Gun Control

[Landlord]

Here's something to ponder - most of us don't really have any desire to see responsible, law-abiding citizens not be able to have guns.

How many gun homicides and suicides are at the hands of people who were responsible, law-abiding citizens? Nobody is immune to depression and mental breaks. If I suddenly and unexpectedly become severely depressive and want to kill myself, or kill the guy sleeping on my wife, and I've got a pistol in my night stand next to my bed, that becomes a pretty easily accomplished temptation.

Is the risk of armed home invasion greater than the risk of a manic depressive episode?

Some other questions I don't have answers to but that half of our country doesn't really seem interested in actually diving into:

There have been 23 shootings at the hands of toddlers so far in 2016. How the hell did those babies get their hands on guns? There's gotta be something we can do about that, right?

Why does the rest of the world find our gun culture so batsh#t crazy? America isn't the only free country on the globe by a long shot, yet the consensus of non-Americans towards all of this stuff is pretty succinctly summed up as, "What the f#*k?"

If people aren't necessarily going to fall over when you shoot them, your accuracy under duress probably won't be that great, how effective is something like this for self defense really? Is the added effectiveness of a gun over a baseball bat over a knife greater than the added risk of you killing yourself or your kid getting their hands on it?

Why is the Constitution revered as this sacred document in the first place? Is there not at least even a decent chance that the founders, 300 years removed from technology and culture advancements, would be like, "This isn't exactly what we envisioned..."

Why are we the only country with this obscene fascination with guns, and also the only country with these kinds of acts of violence on this scale? Surely those can't be connected at all? Really? Why are we 40 times more likely to be shot than people in Canada/UK/Germany?

 

[Redux]

I'd have to agree that not having to reload does sound really useful for purposes of killing someone, or many ones.

Not only that, but I bet it's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot off 30 rounds in a single burst. I'd love to do that. Then I'd reload and do it again. I'd enjoy that immensely.But if me not being able to do that saves even one life, or dissuades even one person from using a gun to carry out a mass shooting, I'm OK with never doing that.

Basically the point I was trying to make before you plugged your ears...
My brother owns a 32 or so round Mag for his Glock. Here was our exchange:

Me: Woah, lots of rounds.

Him: Lol, yeah.

Me: Why?

Him: Cause it's awesome.

Mind you he's a Texan now, not an excuse though. But yeah, my standard 17 round magazine is more than enough.

 

[knapplc]

Basically the point I was trying to make before you plugged your ears...

You and I disagree. Dismissing the points I'm making as "plugging your ears" is not helpful to a rational conversation. Argue the points I'm making. Try not to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

 

[Redux]

Basically the point I was trying to make before you plugged your ears...

You and I disagree. Dismissing the points I'm making as "plugging your ears" is not helpful to a rational conversation. Argue the points I'm making. Try not to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

You haven't dismissed all of mine? You haven't been putting words in my mouth?

You JUST said I'm trying to justify a 30 round clip (or something along those lines) when that is simply not true. I even made a case for why it was silly to need that many. You ignored it, all of it.

 

[HuskerShark]

Does this sound like a guy who's prepared to greatly decrease the scope of the government?

Yes, and I'm not sure how you could interpret it any other way... Bringing power back to the state level and privatizing health care... Are you trying to prove me right?

 

[ZRod]

I get your reasoning. But how do you propose we enforce this?

There is no way to enforce a limit on magazines. Even if there were, people would just buy more handguns so they could own more magazines. Then we would have to limit how many guns a person could own and that dips into the territory of the Government taking guns from people.

Then they would buy them overseas and we would have to do a whole ban on international parcel shipping from wherever etc.

Do the same limitations go for Police or FBI/CIA/DEA/SS? If they do, how would they defend themselves against the criminals wth illegal firearms and magazines/clips?

Your heart is in the right place but you have to think realistically. As Takoda mentioned above, it doesn't take but a couple seconds to remove an empty mag and replace it with a pre loaded mag.

Those seconds could make all the difference.

Take the last line out, what about the rest?

It's not that hard to come up with some kind of a plan that is atleast a foot in the right direction. Just because it won't entirely eliminate something doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue a plan.
Limit magazine size, and you could granfather in existing mags. Maybe have people register them within 3 or 5 years to make them legally grandfathered. I don't know too much about magazine, but as an engineer I would think they have a limited service life; corrosion, wear and tear, springs breaking, whatever. They must be desposed of and cannot be refurbished. You'd don't register or what have you and you pay a fine or do time, having your magzine and maybe weapons confiscated. Enforcement is like any other law. How do we enforce hunting tags? Switch blades? Supressors?...

 

[Redux]

I get your reasoning. But how do you propose we enforce this?

There is no way to enforce a limit on magazines. Even if there were, people would just buy more handguns so they could own more magazines. Then we would have to limit how many guns a person could own and that dips into the territory of the Government taking guns from people.

Then they would buy them overseas and we would have to do a whole ban on international parcel shipping from wherever etc.

