***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[ATC1]

The problem GM, is that our law makers who will try, or have banned assault rifles before have no idea either. It's not that something doesn't need to change, it's that you need to know what you are changing for there to be a difference.

Okay, I can certainly get behind that line of logic. I will hope that the lawmakers who are charged with the task of enacting new laws will do their duty to the entire country by arming themselves with as much information as possible before casting a vote. That is absolutely fair. And were I a lawmaker and not just some moronic message board loud mouth, that is a promise I would make my constituents, no matter how emotional this matter is to me.

Otis? :Hold hands: Can we put our differences behind us and see the root of the problem?

 

[ATC1]

Talked to a buddy of mine. The number of teachers that have bought guns and taking self defense classes have increased rapidly since last Friday. His opinion is that the number of teachers that will be carrying illegally will be multiplied as a result. This really shouldn't be the case. Either way.

 

[tommyboy]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

Tommy, you lost a mortgage payment betting against Nate Silver.

And your point is?

 

[Rich Conway]

I just don't think a full understanding of all the different laws in place (both federal and state) is required to be against the sale of certain (if not all) firearms in this country. To me, it sounds like the pro-gun side wants to use the various laws and the vast array of different firearm categories as a shield to their argument that nothing significant should be done in the wake of the tragic events in this country. I mean...look a few posts up. I'm being challenged to describe what an assault rifle is. Well hell, I can't do that and the guy asking me KNOWS I can't do that because I couldn't explain the difference between a 9 millimeter, a glock, a .38 or a shot gun. What I do know is that it has become far too easy for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons that kill a lot of people in a short amount of time and whatever type of weaponry that is and whatever laws are currently in place, I'm against because this crap should not happen in America (or anywhere). Does is it really matter if I know more about the different gun designs or different state laws to be outspoken about my feelings? Would it change if I read up on some material and then made some posts? I'll do it if you have some links for me to read. I have been known to change my mind.

You're being challenged to define "assault rifle" because you want to ban "assault rifles".If I propose a ban on "Category A gambling" or "Category B foods and drinks", you cool with that? Of course you wouldn't be, unless I first told you what would be covered under the terms "Category A" and "Category B". For all you know, I might decide that Category A gambling includes fantasy football. It's not unreasonable at all for you to ask for a definition before agreeing to the ban.

 

[Rich Conway]

I bolded what I believe the benefit would be. Law enforcement almost unanimously asserts that this information would help them fight illegal gun trafficking, and thus reduce gun violence. Furthermore, we all agree that we don't want convicted felons or mentally ill people to obtain guns. Having to submit all sales or transfers to an authority should dampen their ability to do so. Obviously it won't eliminate it. But I believe it will have an impact.

While I don't generally believe in bureacracy, this is an important one to have. Firearms are lethal weapons and can cause a lot of damage. It's a responsibility for a private citizen to own one. I see no reason why our government shouldn't have a record of who owns what.

I'm probably in agreement with you regarding this proposal, but the bolded is a really bad argument for it.Law enforcement also tends to be against citizens being allowed to video record the actions of law enforcement officers, but you'd be highly opposed to that, wouldn't you?

 

[Glass Joe]

Talked to a buddy of mine. The number of teachers that have bought guns and taking self defense classes have increased rapidly since last Friday. His opinion is that the number of teachers that will be carrying illegally will be multiplied as a result. This really shouldn't be the case. Either way.

If my student's teacher was carrying in the classroom, I'd be friggin livid. If my state and school district allowed teachers to carry I'd pull my kids out of school.You people with your obsession with carrying guns live in some kind of world that has nothing in common with real life as I know it.

 

[Slingblade]

In other news...AR Mags, Glock Mags, etc...are sold out all over the web.

Hundreds of thousands of mags have been sold, crazy.

I went ahead and grabbed 880rds of 54r since it is the cheapest I've seen it in a while.

 

[Slingblade]

Talked to a buddy of mine. The number of teachers that have bought guns and taking self defense classes have increased rapidly since last Friday. His opinion is that the number of teachers that will be carrying illegally will be multiplied as a result. This really shouldn't be the case. Either way.

I don't see this happening. Isn't the penalty for carrying a gun on school property pretty damn punitive?

 

[tommyboy]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

And here we have a guy who is absolutely unabashed about his love of the 2nd amendment condemning those who are exercising their 1st. Bravo, Tommy.

