides will scream until they're blue in the face. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 8:31pm
|
Why can't humanity accept things like this as random acts of violence and prepare for them? Oh, that's right. Politicians are predatory vultures that use the deaths of innocents to further their agendas, and the American people are dumb enough to buy it. Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty. I've ceased to even care about post tragedy discussions because they bring out the idiots and then America forgets them as soon as a Kardashian farts. ------------- 
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 8:51pm
|
^^^ You ready to sell me that Winchester yet? :D ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell" 
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 9:07pm
Haha well, he mentioned that he might sell it the other day. I'll talk to him, but I'll warn you he thinks it's gold. Also, no selling on forum so PM me or I'm on the FB page. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 9:21pm
|
I definitely foresee safe storage laws much like we already have here in MD. The reality is that it's just something to hit the owner with if someone steals their firearms and commits a crime with them. It's all going to be "feel good" legislation with little substance like the "no gun zones" for schools and federal buildings. I also foresee a limit to hi-cap mags. Of course, anything out there right now will be grandfathered in, and god knows there are plenty of guns and mags floating around out there right this very minute. Not a whole lot of this bothers me too very much so long as it stays in the arbitrary end of things as the politicians are too stupid to see various FFLs as being different and having an 01 right next door to me and my own 03 will let me keep conducting my collecting business as usual. They're going to have a very difficult time defining assault weapons and covering everything they want to cover with it. Just like last time, the importers and manufacturers will find ways around it. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 9:43pm
|
.....if they pass a new AWB, it will be stronger than the 1994 one, i'd assume more like the CA version where you'd need to have fixed mags or some sort of "bullet button". No doubt some other stupid things will get thrown out there that do nothing and are a PITA to normal gun owners (which I would argue include AR owners, considering their current popularity. I suppose a hi-cap magazine ban with no grandfathering and a buy-back program are possible. Reclassifying ARs and the like as a Class II weapon and requiring registration is also totally possible. I was thinking that the debate this time would be more reasonable, since people tend to know more about guns these days, but the more i watch the less optimistic I am. From the online posts I've seen on news sites, the left might think I can run train on this issue since the last election has indicated a demographic shift (I.E. white men are the largest supporters of firearms, and a majority of them isn't required to get anything done) their issues can be safely ignored. This is where I can see the President and his party really stepping on their crank with cleats and over reaching. A serious safe-storage law if people actually took it seriously and followed it, would save lives. Even after such a thing passed, it would take a while for people to actually take it seriously. My guess is that instead of trying to strike a bargain, the democrats are going no-huddle and will throw deep. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 10:02pm
|
I'm all for a good set of safe storage laws to be honest. I like the idea of being able to own and use what I choose, but I'd damn well better be preventing theft and accident by securing what I do own from others. If more people were concerned with what would happen if their crap got into the wrong hands, you're right, more serious measures would be taken to keep them under lock and key, and illegal acquisitions of firearms (through theft anyway) would take a hit. Does that mean everyone will behave themselves? No, but how can it hurt to make sure nobody's leaving their guns around for the taking? ------------- ? |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 10:02pm
|
Good luck with the whole, no grandfathering. Edit: Someone steals my car, and kills someone with it. How in the hell am I responsible? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 10:11pm
From what I heard today, Feinstein is looking for a no grandfather clause in her AWB update. You're really going to argue the merits of having safe storage procedures? It may not be your fault that someone stole it, but if you can prevent it from happening by using a safe or something like that.....why wouldn't you? In fact, for many of us, a safe storage law would mean nothing, since we're already doing it. But it a law goes up that forces even a handful of people to reevaluate their storage procedures, that could save someone's life. ------------- ? |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 10:37pm
So, I forget to put a firearm in my safe. A thief breaks into my house, steals it, uses it. And now I'm charged for not properly locking it up? No, I'm not okay with that. If you are worried about a child picking up a firearm and shooting themselves, we already have laws for that. It's called negligence. No different than leaving your child in the car, or letting them drink beer. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 10:41pm
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 10:44pm
|
You're willing to pop someone for negligence if a child gets their hands on a gun by accident, but it isn't negligence if you 'forget' to put away a gun and it gets stolen? In either case, you ARE being negligent. You're failing to secure your property from either accidental or malicious procurement by someone who shouldn't have it. ------------- ? |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 10:48pm