Do the same limitations go for Police or FBI/CIA/DEA/SS? If they do, how would they defend themselves against the criminals wth illegal firearms and magazines/clips?

Your heart is in the right place but you have to think realistically. As Takoda mentioned above, it doesn't take but a couple seconds to remove an empty mag and replace it with a pre loaded mag.

Those seconds could make all the difference.

Take the last line out, what about the rest?

It's not that hard to come up with some kind of a plan that is atleast a foot in the right direction. Just because it won't entirely eliminate something doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue a plan.Limit magazine size, and you could granfather in existing mags. Maybe have people register them within 3 or 5 years to make them legally grandfathered. I don't know too much about magazine, but as an engineer I would think they have a limited service life; corrosion, wear and tear, springs breaking, whatever. They must be desposed of and cannot be refurbished. You'd don't register or what have you and you pay a fine or do time, having your magzine and maybe weapons confiscated. Enforcement is like any other law. How do we enforce hunting tags? Switch blades? Supressors?...

Thankyou for looking at it constructively.

In the case of my Glock, the mags are mostly plastic so yeah I'm betting they wear down quickly with frequent useage. If we started imposing a limit on mag and clip capacity, over time it could certainly help.

The prolem with taking mags and limiting them is it would be very hard to police with international shipping being so easy. Say you are allowed 2 per firearm you have registered, get caught with more and you pay a fine etc. I'm cool with that, 100% cool. It would be a pain in the a$$ when I go plinking, but that's a price I'd be willing to pay if it meant a chance at less gun related deaths.

Again, thankyou for being constructive about it.

 

[ZRod]

I get your reasoning. But how do you propose we enforce this?

There is no way to enforce a limit on magazines. Even if there were, people would just buy more handguns so they could own more magazines. Then we would have to limit how many guns a person could own and that dips into the territory of the Government taking guns from people.

Then they would buy them overseas and we would have to do a whole ban on international parcel shipping from wherever etc.

Do the same limitations go for Police or FBI/CIA/DEA/SS? If they do, how would they defend themselves against the criminals wth illegal firearms and magazines/clips?

Your heart is in the right place but you have to think realistically. As Takoda mentioned above, it doesn't take but a couple seconds to remove an empty mag and replace it with a pre loaded mag.

Those seconds could make all the difference.

Take the last line out, what about the rest?

It's not that hard to come up with some kind of a plan that is atleast a foot in the right direction. Just because it won't entirely eliminate something doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue a plan.Limit magazine size, and you could granfather in existing mags. Maybe have people register them within 3 or 5 years to make them legally grandfathered. I don't know too much about magazine, but as an engineer I would think they have a limited service life; corrosion, wear and tear, springs breaking, whatever. They must be desposed of and cannot be refurbished. You'd don't register or what have you and you pay a fine or do time, having your magzine and maybe weapons confiscated. Enforcement is like any other law. How do we enforce hunting tags? Switch blades? Supressors?...

Thankyou for looking at it constructively.In the case of my Glock, the mags are mostly plastic so yeah I'm betting they wear down quickly with frequent useage. If we started imposing a limit on mag and clip capacity, over time it could certainly help.

The prolem with taking mags and limiting them is it would be very hard to police with international shipping being so easy. Say you are allowed 2 per firearm you have registered, get caught with more and you pay a fine etc. I'm cool with that, 100% cool. It would be a pain in the a$$ when I go plinking, but that's a price I'd be willing to pay if it meant a chance at less gun related deaths.

Again, thankyou for being constructive about it.

It's hard to police converting a semi automatic weapon to a full auto. It's hard to police saw off shot guns, but we do. It's just a matter of want to.
You're right though. I'm not sure you can limit magazine quantity. That seems like a whole nother can of worms and not entirely practical.

 

[Redux]

Magazines are pretty low on the totem poll of gun violence issues to me I guess.

My top priority is better federal background checking. Guys that shouldn't be able to get guns, get them. That HAS to change. Next up would be making it harder for John Doe crazy guy, whether that is a psyche evaluation or some other new concept, it needs to be done.

Then there is the street violence and urban warfare that accumulate a lot of gun deaths and make statistics really ugly. Less time and effort busting cokeheads and meth addicts, and more time getting illegally aquired firearms out of criminals hands. Hell, offer them a bag of weed for their AK47u.

 

[Enhance]

We all know that comparing U.S. gun violence rates to other advanced/civilized countries shows gross discrepancies. But, other countries also have stricter gun laws. I've been campaigning for options that exclude gun confiscation, and stumbled upon what the U.K. does.

According to an English rifle and gun club legal center, any person possessing a firearm in the U.K. must posses a Shotgun Certificate or a Firearm Certificate.

Machine guns, pepper spray, semi-automatic, and pump-action rifles, and any firearm that has a barrel less than 30 centimeters in length are prohibited.