Not condemn, just frustrating. 2nd amendment is pretty important piece of text and one of the main reasons you enjoy substantial amounts of freedom and liberty, whether you like guns or not. You might not like the military either but you cant deny it has served an important role in preserving America for a long time. Like i said originally, im not real big on taking away constitutional rights as a knee jerk reaction to tragedy. I dont mind discussing adjustments in policy, but this thread is full of people talking about confiscating weapons, banning a huge class of sporting rifles, shotguns and pistols, saying things like the nra has blood on its hands. It gets old

 

[Neovivo]

In other news...AR Mags, Glock Mags, etc...are sold out all over the web.Hundreds of thousands of mags have been sold, crazy.I went ahead and grabbed 880rds of 54r since it is the cheapest I've seen it in a while.

SO basically just as I stated earlier in this thread. This will go exactly the wrong way in people "freaking out" thinking the government is going to take away guns, clips, and ammo. So people are buying up accessories like hot cakes. USA! USA! USA!

 

[Apple Jack]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

And here we have a guy who is absolutely unabashed about his love of the 2nd amendment condemning those who are exercising their 1st. Bravo, Tommy.

Not condemn, just frustrating. 2nd amendment is pretty important piece of text and one of the main reasons you enjoy substantial amounts of freedom and liberty, whether you like guns or not. You might not like the military either but you cant deny it has served an important role in preserving America for a long time. Like i said originally, im not real big on taking away constitutional rights as a knee jerk reaction to tragedy. I dont mind discussing adjustments in policy, but this thread is full of people talking about confiscating weapons, banning a huge class of sporting rifles, shotguns and pistols, saying things like the nra has blood on its hands. It gets old

How so?

 

[tommyboy]

in this the elections thread, people that know knew virtually nothing about guns polls and election modeling other than they are terrified of them, discussed the merits probable outcomes of guns and gun control the election while betting against the conclusions of people who spend all their time studying it.

Tommy, you lost a mortgage payment betting against Nate Silver.

And your point is?

Didn't think I had to go that obvious here

Go ahead, lets hear it

 

[Mad Cow]

In other news...AR Mags, Glock Mags, etc...are sold out all over the web.Hundreds of thousands of mags have been sold, crazy.I went ahead and grabbed 880rds of 54r since it is the cheapest I've seen it in a while.

No kidding. There was a deal where you could get 10 PMAGs for $100 shipped a week before this happened. Now, nothing. I ordered about 6 extra PMAGs about 4 months ago to go with my 10 I have, but still,

 

[Otis]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY 6 YEAR OLD LEARNING CURSIVE WITH A DEADLY WEAPON NEXT TO HER EAR.Forget common sense, do you people have children? We're the ones who aren't living in reality?

 

[Glass Joe]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

And here we have a guy who is absolutely unabashed about his love of the 2nd amendment condemning those who are exercising their 1st. Bravo, Tommy.

Not condemn, just frustrating. 2nd amendment is pretty important piece of text and one of the main reasons you enjoy substantial amounts of freedom and liberty, whether you like guns or not. You might not like the military either but you cant deny it has served an important role in preserving America for a long time. Like i said originally, im not real big on taking away constitutional rights as a knee jerk reaction to tragedy. I dont mind discussing adjustments in policy, but this thread is full of people talking about confiscating weapons, banning a huge class of sporting rifles, shotguns and pistols, saying things like the nra has blood on its hands. It gets old

Its promotion of guns as a culture has contributed to the proliferation of guns in society. Which has made guns readily available both legally and illegally. The NRA DOES have blood on its hands.

 

[Otis]

I think that, for the moment, we've exhausted the subject

Finally something we can agree on.

 

[Borat]

In other news...AR Mags, Glock Mags, etc...are sold out all over the web.Hundreds of thousands of mags have been sold, crazy.I went ahead and grabbed 880rds of 54r since it is the cheapest I've seen it in a while.

SO basically just as I stated earlier in this thread. This will go exactly the wrong way in people "freaking out" thinking the government is going to take away guns, clips, and ammo. So people are buying up accessories like hot cakes. USA! USA! USA!

Three friends of mine are in the process of buying assault rifles because they each want to get one before they're banned.

 

[Borat]

The NRA DOES have blood on its hands.

The melodramatic hysterics do not help your cause.

 

[Otis]

The problem GM, is that our law makers who will try, or have banned assault rifles before have no idea either. It's not that something doesn't need to change, it's that you need to know what you are changing for there to be a difference.

Okay, I can certainly get behind that line of logic. I will hope that the lawmakers who are charged with the task of enacting new laws will do their duty to the entire country by arming themselves with as much information as possible before casting a vote. That is absolutely fair. And were I a lawmaker and not just some moronic message board loud mouth, that is a promise I would make my constituents, no matter how emotional this matter is to me.

Otis? :Hold hands: Can we put our differences behind us and see the root of the problem?