|
The child isn't committing a crime to obtain the firearm..... Know what Arizona scores on Bradys state list? Zero. Kind of disappointed we didn't score negative. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 10:53pm
|
If I had teenagers, I wouldn't leave my keys in the car, or laying around. My key to the safe stays in my pocket or on my nightstand. If I use a firearm, it's under my direct control, in my line of sight, on my hip, or locked up. If you want to come at this from the aspect of a "well regulated militia", if there was anything drilled into my head in South Carolina, it was how important your rifle was, and how accountable you were for it. They were either locked or under guard at all times they were not in your hand, and only one other person was allowed to know the combination to your lock. Nobody would be crying for "common sense" gun control if there weren't such a derth of common sense. A gunrack in the back window of your truck needs to become obsolete. Growing up (before safe storage) I spent a lot of time in the presence of unsecured firearms, and I honestly had no interest in ever touching one. The justification for this was that I was always told to treat a gun like a rattlesnake, rattlesnakes can bite even when dead, guns are always loaded. I also didn't watch much TV or have video games, and there wasn't such a push for normalization of firearms. Hell, prior to the ban, very few people had "assault rifles", as soon as the ban expired and there were threats of another, demand skyrocketed. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 11:07pm
|
I agree with impulse. Holding people responsible for someone stealing their gun is completely different than holdinb them responsible for keeping them away from kids in my opinion. Let's use the same logic different scenario-you leave your meds laying on the counter and your kid swallows them. Same thing as if some teenager breaks in to your house and sells them to his buds? The law protects us from stolen weapons by making it illegal to steal them and then to carry them stolen. It's not always effective but neither are DWI laws, drug laws, etc. How about not being able to own a gun if a mentally disabled person is under your care? -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 11:19pm
|
I wonder if the U.S. will adopt similar gun laws to Canada. Up here you have to have a license and training to own regular long guns that include shotguns and hunting rifles and other bolt-action rifles. That includes a background check with the RCMP, as they are the ones granting the license. After that, you can apply for further restricted weapons training for handguns and assault rifles which you can only get if you can prove you are a member of a gun club, are a knowledgeable collector, or if it is for your job. You also have to apply for a permit to transport your restricted firearms. Also, the maximum amount of cartridges that rifles can hold in the magazine is 5. It's 10 for handguns, and 3 for shotguns. Depending on the rifle, you can have more like if it's a M1 or a Lee-Enfield or Mauser ect. Oh, and most .50 cal weapons and anything that isn't semi-auto is prohibited, meaning you cannot own one. Come to think of it, I doubt the U.S. would ever be that strict. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 11:21pm
|
I'm saying hold them responsible for not taking precautions. If someone really wants to, they can get into a safe. Why make it easy? Unlike a car, if someone steals your gun, they aren't going to sell it for parts. If you want to say it's absurd for you to have to make it more difficult for someone intent on committing a crime from acquiring the means since it's already illegal to kill someone, why not sell untraceable poisons, or dynamite, or flamethrowers without restrictions. If laws against murder, or basic morals are sufficient, why bother at all? Why make it difficult for Iran to get nukes if nuking a country is already a war-crime? |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 11:26pm
|
It shouldn't be difficult for Iran to obtain nukes. They should be able to defend themselves from a US occupation. Rofl-Mao: The only thing I envy about Canada, when it comes to guns. You guys have lots of SVT-40's for cheap. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:03am
|
If you want to keep playing with the nuke argument (which I'm not sure is a bad analogy)what about restrictions nations place on them? We have safeguards in place as to who can authorize a launch, monitor technology transfers and materials, with the goal of keeping those weapons away from those who would use them in cases other than self-defense in cases of immediate existential threats. NPT nations have their rights to peaceful power production upheld in exchange for oversight and swearing off weapons production. Canada's laws seem slightly less scary to me now if you can still have a Garand with an 8 rnd clip. I really don't have a problem with training, licensing, safe-storage, background checks, or registration, providing there isn't arbitrary denial of a license. The main opposition to any of these measures, as far as i can tell, is that they would make a potential future ban more easy to implement. Honestly, I'd bet the major reason people buy hi-capacity weapons, and that so many new gun sales and first-time gun buyers purchase handguns and hi-cap rifles is the threat of a ban. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:16am
|
And, who has the authority to tell a nation, who and who cannot obtain
nuclear weapons? The US? That's ironic. NATO and the UN do not like
countries obtaining them, because it makes it a hell of a lot harder for
them to manipulate foreign policy.