The only firearms that can be owned legally are shotguns, black powder weapons, manually-loaded cartridge pistols and manually-loaded center-fire rifles, all termed "Section 1" firearms.

To gain a firearm certificate, applicants must be over age 14, and must demonstrate they have satisfactory security and "good reason" to own a rifle. Applicants must declare all criminal convictions and name two references to support the application.

Applications must be renewed every five years.

The requirements are largely the same for a shotgun certificate, although the applicant doesn't need two references, only one counter-signatory — and there is no minimum age.

Anyone convicted of a criminal offense can't even handle a gun for five years. If the sentence involved more than three years in prison, there is a lifetime ban.

You can read more here. http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

Now, unless I'm mistaken, a gun for personal protection is not substantial enough reason in the UK. This would be an incredibly difficult law to sell to Americans and I admit that. But, some of these other suggestions - like a more stringent application process - seem viable. Further reclassification and bans on certain weapons would be reasonable options to explore, as well. Hell, it takes six months and hundreds of dollars to get a silencer in this country - an accessory.

I've been reading the opinions here on higher magazine clips, and in my opinion, they're unnecessary. So are a variety of other weapons for the purpose of personal protection - again, in my opinion.

Regardless of what steps we would take to address gun violence in the country, the biggest truth can't be ignored - people will still die. People will die in situations that current laws may have prevented. It's a tough pill to swallow but a necessary one.

 

[zoogs]

I just don't see a way out of this short of reducing the circulation of product.

It's either that or massive intrusions on civil liberties. Or accepting this as a "what are you gonna do?" facet of what it means to live in modern, free America.

I'll take democratically negotiated dangerous product restrictions, please.

 

[Landlord]

Now, unless I'm mistaken, a gun for personal protection is not substantial enough reason in the UK. This would be an incredibly difficult law to sell to Americans and I admit that.

Not that it would ever actually work, but it would make sense to me to allow personal protection to qualify as "good reason". If you live in a city or a neighborhood with certain crime rates, if you work a dangerous profession in the sen of it could create enemies, stuff like that could easily allow people to have that work towards a permit, whereas if you live in safe suburbia, or if you have young children that could gain access to your firearm, would make it a lot harder.

 

[Enhance]

Now, unless I'm mistaken, a gun for personal protection is not substantial enough reason in the UK. This would be an incredibly difficult law to sell to Americans and I admit that.

Not that it would ever actually work, but it would make sense to me to allow personal protection to qualify as "good reason". If you live in a city or a neighborhood with certain crime rates, if you work a dangerous profession in the sen of it could create enemies, stuff like that could easily allow people to have that work towards a permit, whereas if you live in safe suburbia, or if you have young children that could gain access to your firearm, would make it a lot harder.

Agreed - we could maintain that personal protection is a valid reason. But, it could be qualified through the background check process and references for your application.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

You're talking about convenience. It's less convenient for you to reload, so you want a bigger clip. That's not a compelling argument.

Yes, cops carry clips with more than 10 rounds. They're cops.

It's 100% a compelling argument. They've done studies of police shootings, and the average accuracy is in the neighborhood of 25%... and that's with 15-20 rounds in a firearm. Not having to reload is literally the point if you're forced to shoot someone. People can take multiple gunshots and not be slowed down. It's why in the training I've done they teach you to not draw unless absolutely necessary, but if you do, keep firing until they are on the ground.

The police carry fully automatic weapons and have badges. They have armored personnel carriers, heavy weapons, body armor, shields, all kinds of stuff.

I'm cool with the police having that stuff. Not civilians.

Why?Because they're vetted better than civilians. Again, not an imperfect system.

So was Omar Mateen. He had a higher class license than I do, along with security clearances and it was his job. Even if they were banned in state for civilians, he still would have had access due to his licenses.

Cops are vetted better than that guy. I don't even know where you're going with this.

Just for clarification, in the 15 years I've been doing this I've never had access to a fully automatic weapon in either of the two agencies I've worked for along with several years on a large SWAT team. All of the weapons I've used are semi-automatic weapons. My standard rifle has been an AR-15 for several years. And MY GOD with the clip word..............they're magazines!

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Now, unless I'm mistaken, a gun for personal protection is not substantial enough reason in the UK. This would be an incredibly difficult law to sell to Americans and I admit that.

Not that it would ever actually work, but it would make sense to me to allow personal protection to qualify as "good reason". If you live in a city or a neighborhood with certain crime rates, if you work a dangerous profession in the sen of it could create enemies, stuff like that could easily allow people to have that work towards a permit, whereas if you live in safe suburbia, or if you have young children that could gain access to your firearm, would make it a lot harder.

I've got two small boys obviously, but they aren't aware that their lives along with the life of my wife have been threatened several times over the years. Obviously being in law enforcement would help me obtain the ability to carry a weapon "off-duty" but I'd be curious what might happen if they passed a check that said, "You've got small kids? Nope..........." Not arguing just more curious than anything on how that would work. I also live in a fairly safe city.