I'm fine with this. But I hope not to see another snide repeat in this thread of the question "what do you mean by assault rifle."Let's get educated, but let's not split hairs purely so Johnny Rascal can do POW-POW-POW-POW-POW really fast instead of just POW... POW.... POW.By the way, I posed the question earlier about what makes a 5 shot or 10 shot semi auto weapon better in a practical sense. I still haven't got an answer. (I'm aware that it's better in "better for swiftly killing multiple people," but I mean beyond that).Single action only. No handguns.Gun deaths drop.America: gets a little better.

 

[Glass Joe]

In other news...AR Mags, Glock Mags, etc...are sold out all over the web.Hundreds of thousands of mags have been sold, crazy.I went ahead and grabbed 880rds of 54r since it is the cheapest I've seen it in a while.

SO basically just as I stated earlier in this thread. This will go exactly the wrong way in people "freaking out" thinking the government is going to take away guns, clips, and ammo. So people are buying up accessories like hot cakes. USA! USA! USA!

Three friends of mine are in the process of buying assault rifles because they each want to get one before they're banned.

For a gun ban to be effective it will require surrendering by legal owners.Unrealistic, probably. That's why you gun nuts couldn't care less about anything that's implemented. It will be toothless.

 

[Otis]

How can you idiots even debate the merits of a Parcheesi ban when you don't know a THING about safe spaces and double moves.

 

[Otis]

In other news...AR Mags, Glock Mags, etc...are sold out all over the web.

Hundreds of thousands of mags have been sold, crazy.

I went ahead and grabbed 880rds of 54r since it is the cheapest I've seen it in a while.

SO basically just as I stated earlier in this thread. This will go exactly the wrong way in people "freaking out" thinking the government is going to take away guns, clips, and ammo. So people are buying up accessories like hot cakes. USA! USA! USA!

Three friends of mine are in the process of buying assault rifles because they each want to get one before they're banned.

YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO JOE!

 

[Glass Joe]

The NRA DOES have blood on its hands.

The melodramatic hysterics do not help your cause.

It's an expression you dope. All I'm saying is they're to blame in part.

 

[Borat]

In other news...AR Mags, Glock Mags, etc...are sold out all over the web.Hundreds of thousands of mags have been sold, crazy.I went ahead and grabbed 880rds of 54r since it is the cheapest I've seen it in a while.

SO basically just as I stated earlier in this thread. This will go exactly the wrong way in people "freaking out" thinking the government is going to take away guns, clips, and ammo. So people are buying up accessories like hot cakes. USA! USA! USA!

Three friends of mine are in the process of buying assault rifles because they each want to get one before they're banned.

For a gun ban to be effective it will require surrendering by legal owners.Unrealistic, probably. That's why you gun nuts couldn't care less about anything that's implemented. It will be toothless.

If we "gun nuts couldn't care less about anything that's implemented," I can't help but wonder why we donate so much money to the NRA each year in an effort to fight overly restrictive gun laws from being implemented. Anyway, your point remains. I know many gun owners, and I can't see very many of them voluntarily surrendering their firearms.

 

[Borat]

The NRA DOES have blood on its hands.

The melodramatic hysterics do not help your cause.

It's an expression you dope. All I'm saying is they're to blame in part.

It's fascinating to me that you feel that there is more blame pie to be had after Adam Lanza has had his share. But I understand that some people need someone [alive] to be angry with.

 

[Glass Joe]

In other news...AR Mags, Glock Mags, etc...are sold out all over the web.Hundreds of thousands of mags have been sold, crazy.I went ahead and grabbed 880rds of 54r since it is the cheapest I've seen it in a while.

SO basically just as I stated earlier in this thread. This will go exactly the wrong way in people "freaking out" thinking the government is going to take away guns, clips, and ammo. So people are buying up accessories like hot cakes. USA! USA! USA!

Three friends of mine are in the process of buying assault rifles because they each want to get one before they're banned.

For a gun ban to be effective it will require surrendering by legal owners.Unrealistic, probably. That's why you gun nuts couldn't care less about anything that's implemented. It will be toothless.

If we "gun nuts couldn't care less about anything that's implemented," I can't help but wonder why we donate so much money to the NRA each year in an effort to fight overly restrictive gun laws from being implemented. Anyway, your point remains. I know many gun owners, and I can't see very many of them voluntarily surrendering their firearms.

Any assault weapons ban will be so narrowly scoped that it will be pointless, meaningless effort. So yeah, it won't matter to you.If there was a required surrendering of guns, it'd have to probably include large fines and jail time for noncompliance.

 

[Glass Joe]

The NRA DOES have blood on its hands.

The melodramatic hysterics do not help your cause.

It's an expression you dope. All I'm saying is they're to blame in part.