What is a hi-capacity weapon? |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:22am
| Let's use the 1994 ban as an example if you want to get into it, but call it detachable magazines of over 10 rounds for pistols and rifles. Do you honestly think that nuclear materials or technology shouldn't be controlled or have any type of oversight? |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:33am
|
There was an explosion of "assault weapon" sales before the ban went into effect. People will always want something that is unique, taboo etc. We need to remove the mystique of these firearms. And of course people will buy them when they think there is a ban. Along with all the other "evil" accessories that get lumped in. (Did you know a PS-90 with 16 inch barrel, and 10 round magazine, didn't fall into the AWB ban) They are designed to shoot a lead projectile accurately, the most comfortably, and most effective. I'm sorry firearm technology is always progressing. Lever guns and 6 shooters are for people who grew up on them, or historians. Who should govern it, and why are they right candidate? |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:49am
|
I'm well aware of the 1994 ban and its provisions, and a PS-90 doesn't have a pistol grip, flash-suppressor or vertical forward grip, bayo-lug etc. I think banning semi-autos that can take detachable mags is going to be a messy debate (especially since Feinstein is calling fora posession ban) but I can understand that there's probably no justifable cause to have a 75 or 100 round drum magazine besides screwing around, even for legitimate self-defense. Registration, background checks for private sales, and safe storage, even safe storage with inspection, would make a difference since they would help keep guns away from people who can't legally own them. It wouldn't be restricting what guns can be owned, whether they could be kept, or carried. If there's anything the NRA should cave on, those areas are it. Those along with better information-sharing with the NICS could do a lot. EDIT: and just maybe, limiting ownership for hi-cap firearms to those over 21. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:55am
|
Didn't the Aurora shooter run a drum magazine? Which jammed, which they are notorious for. People who buy drums, have more money than brains. If he would of brought a vest full of P-Mags, who knows how many people he would of harmed. You know what. How about this. We propose a bill that outlaws cash. Everything purchased must be done by credit/debit cards. If anything is bartered, life in prison. That way nothing get's by the NSA. Edit: Limit sales of "hi-caps" to those over 21? Worked well with alcohol. I rather see the driving age be raised to 18. To when you know, they are an adult. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:10am
|
3 gun matches. 60 and 100 round mags that work give you an advantage over guys using 30's. Just because YOU don't see a need for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'll put it clearly and type slowly because you all seem to be hard of learning. IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO MURDER PEOPLE. What part of the tool isn't the issue do people not get? I'm going to start sounding like FE here but people only think guns are a problem and laws about them are the solution because of the popular media. Sometimes people who are messed up do messed up things. Look at that guy in China who attacked a bunch of kids with a knife. It isn't the weapon, it is the person using it. I've grown too with safe storage laws. I. find it hard to believe people don't lock their guns up. From many perspectives. I don't wasn't unauthorised people getting to my guns. They were an investment, they can be used in crimes. and it happens to be the law here. I agree letting unauthorised people get it should be an offence. I don't think you should be responsible for the use thirty get put to afterwards. That is as silly as sue img the manufacturer. You can't control what others do. But you should not make it easy.for them. Forgetting to put a gun away? Are you sure you're a responsible gun owner? What next? forgetting it in a public place? ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:23am
|
Impulse, where do you draw the arbitrary age line with alcohol or guns then? Restricting access or requiring supervision for certain age groups seems fine to me, just like age of voting rights. The voting age was 21 until the the Vietnam war. Age restrictions in that range don't seem at all draconian or unprecedented. It's a lot easier to brew beer than to build a firearm from scratch, and nobody sells a 30-pack of Glocks. A beer to ammo comparison would make more sense. EDIT: magazine restrictions, while I'm not a fan, would somewhat limit public danger. You can get a machine gun in most states, but you could probably count on one hand how many have been used in crimes in the last 50 years. If to fire 100 rounds you needed to own 10 magazines and change them 10 times, it would take a lot longer than firing and changing 3.3 or fewer mags. Especially in a rifle in a defensive situation, I can't imagine that being too much of a handicap, even if I had 3 armed people breaking into my home. Certainly 30 would be enough per magazine. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:23am
|
3 gun lol. Responsible gun owner? Pretty sure as long as I don't shoot someone who is not threatening my life, or have a negligent discharge. I have responsibly handled a firearm. Now if someone wants to commit a crime of stealing my property, and using it in a illegal manner. I cannot see why I am responsible. Back to the cashless society. That would solve a lot of our problems. Illegal drugs, prostitution, political bribes... Imagine it. I'm starting a petition. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:25am
18 across the board. Once you are an adult, enjoy the privilege of adult responsibilities. That's why I think the driving age should be 18 also. And we need to quit charging minors as adults. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:33am
|
I'd say 21 across the board, the only reason we allow 18 year olds to vote is because they're capable of being in the military, and should be able to vote for who sends them to war, and military service has a pile of other restrictions. From a cognitive development perspective, you could say 21 for women and 23+ for men, and for weeding out psychos, why not 30 across the board? |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:44am
| If you want to make it 21 across the board, then the legal age of adult status needs to be 21. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:14am
|
I'm not sure a graduated system is a bad idea at all. I needed to wait to be 18 to buy any gun here, but at age 15 I could be in possession of a non-high cap long gun for hunting, provided I got my first firearms license, which required a class and parental signature. Age 12-15 I needed to hunt with an adult. I have had my fingerprints on file with the FBI for the last 11 years because of this rule, and I am fine with this. My state has different classes for and restrictions on firearms use and ownership. Class C allows non high capacity long-guns, uually for hunting and target shooting, class B allows non high capacity long guns or pistols, class A allows high capacity, and can have restrictions from "hunting and target shooting" to carrying large sums of cash, to "unrestricted/ all lawful purposes" dependent on what your local law enforcement agency will issue. I'm not a fan of the way this "may issue" system works since licenses can be restricted for any or no reason according to the police chief (no guns for minorities, people with ear gauges, people without prior licensing, whatever) but different classes for different firearms types make sense to me. Not every person of any mental ability, training level or criminal background should be granted the same access to all types of firearms. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:18am
|
On the one hand: Tools explicitly designed for murder. On the other: But it's real fun shoot things go pew. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:28am
|
While I'm at it, I might as well throw out "Stand your ground" laws, and other self-defense laws that allow you to shoot someone fleeing from you, anybody if they're on your property, or don't require you to retreat if reasonable. These are fairly new, and IMO, stupid. Let's use the car analogy for Stand your ground type laws and say I'm driving on the highway, and somebody is driving like an ass, possibly drunk, texting, or experiencing road-rage. Can I attempt a pit-maneuver to get them off the road? Must I first call the police, give a warning via horn or flashing my high beams? They're clearly a threat to public safety if they drive poorly. What if they drive and leaning back in their seat and almost touch the white solid(and happen to be black)? Can I then start honking at them, flashing my lights, demand they pull over and then aggressively ram them if they honk back? |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:30am
|
Sorry Rednekk. I would never accept having to acquire than many permission slips. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html Why do we let teens, who aren't legally liable for their actions, have drivers licenses. Something that isn't even protected under the Constitution. Could money be motivating this decision? |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:39am
Would like to mention, many of these gun laws we are discussing, are state laws. Which to me, are fine. Don't like the laws, move to a different state. Now when we start talking federal laws, whole different ball game. Good analogy. Obviously a viable threat would have to be established. If I see a possible threat, and can avoid it at any cost, I do. Should I be required to? No. If I believe the driver is a threat to me, and the only option I have is to pit them before they cause me harm. I should be able to defend myself at all costs. Just as I avoid bad neighborhoods when it's dark. I try to avoid driving when the drunks are out. Just like if I think there is a potential threat on the horizon, I will call the cops. If those first 2 fail, then I should be able to defend myself at all cost. Edit: According to AZ law. Let's say I do pit the suspected drunk persons vehicle. And they do turn out to be intoxicated. Know who is automatically to blame for the wreck, the drunk driver. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:39am
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:43am
|
Clearly. Teens are provably irrational, and we don't have the kind of public transportation Europe ha, so it's expensive. 16 year olds don't earn much money with gun use, but why not let them be allowed to start their own demolition businesses, but not worry about getting licenses or training, and just let 16 year olds buy dynamite an as much as they want without question? EDIT: Kind of like you pit move response, will keep that in mind in the future. |
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 9:55am
|
Kinda related: I've always wanted a Colt 1911. Just their basic model would suffice. There are doubtlessly new firearm laws coming soon, and that makes me wonder if I should buy now. Kinda like investing. Prices will be high now, and availability will be low. But who knows what will happen in the future? What have you folks seen? Would y'all recommend grabbing one now if I have the chance, or wait until the paranoia dies down, if it even will? ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 11:55am
|
Get it now...^^^^
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:37pm
|
Detrev, you could buy a new Colt for around $1000,which isn't too bad of a price. Do it. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:01pm
|
I don't foresee 1911's going up in price or getting banned like I see double-stack firearms doing. You're going to see introduction of legislation banning high capacity magazines for pistols (over 10 rounds) and single stack 1911's don't fall into that category. Mind you, all of that "hi-cap" banning thought is pointless. The 5 seconds it takes and average novice to drop and insert a mag into a repeater isn't going to give you an opening to restrain a shooter. Let alone someone who has practiced. What's more, even banning detachable mags aren't going to stop fast reloading. Revolvers with speed loaders are just as quick as handguns with mags. Case in point, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting" rel="nofollow - Rio de Janeiro School Shooting in Brazil. Perp used a .32 and a .38 revolver with speed loaders and a revolver bandolier (think Pancho Villa). He killed 12 and injured another 12. With my near 100-year-old bolt-action Steyr M95, I was reloading in under 3 seconds with the enbloc clip system. I can also easily get off a shot a second or better if I'm not taking the time to aim (which most mass shooting perpetrators don't do anyway). Let's not forget the venerable M1 Garand which is capable of rapid fire and doesn't require the motion of pulling a bolt. It's all "feel good" legislation. Always has been, always will be. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 2:22am