It's fascinating to me that you feel that there is more blame pie to be had after Adam Lanza has had his share. But I understand that some people need someone [alive] to be angry with.

Of course there's more blame than on just the shooter. It's why people are looking to revamp gun regulations

 

[Borat]

Any assault weapons ban will be so narrowly scoped that it will be pointless, meaningless effort. So yeah, it won't matter to you.If there was a required surrendering of guns, it'd have to probably include large fines and jail time for noncompliance.

I'm guessing that any point that I might try to make here has already been hashed over in this thread, so let me take this in a slightly different direction.If a requirement was passed to force people to surrender their guns, how would it work? Would town police go door-to-door to collect them? If not, who would be tasked with this? Who would pay for all the overtime? Would gun owners be compensated for the their financial losses (some of the guns cost several thousands of dollars)? What would we do with all of the guns? How would we handle states like New Hampshire, where you don't even need to register your guns (handguns excluded) in the first place?I know that you probably don't have answers to all of these questions... just food for thought.

 

[Schlzm]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY 6 YEAR OLD LEARNING CURSIVE WITH A DEADLY WEAPON NEXT TO HER EAR.Forget common sense, do you people have children? We're the ones who aren't living in reality?

Any particular reason other than you simply dislike guns?Schlzm

 

[Borat]

The NRA DOES have blood on its hands.

The melodramatic hysterics do not help your cause.

It's an expression you dope. All I'm saying is they're to blame in part.

It's fascinating to me that you feel that there is more blame pie to be had after Adam Lanza has had his share. But I understand that some people need someone [alive] to be angry with.

Of course there's more blame than on just the shooter. It's why people are looking to revamp gun regulations

That's interesting.

 

[Borat]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY 6 YEAR OLD LEARNING CURSIVE WITH A DEADLY WEAPON NEXT TO HER EAR.Forget common sense, do you people have children? We're the ones who aren't living in reality?

Any particular reason other than you simply dislike guns?Schlzm

Guns? I figured he just didn't like cursive.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY 6 YEAR OLD LEARNING CURSIVE WITH A DEADLY WEAPON NEXT TO HER EAR.Forget common sense, do you people have children? We're the ones who aren't living in reality?

Any particular reason other than you simply dislike guns?Schlzm

Guns? I figured he just didn't like cursive.

The big, bold, block letters are a dead give away.

 

[Schlzm]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY 6 YEAR OLD LEARNING CURSIVE WITH A DEADLY WEAPON NEXT TO HER EAR.Forget common sense, do you people have children? We're the ones who aren't living in reality?

Any particular reason other than you simply dislike guns?Schlzm

Guns? I figured he just didn't like cursive.

Well yeah, no one likes cursive. Though I guess I could see how he doesn't want his daughter being force to learn cursive at gun point. Could have articulated that a little better, should be overwhelming support to prevent that from happening.Schlzm

 

[Dvorak]

The problem GM, is that our law makers who will try, or have banned assault rifles before have no idea either. It's not that something doesn't need to change, it's that you need to know what you are changing for there to be a difference.

Okay, I can certainly get behind that line of logic. I will hope that the lawmakers who are charged with the task of enacting new laws will do their duty to the entire country by arming themselves with as much information as possible before casting a vote. That is absolutely fair. And were I a lawmaker and not just some moronic message board loud mouth, that is a promise I would make my constituents, no matter how emotional this matter is to me.

Otis? :Hold hands: Can we put our differences behind us and see the root of the problem?

I'm fine with this. But I hope not to see another snide repeat in this thread of the question "what do you mean by assault rifle."Let's get educated, but let's not split hairs purely so Johnny Rascal can do POW-POW-POW-POW-POW really fast instead of just POW... POW.... POW.

By the way, I posed the question earlier about what makes a 5 shot or 10 shot semi auto weapon better in a practical sense. I still haven't got an answer. (I'm aware that it's better in "better for swiftly killing multiple people," but I mean beyond that).

Single action only.

No handguns.

Gun deaths drop.

America: gets a little better.

I know you don't give a damn about any honest debate here, but for others wanting to learn, "Single Action only" has an entirely different meaning in the world of firearms than your intended usage here. A firearm can be single action only and still be semi-automatic. A 1911 pistol would be a good example.

 

[Rich Conway]

Any assault weapons ban will be so narrowly scoped that it will be pointless, meaningless effort. So yeah, it won't matter to you.If there was a required surrendering of guns, it'd have to probably include large fines and jail time for noncompliance.