|
From the gist of it, the Internet is freaking out. CTD stopped selling, ARs are now impossible to get, etc. General contentious is that an AWB is looming and the end is neigh. Surprisingly it seems like the general public doesn't hate guns though. I saw a poll on a liberal local PRNJ news website that indicated 70% of people didn't want new gun laws... Something interesting considering the demographics. -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 2:52am
This is a kneejerk response, people dislike the blanket idea, but support specific legislation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 9:19am
Ehhhh, I'm one to distrust Mother Jones data gathering. Their graph showing the rates of "Mass Shootings" doesn't define what they consider a mass shooting. For instance, the media has been using that term for the Oregon incident where two were killed and 6 wounded. Yet there are often more deaths and injuries outside nightclubs in SE DC but they aren't reported as "Mass Shootings." Are they just going by media say-so? Have they any particular defining standard? We don't know because they haven't released how they gathered their data and what constitutes their plots on their graph. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 10:17am
|
My question in all this is how does the 'public' figure that banning by law a 'tool' of violence you will change the behavior of those intent on violence. You take one tool those intent on violence will just use another, the behavior is not changed. We 'ban' by law many 'drugs' and has that changed the behavior of the drug abuser, and the criminal actions said abuser uses to aquire those drugs. We have a society that actually thinks a 'sign' stating "Gun Free Zone" will change the behavior of an individual intent on violent behavior with a gun. where does an individual intent on a violent act with a gun feel safer to commit this act? A movie theater in a signed "Gun Free Zone" or a movie theater next to a unsigned but known 'cop' bar. How does that 'sign' change the behavior of the criminal or mentally ill, it only reinforces the 'legal' behavior of those who already obey the law and "Gun Free Zone" sign. Blunt force trauma, and sharp instument deaths also are the result of abusing a 'tool' by an individual displaying 'bad' behavior, what blunt objects and sharp 'tools' can we/do we ban to change that behavior. Total idiocy, until we change the behavior, banning the tools solves nothing as the individual intent on violent behavior will just change tools. And how are we as a society and culture going to remove 300m guns from the public, without a total change in the culture against those who are more than willing to create more victims (government)rather than actually targeting those who will still continue thier criminal behavior after all the guns from the legal American gun owner (you know the far easier target in this equation) are confiscated and banned. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 10:45am
|
Facial recognition in schools, that alert school security of a prohibited possessor or known felon near or on school premises. We move to a cashless society. That way all of our purchases can be monitored by the government. We finally need the government to have control over the internet. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 3:44pm
| I think OS should be more 'worried' about the 'banning' of 'superfluous scare-quotes.' |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 10:10pm
|
Here's a point I made elsewhere on the interwebs that I think is worth repeating: Rate of gun ownership in the US: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx 47% of households keep a firearm. Read further to find that it's more specifically 1 in 3 people that own guns. That's about 100 million people, based on the survey. The number is likely higher since criminals would not admit they own firearms. Gun crimes per year in the US: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm Levels out to be about 400,000 instances per year If each crime (not necessarily resulting in a firing of the weapon) were committed by a different person each time, it's less than half of one percent of owners. 99.5% of gun owners do not commit these crimes. It doesn't specify if all the crimes are aggressive or accidental, for example, the accidental exposure of a legally concealed weapon was once a crime in Florida. Gun homicides in one year: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm Less than 10,000. That's .01% of gun owners. If severe restrictions on guns are in order 1/3 of the US population will be punished for the actions of an incredible minority. Regarding uses in self defense: Pro-gun sites put it at 2.5 million instances per year and the anti-gun sites put it at 80,000 per year. This includes both. I see a bias towards restricting guns in this one. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf Even considering the low estimate, there are likely thousands of truly life threatening instances among all those crimes prevented by at least the exposure of a firearm. Focus on the gun instead of the potential criminal will do nothing but mess with the investments of millions of people who do not deserve punishment. Yes, we have had a relatively high amount of shootings in recent times. Those deaths, as tragic as they are, are a handful compared to all the causes of preventable death in this nation. Whenever we try to enact legislation to prevent those deaths, the populace throws temper tantrums about how their rights to smoke and eat are being ruined. In any case, for any intent, people always find a way. To solve a problem with people, you have to focus on their behavior. Put a grenade in the hands of a random person and tell him what it does and how to use it, chances are greater he would end up killing himself over an act of stupidity than he would throw it into a busy store. Put the grenade in the hand of a Class 3 FFL and chances are that even if he were to chose to detonate it, he would pull all the stops to make sure nobody would get hurt in the process. We can prevent stupid people from getting guns. We can keep criminals from getting guns through all but illegitimate means, I'm all for both. But changing what's available to the responsible person only serves to upset a multi billion dollar industry without fixing the crime and stupidity problem. ------------- 
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 12:45am
|
The thing is, gun control isn't guided by logic it's a pre-existing agenda. Every diasaster they'll push it, only this time the severity of the attack has the gun lobby guilt tripped. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 1:21am
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:18am
|
My favorite question to ask no-guns folks is "Okay, you don't want me to have a rifle that fires multiple intermediate cartridges without re-loading, but a rifle that fires multiple 'full-strength' rounds without reloading is fine?" Seriously. Hide behind a security door or in a closet with .223 and you just might be okay. Hide behind said door when I'm firing surplus x54r, and you aren't going to be okay no matter what..... ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 9:36am
They would say neither, harrumph at you, and walk away. -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 3:27pm
| Forget half-measures, I don't think civilians should be able to own guns. There's no reason to own a murder tool other than hunting or target shooting, and those are just hobbies. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 3:55pm
| The people have initial responded to the shooting in Connecticut by rushing out and buying firearms just in case are not people I really want to be friends with, or really associate with. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 4:06pm
More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than are killed by firearms homicides. I don't think civilians should be allowed to drink. There's no reason to own a controlled substance other than to get drunk, and that's bad for you anyway. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 4:10pm
| Nothing brings about a flood of poorly constructed analogies like a gun control debate. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 4:13pm
|
Self-defense comes to mind, and before you claim that that would be unnecessary if people didn't have guns, simple body size differences, improvised or other weapons, or multiple attackers make that argument moot. BTW several state constitutions declare hunting and fishing a right and mandate land preservation to protect said right. It's about the closest thing I've seen to saying the government has a responsibility to provide people with access to food in a constitution. The assault weapon ban seems knee-jerk, and hysterical (not the funny way). Simultaneously too much and not enough, considering the proposed ban is more strict than the current federal controls on machine guns. Hypothetically a paranoid schizophrenic, off his meds, who had been institutionallized for a few weeks, has served probation for threats of violence against random strangers he accused of people pod-people alien invaders, who is on a terror watch list, is allowed to legally purchase an AR, and wouldn't show up on the NICS. Ban assault weapons, and he can still buy the next best thing. A new AWB might even be necessary, but it's pretty immoral and stupid to ignore that nuts would still be able to buy guns, and to defend against the 1-in-100 million mass-murders when we're running 10k homicides a year and are horribly inadequate at making sure even predictable criminals don't get guns. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#politics It's a lengthy read, but it has a lot of good info. Apparently it's even pretty easy to get a gun and have a background check using a fake ID. Of course, when I buy a gun I have to submit biometric data or use a PIN, and think I can randomly be required to do that for ammunition sales. It really might be time for a national license. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 4:18pm
This, and storage laws, are the only two things that will actually make any kind of impact and carry any kind of common sense when dealing with new gun laws. AWBs are silly. All-out bans are an NRA fantasy. There is already background checks and waiting periods. CCW has no real impact on crime up or down. A registry/license makes the most sense for preventing actually statistically significant gun crime -- acts committed with illegally obtained handguns.
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 4:26pm
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 4:27pm
| We need national ID cards, for everyone. GPS technology is cheap enough and small enough. Caught without it, should result in a stiff penalty. All felons should be chipped. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 4:47pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 5:01pm
|
My problem with gun control arguments from the left is that they tend to view the 2nd amendment as expendable because it doesn't fit their worldview. I think that, guns themselves aside, this is a dangerous way to view the Constitution. I think my other issue is that both sides argue this issue wrong. It doesn't matter WHY civilians NEED guns....it's a constitutional right. When you find yourself trying to justify your rights you've already put yourself on the defensive. I think that gun owners are frustrated because we're having our rights dictated to us by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Phrases like "Americans don't need weapons that fire 30 rounds at once" bring to mind the old standby criticism of old white Republican men telling women how to use their bodies. I don't want some politician who hears "AR-15" and thinks "minigun" writing my gun regulations. It's maddening. -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 5:04pm
|
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 5:24pm
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 5:27pm
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 5:36pm
|
Not sure why the government should get to have an itemized list of everything I buy because of a mentally ill sociopath shot up a school. That nutcase in China did how much damage to children with a knife? Should we make people register with the federal government before buying steak knives too?