I'm guessing that any point that I might try to make here has already been hashed over in this thread, so let me take this in a slightly different direction.If a requirement was passed to force people to surrender their guns, how would it work? Would town police go door-to-door to collect them? If not, who would be tasked with this? Who would pay for all the overtime? Would gun owners be compensated for the their financial losses (some of the guns cost several thousands of dollars)? What would we do with all of the guns? How would we handle states like New Hampshire, where you don't even need to register your guns (handguns excluded) in the first place?I know that you probably don't have answers to all of these questions... just food for thought.

The simplest method of enforcement would probably be to make it such that voluntary surrendering of such guns is "no penalty", while any other discovery by law enforcement of such guns (after a suitable grace period, of course) results in heavy fine and/or jail time. Basically, you have two months to turn these in, and if we catch you with them after, you'll be in for it. No need to go door to door.

 

[Borat]

Any assault weapons ban will be so narrowly scoped that it will be pointless, meaningless effort. So yeah, it won't matter to you.If there was a required surrendering of guns, it'd have to probably include large fines and jail time for noncompliance.

I'm guessing that any point that I might try to make here has already been hashed over in this thread, so let me take this in a slightly different direction.If a requirement was passed to force people to surrender their guns, how would it work? Would town police go door-to-door to collect them? If not, who would be tasked with this? Who would pay for all the overtime? Would gun owners be compensated for the their financial losses (some of the guns cost several thousands of dollars)? What would we do with all of the guns? How would we handle states like New Hampshire, where you don't even need to register your guns (handguns excluded) in the first place?I know that you probably don't have answers to all of these questions... just food for thought.

The simplest method of enforcement would probably be to make it such that voluntary surrendering of such guns is "no penalty", while any other discovery by law enforcement of such guns (after a suitable grace period, of course) results in heavy fine and/or jail time. Basically, you have two months to turn these in, and if we catch you with them after, you'll be in for it. No need to go door to door.

Okay, fair answer. So to "catch" people with them later, how would this happen? If someone's house just happened to be subject to an unrelated search warrant, or something like that?Serious question; I'm trying to understand your take here.

 

[tommyboy]

in this the elections thread, people that know knew virtually nothing about guns polls and election modeling other than they are terrified of them, discussed the merits probable outcomes of guns and gun control the election while betting against the conclusions of people who spend all their time studying it.

Tommy, you lost a mortgage payment betting against Nate Silver.

And your point is?

Didn't think I had to go that obvious here

Go ahead, lets hear it

difference is there's no constitutional amendment regarding the right to bet on elections. And since I lost, i just lost some money, not a constitutional right or a life. The issues regarding guns are a little more significant than elections modeling, opinions, bets and bravado. But otherwise your point was spot on.

 

[Schlzm]

Any assault weapons ban will be so narrowly scoped that it will be pointless, meaningless effort. So yeah, it won't matter to you.If there was a required surrendering of guns, it'd have to probably include large fines and jail time for noncompliance.

I'm guessing that any point that I might try to make here has already been hashed over in this thread, so let me take this in a slightly different direction.If a requirement was passed to force people to surrender their guns, how would it work? Would town police go door-to-door to collect them? If not, who would be tasked with this? Who would pay for all the overtime? Would gun owners be compensated for the their financial losses (some of the guns cost several thousands of dollars)? What would we do with all of the guns? How would we handle states like New Hampshire, where you don't even need to register your guns (handguns excluded) in the first place?I know that you probably don't have answers to all of these questions... just food for thought.

The simplest method of enforcement would probably be to make it such that voluntary surrendering of such guns is "no penalty", while any other discovery by law enforcement of such guns (after a suitable grace period, of course) results in heavy fine and/or jail time. Basically, you have two months to turn these in, and if we catch you with them after, you'll be in for it. No need to go door to door.

Okay, fair answer. So to "catch" people with them later, how would this happen? If someone's house just happened to be subject to an unrelated search warrant, or something like that?Serious question; I'm trying to understand your take here.

To add to the above question. Would it be a "hey there Mr. AR owner, sorry you just lost ~$1200.00, better luck next time." or do you agree that there might be some sort of compensation for a turn in other than "good job you don't go to jail now."?Schlzm

 

[Rich Conway]

Any assault weapons ban will be so narrowly scoped that it will be pointless, meaningless effort. So yeah, it won't matter to you.If there was a required surrendering of guns, it'd have to probably include large fines and jail time for noncompliance.

I'm guessing that any point that I might try to make here has already been hashed over in this thread, so let me take this in a slightly different direction.If a requirement was passed to force people to surrender their guns, how would it work? Would town police go door-to-door to collect them? If not, who would be tasked with this? Who would pay for all the overtime? Would gun owners be compensated for the their financial losses (some of the guns cost several thousands of dollars)? What would we do with all of the guns? How would we handle states like New Hampshire, where you don't even need to register your guns (handguns excluded) in the first place?I know that you probably don't have answers to all of these questions... just food for thought.