Why? It's pretty much agreed upon that there is about to be a poorly thought out, unfairly restrictive knee-jerk response implemented. Why shouldn't law abiding citizens make their purchases before the government punishes them for something they didn't do? ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 5:53pm
Also, the deaths by firearms needs to be adjusted. How many of those killed are criminals themselves? DC and Chicago more than do their part at skewing the stats thanks to their ridiculous homicide rates due to gangs... especially considering their gun laws are so strict. If we required people to obtain a license or permit to practice religion, or to write a news article or a blog, people would be up in arms. Why is gun ownership any different? That's why I'm against a national registry. (And before someone says 'because guns are dangerous'... think about the sheer amount of conflict started by religion or someone saying something that another didn't like.) ------------- 
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:13pm
|
None of the kids in China were killed (this time) and center fire rifle rounds are exceptionally freaking lethal. If a psycho uses a knife instead of a gun, he's going to be a less effective killing machine. These people are clearly killing machines, the guy apparently was insensitive to emotional or even physical pain. I've run into a few people who are incapable of feeling physical pain, and that seriously changes a big part of the equation as far as restraining them goes. This kid could have had his arm shattered and could still have been focused enough to try to stab someone with the shards. He was some sort of abhorrent mutant, and while results of this investigation are a long ways out, from the reports he was left alone for days with unsecured firearms, several of which were illegal for him to possess (handguns, possibly the rifle, not sure on how CTs AR laws work), and probably had an inclination that his mother was trying to have him removed from the house. It would be interesting to know what his altercation at the school was about the day before, but it sounds like most of the people who would know are dead. This guy, like almost all of the others, used firearms that they should not have been allowed to access. This guy was too young to have a handgun and possibly the rifle, the guy in Oregon "stole" his rifle from a friend (probably a straw buy, no background check) the VA Tech guy was crazy, and the CO guy was crazy and threatening, and these guys didn't end up in the system. The theater shooter's threats against a counselor are probably not even going to be admissible in court due to HIPPA. There are no effective ways to get these people listed as prohibited possessors, when they do pop up on the radar it often isn't reported to NICS, and the only way to get them help against their will is wait until they can be jailed for something. Gun ownership is still a right protected by the constitution. What about the first amendment? Mentally ill people hear the history channel ranting about the Mayan apocalypse and kill themselves. I'm not sure our rights should be dictated by the most evil and insane members of society, but I am willing to make sure they have limited access to items that pose potential public danger. |
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:15pm
Tallen, I love you. You know I do. I also love guns. I've got several. If I hear another comparison to driving, I will pull my hair, and the hair of anyone within arm's reach, right out. No matter how much thought I put into it, I cannot make the comparison... ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:22pm
|
Phone won't let me edit : that applies to drinking too. ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:23pm
|
Drunk driving is a crime. Drunk driving kills innocent people. Cars are also used in the commission of crimes nonalcohol related, but that doesn't matter because the antis have cars. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:31pm
Why? Both are groups completely ignorant of the subject of their lawmaking. If you're going to regulate something you should at least have knowledge of it. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:33pm
|
I can't believe people who are bent on mass murder, go to the extremes to get guns. When there are plenty easy to get, lethal alternatives. So little Johnny Ihatemylife walks into Wal-Mart, Toys R Us etc. Buys one of these.  Goes to a gas station. Fills this sucker up with some gas. And walks into a school, sprays every kid in the class room, then sparks it. He obtained two things that have zero age restriction. Zero back round checks. And if the victims DO survive, they will be in way worse shape, than someone who got shot. It's just like the security at airports. Do you really think terrorists would use planes again, or pick an easier means, that is being over looked. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:40pm
This is the exact point I was trying to make. Freedom of speech is an absolutely dangerous right. How many revolutions and deaths are started by a single person's persuasion? The point is you control guns in the sane way you do speech-with limits. But one needs to at least have a working knowledge of something to regulate it. The AWB will ignore the guns predominately used for murder in our country-cheap handguns. Want to cut crime without touching the Constitution? Tax the crap out of guns. -------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:47pm
How does taxing guns fix it? Gang members selling stolen guns on the street, or guns smuggled in from Mexico aren't paying for tax stamps. You ony punish those acquiring guns legally. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:57pm
|
I really don't think we want to take the UK route and also have strict knife laws, cops without guns, no pint glasses in bars, cameras everywhere and soccer. They still have horrific mass shootings where the shooter uses a double-barreled shotgun and a .22 to shoot 20-something people. But obviously, when available, these guys choose these weapons (VA tech aside) a bit more often than others. Saying "let's take criminal shootings out of the statistics" is IMO, almost the opposite of what we should do. I'd like to reduce gun deaths, and make criminals less deadly, even if they're mostly shooting each other. 20 or more people get shot every day, and that's a lot more statistically relevant than the couple of mass killings that happen. Go figure that the majority of these guns come from friends or family, or are stolen. Safe storage and expanded background checks would go a long way to reducing this stream of firearms to criminals. |
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 11:23pm
So people who bought Hostess Twinkies when word of their demise spread are crazy for trying to get one more box before they are gone? I don't see how buying an AR, AR lower, or 30 round magazine at this time is so detestable that you don't want to associate with someone that has. It is common knowledge that the government is going to make some sort of feel good law after this shooting, and there is a good chance it will resemble the Brady bill. If that happens prices will skyrocket and who knows what will happen to availability. Why not make hay when the sun shines? ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 11:35pm
|
I was unaware that 20 schoolchildren were cut down in their classrooms when Hostess shut down. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 11:36pm
Where are those stolen guns starting off?
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 11:41pm
It strikes me as, I'm not sure of the right word, but insensitive maybe? I've been trying to find the words to describe my thought on the whole thing, but I've not come up with the right ones, perhaps. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 11:59pm
| Whale: What is your view on the Patriot Act? |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 1:17am
Debatable. How many diabetics have had their start or end from Twinkies? How many over weight people have had Twinkies as a contributing factor? There are plenty more legitimate users of "assault rifles" than there are crazies shooting up schools. The rights of the law abiding are being decided by the acts of the lawbreakers. That makes perfect sense. KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 1:21am
I'm not arguing against that.