The simplest method of enforcement would probably be to make it such that voluntary surrendering of such guns is "no penalty", while any other discovery by law enforcement of such guns (after a suitable grace period, of course) results in heavy fine and/or jail time. Basically, you have two months to turn these in, and if we catch you with them after, you'll be in for it. No need to go door to door.

Okay, fair answer. So to "catch" people with them later, how would this happen? If someone's house just happened to be subject to an unrelated search warrant, or something like that?Serious question; I'm trying to understand your take here.

That's pretty much it, I think.For the record, I'm not necessarily advocating any particular ban. I don't know enough about the subject to be able to intelligently pick and choose what things should be banned.Anyway, I'm just trying to think through the best way to achieve a meaningful ban, should that route be chosen. Obviously, any ban that grandfathers existing weapons is useless. But, I don't think anyone wants the government doing a house to house search across the entire country either. Therefore, you have to get the owners of the newly banned weapons to turn them in voluntarily. I would think the most common ways to catch someone would be if someone's house/car/property/whatever was subject to an unrelated search, or if an officer noticed the owner with it at the range or out hunting, etc.

 

[General Malaise]

I just don't think a full understanding of all the different laws in place (both federal and state) is required to be against the sale of certain (if not all) firearms in this country. To me, it sounds like the pro-gun side wants to use the various laws and the vast array of different firearm categories as a shield to their argument that nothing significant should be done in the wake of the tragic events in this country. I mean...look a few posts up. I'm being challenged to describe what an assault rifle is. Well hell, I can't do that and the guy asking me KNOWS I can't do that because I couldn't explain the difference between a 9 millimeter, a glock, a .38 or a shot gun. What I do know is that it has become far too easy for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons that kill a lot of people in a short amount of time and whatever type of weaponry that is and whatever laws are currently in place, I'm against because this crap should not happen in America (or anywhere). Does is it really matter if I know more about the different gun designs or different state laws to be outspoken about my feelings? Would it change if I read up on some material and then made some posts? I'll do it if you have some links for me to read. I have been known to change my mind.

You're being challenged to define "assault rifle" because you want to ban "assault rifles".If I propose a ban on "Category A gambling" or "Category B foods and drinks", you cool with that? Of course you wouldn't be, unless I first told you what would be covered under the terms "Category A" and "Category B". For all you know, I might decide that Category A gambling includes fantasy football. It's not unreasonable at all for you to ask for a definition before agreeing to the ban.

Fellas, I'm being honest here when I say that I had no idea "assault rifles" carried such a wide net in definition. You have to at least appreciate the fact that a man who has never owned a gun, never shot anything more than a .22 and doesn't read literature related to guns isn't going to know that there are so many differences in the amount of firearms for sale in this country. To me, it sounds pretty flippant for people with vast knowledge of guns to challenge those of us with no knowledge at all to define what is and what is not an assault rifle. I think YOU know the difference. I think a few of the people in this thread know the difference. But can you not understand a public outcry for a ban on the type of weapons used in the murder of all those people in CT, CO and OR? Do all of us who want change need to know everything about guns to want new rules and legislation to help prevent these massacres in the future? Kids are dead at the hands of an assault rifle. I can't tell you the type or the maker or the size or the caliber or anything else you might be able to tell me. But should that sort of rifle be available for public consumption? I think not. If you think so, tell me why? Again, I'm ignorant, but willing to learn something.

 

[Rich Conway]

To add to the above question. Would it be a "hey there Mr. AR owner, sorry you just lost ~$1200.00, better luck next time." or do you agree that there might be some sort of compensation for a turn in other than "good job you don't go to jail now."?Schlzm

Well, I don't really expect any ban to include existing weapons, but if such a thing happened, I would hope and expect the owners to be compensated for their loss. We force government to compensate property owners when their land is taken via eminent domain, so the precedent would seem to be there already.

 

[General Malaise]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

And here we have a guy who is absolutely unabashed about his love of the 2nd amendment condemning those who are exercising their 1st. Bravo, Tommy.

Not condemn, just frustrating. 2nd amendment is pretty important piece of text and one of the main reasons you enjoy substantial amounts of freedom and liberty, whether you like guns or not. You might not like the military either but you cant deny it has served an important role in preserving America for a long time. Like i said originally, im not real big on taking away constitutional rights as a knee jerk reaction to tragedy. I dont mind discussing adjustments in policy, but this thread is full of people talking about confiscating weapons, banning a huge class of sporting rifles, shotguns and pistols, saying things like the nra has blood on its hands. It gets old

Fair enough. I'll take that over nothing being done at all.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY 6 YEAR OLD LEARNING CURSIVE WITH A DEADLY WEAPON NEXT TO HER EAR.Forget common sense, do you people have children? We're the ones who aren't living in reality?