That's every law ever.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:29am
For starters, I'm going to have to Google crime statistics on stolen guns, because while I don't doubt that you're correct I hear the "most crimes are committed with stolen guns" argument thrown around alot and I'm curious as to whether that's correct. But, let's assume you are because I'm sure you're at the very least no far off and let's talk Hi Points. There are, in my opinion, three types of people that buy Hi Points: 1:) Someone who knows next to nothing about guns 2:) Someone who can't afford anything better 3:) Someone who needs a gun right now So waiting periods take care of number 3 sort of (I've never been subject to one so I'm not sure how that system works.) But then you've got 1 and 2. 1 is dangerous in their own right because a person who doesn't know much about guns is more likely to leave it laying around where it can be taken. 2 is very likely to live in a poverty stricken neighborhood where crime is high anyway so the chances of it being stolen and used to bust a cap off in a 7/11 owner are almost astronomically higher than elsewhere. Whale is correct in the assertion that I'm trying to make here-the guns being stolen are being stolen from somewhere. Look, here's my thing. Please, gun nuts (I'm looking at you guys Tallen and Kay  ) I'm not starting an argument on the merit of Hi Points. I'm using them as a hypothetical saturday night specal in the classic vein of .32's that were bought strictly for close range murder. A gun that you pay alot for is a gun that you're going to value far more than some crap you bought for a hundred bucks at a pawn shop.I'm not the only person to bring this up-John McCain was trying to get something similar passed making the sale of saturday night specials (cheap handguns) either illegal are heavily taxed. IIRC it was like under 500 bucks there's a heavy tax penalty. I'm also not suggesting that my ideas are going to fix anything or that they're an end all to the problem. Personally, I like the idea of just enforcing the laws on the books. But if something has to be done, the AWB amounts to little more than an ineffective, easy target for gun control advocates and is, in my opinion, just a politician's way of saying "Look at me, I did something about the gun problem in America!" I could be wrong, but it's how I see it. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:33am
You know, I'm glad you're around here now. Not because I think you're correct, but because people will hopefully stop thinking that the views I carry are anything that could actually be considered liberal.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:38am
I don't guess I understand you on this one, Whale. Don't get me wrong-I don't buy in to mass purchasing hysteria of any kind. If I wasn't in the market for an AR before this I obviously didn't have a need for it now. But I don't see where sensitivity comes in to play. We all feel heartbroken that these children were killed, but I don't see why buying a gun makes you heartless to that detail. Life goes on post-tragedy and if you're a gun collector then this might be your last chance to own an important part of hobby gun history. AR-15's are to gun culture what 68 Camaros are to car people-it's the gun young nuts dream about and grown men put ungodly amounts of money in to. The twinkie analogy is, from a supply and demand perspective, spot on. Obviously there are the douchebags on Facebook (mine included) that immediately start some "from my cold dead hands" rant about how guns would have saved all the children but as far as the national political scene I saw alot of respect and silence from groups such as the NRA. Not so much from ignorant news anchors trying to be the first to call the gun control debate, but that's the nature of the beast. -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:40am
Really. What, pray tell, are they using them for? |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:43am
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:44am
I think your concepts are in the right direction. I've got ideas that I'm too tired to spell out, but I'll work on posting tomorrow. The goal of any gun law we see move forward -- and I do believe we need to see some changes, not because of the shooting sprees, but because of our staggeringly high murder rate -- needs to be to keep guns from getting to criminals. That means, for one, better written and more-enforced storage laws so that burglaries don't end in firearms becoming illegal. That means increasing official unwanted firearm disposal programs. It means, in my opinion, banning keeping handguns in unattended vehicles. For two, I think it involves licensing and approval for sales and trades of handguns, with stricter penalty for possessing an unlicensed handgun. Putting manageable barriers in the way of handgun ownership won't stop someone who wishes to purchase a firearm for defense, just like CCW licensing has not stopped people from signing up for them. What it would do is decrease the volume of handguns that end up becoming criminal weapons through underhanded sale and theft by simply decreasing the actual volume. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:46am
| Perhaps the real problem that needs to be addressed w/r/t the murder rate is social inequity and a culture of violence led by a worship of the military. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:50am
It's ok, I don't understand me really either.
It was a particular thing I'm basing this off of. Two days after the shooting, the local news here showed lines at various gun shops where people were lining up out the door to buy various assault rifle related things. Hardly even 48 hours had passed since 20 children were gun down in their elementary school, and the first instinct is to stock up just incase something gets banned? Just doesn't sit very well with me. If the same story was tonight, it probably wouldn't have sat so uncomfortably, but this was two days after.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:50am
Social inequity is probably the most pronounced factor in crime rates, at least according to sociology. Worship of the military is a side effect of neoconservatism and I have no idea how that fits in to mass murders. -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:52am
e: In addition to a fetishization of said violence and lionization of the perpetrators of violence. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 2:52am
I see what you're saying as far as image, though I'm not sure self centered knee jerk reactions are terribly against the grain in human culture. -------------
|