Any particular reason other than you simply dislike guns?Schlzm

Kids can theoretically get the gun.The gun can go off accidentally,

Studies have shown that a person carrying a gun is over 4 times as likely to be shot and over 4 times as likely to be killed as a person not carrying a gun - presumably, parents don't want any carryover from that statistic with their children as bystanders.

I think reasons similar to that.

 

[17seconds]

Absolutely people should be compensated for turning in guns that were legal when they were purchased.

There should probably be an extra incentive like free NASCAR tickets or dinner at Cracker Barrel.

 

[Rovers]

Crazy idea.... make clips holding more than 5 shots illegal. Too much gun control for the enthusiasts? Make possession an arrestable offense.

Surely the level headed preppers would be against such a law.... I mean aren't they hoping for armegedon so they can kill people? That is my impression in any case.

I live in metro NY and have never had any need to defend myself with a gun. Now, if I lived in TX, where EVERYONE has a cache of guns... I just might decide I might need one.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Well OF COURSE I am uninformed about this. I don't think I'm the only citizen of this country who is absolutely terrified of guns, nor am I alone in my ignorance regarding who can carry them, how they are carried, where they are allowed, etc. I want to distance myself as far as I possibly can from all firearms and I don't care to know the different state laws regarding them. So when you patronize me for not understanding your jargon associated with permits, are you doing your side of this debate any favors? When I read your statements above, do you know what I take away from it? That your answer to the gun problem is more guns. And I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind that, no matter how uninformed I am on the subject. Thus, when you advocate providing teachers with guns in the classroom, I am naturally curious where that stops because as we've seen over the last year, school rooms are not the only targets of massacres involving guns. Movie theaters, malls and lord knows what else might be looming in our future have also been targets. As uninformed as I am, I'm curious as to where the arming of our citizens stops. Personally speaking, I don't want our teachers armed and I don't want our movie ushers armed and I don't want our mall workers armed. I think that just opens up more problems. Again, I don't think the answer to our gun problem in America is more guns. Speaking frankly as a man who is well uninformed about firearms in America.

A few posts later I admit it was a bit harsh. However, if you are not willing to understand what you are fighting against, how can you form a firm opinion or bash gun owners in this thread for trying to explain it? I have said several times that I favor tighter gun control, but at the same time feel less restriction is needed for those responsible.

I just don't think a full understanding of all the different laws in place (both federal and state) is required to be against the sale of certain (if not all) firearms in this country. To me, it sounds like the pro-gun side wants to use the various laws and the vast array of different firearm categories as a shield to their argument that nothing significant should be done in the wake of the tragic events in this country. I mean...look a few posts up. I'm being challenged to describe what an assault rifle is. Well hell, I can't do that and the guy asking me KNOWS I can't do that because I couldn't explain the difference between a 9 millimeter, a glock, a .38 or a shot gun. What I do know is that it has become far too easy for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons that kill a lot of people in a short amount of time and whatever type of weaponry that is and whatever laws are currently in place, I'm against because this crap should not happen in America (or anywhere). Does is it really matter if I know more about the different gun designs or different state laws to be outspoken about my feelings? Would it change if I read up on some material and then made some posts? I'll do it if you have some links for me to read. I have been known to change my mind.

You don't need to read, just watch and listen - very informative video that will bring you up to speed as to what the "pro-gun" crowd is talking about when we say you cannot easily classify an Assault Rifle.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Jeebus, I read this whole thread. Just shoot me now.

I swore wouldn't engage because of the ignorance and passion on both sides. I can't not anymore though.

No guns that load the next round for you. Single-action rifles only. That settles that; let's eat.

This is an example of the lingo problem. It isn't a big deal, but I have several single action firearms that drain a magazine incredibly fast because they are semi automatics. You gun nerds in this thread NEED to stop insulting people like Jack, GM, or anyone who gets the terminology wrong. Help them out. They have nothing but good intentions. Educating them with respectful corrections will go a long way to a civil, adult, higher quality conversation. Jack, you're desiring single shot rifles, not single action (which happen to be quite rare, btw). Single shot rifles come in three typical actions, break action, lever action and bolt action.This is mine. Feel safer?

You're all half bright guys. You don't have to use gun terms, just say what you think.

Otis, this topic has barely scratched the surface of a reasonable conversation. So, I think it's headed for 100 pages. When complicated issues are brought up by the bear armers, the gun controllers completely ignore them. They are real issues. Ignoring them is ignoring reality. You've done that from the start. Sorry, you are in fantasy land.

It's a good fantasy, Oat. But it's pissin' in the wind.

Oh yeah. Cursive is not being taught in all school these days. My kid had a choice, typing or cursive. I loved that. Who needs cursive? Funny thing is without ever being taught, she has lovely cursive just from reading it over the years. Typed like a 50 yr old executive secretary at age 10.

I have several ideas that in the end my fellow gun nuts will despise, but I think there's long term benefits well worth the sacrifice. They aren't unique to me, not all of them, but I think they lack persuasive explanations so are too easily cast aside. ATC has tried. I think the despised models in New York and California aren't so horrible if we can find a little quid pro quo.

I'm drinking wine and roasting beef, which may be why I foolishly posted herein. The wine. It's good wine. So for now, just accept what's involved in getting any legislation passed. That's a seriously tough putt. But that is your reality, Otis.

Also, I need the FFA to agree to a few things or I'll take my ideas and go home. Can we please stop comparing cars and bathtubs to guns? And booze. Dammit. If you can pass the legislation, you can have my firearms. Well, two are collectible, so I would hide them, but the other 17 are all yours if the law says so. But BassNBrew, you're gonna have to pry my tequila from my cold drunk hands.

I have to gamble at fan duel in the next few minutes so bye.

 

[timschochet]

I think that, for the moment, we've exhausted the subject of limited high capacity magazines. There may be more to say on this subject, but at present I don't know what it would be.

So let's talk about the other gun control issue which I am strongly in favor of: closing the private sales "gun show" loophole. Specifically, what I would like to see is a national data base of all firearms purchased or transfered in this country, including both public and private sales and transfers. This would be paid for by a small fee imposed on all sales and transfers for the purpose. Law enforcement could then read the serial number on any firearm, check the database, and immediately know who the current owner is.

Now the NRA has long been opposed to this. They have given two reasons: first, that it won't work (this seems to be the standard argument against all gun control measures) and second, that it represents a creeping government authority and that such a database COULD be used to eventually seize everyone's guns and impose a dictatorship. However, polls suggest 74% of the membership of the NRA support this idea. And many of the pro-gun posters here are willing to try it.

Thoughts?

What would you be accomplishing other than creating another huge government bureaucracy to manage the database that will maintain the list of 300 million guns?I tend to think of things in a cost/benefit analysis and your idea hear seems to cost a lot with no real benefit that I can see.

Please explain the benefits.

I bolded what I believe the benefit would be. Law enforcement almost unanimously asserts that this information would help them fight illegal gun trafficking, and thus reduce gun violence. Furthermore, we all agree that we don't want convicted felons or mentally ill people to obtain guns. Having to submit all sales or transfers to an authority should dampen their ability to do so. Obviously it won't eliminate it. But I believe it will have an impact. While I don't generally believe in bureacracy, this is an important one to have. Firearms are lethal weapons and can cause a lot of damage. It's a responsibility for a private citizen to own one. I see no reason why our government shouldn't have a record of who owns what.

I'm not saying it won't work because I have no idea if it would. The biggest problems with this are:1. It still will not track illegally traded guns which defeats the purpose of an all encompassing database

2. It places an unnecessary burden on the average gun owner when buying / selling / giving / donating his property. And creates more laws to punish either in jail time or monetarily what would be otherwise law abiding citizens.

3. It creates an enormous government bureaucracy to manage the trade of 300 million items that trade on a fairly regular basis

1. The idea is to isolate the illegally traded guns. That's what the database will accomplish. 2. Not unnecessary at all. As far as punishment goes, the only ones who get punished are the ones who don't do it- they're ones we WANT to punish, to prevent them from doing a crime.

3. In these days of internet technology, the bureaucracy will not nearly be as large as you think.

IMO, you've provided no good reason not to do this. And there are plenty of good reasons to do it.

 

[Glass Joe]

Any assault weapons ban will be so narrowly scoped that it will be pointless, meaningless effort. So yeah, it won't matter to you.If there was a required surrendering of guns, it'd have to probably include large fines and jail time for noncompliance.

I'm guessing that any point that I might try to make here has already been hashed over in this thread, so let me take this in a slightly different direction.If a requirement was passed to force people to surrender their guns, how would it work? Would town police go door-to-door to collect them? If not, who would be tasked with this? Who would pay for all the overtime? Would gun owners be compensated for the their financial losses (some of the guns cost several thousands of dollars)? What would we do with all of the guns? How would we handle states like New Hampshire, where you don't even need to register your guns (handguns excluded) in the first place?I know that you probably don't have answers to all of these questions... just food for thought.

The simplest method of enforcement would probably be to make it such that voluntary surrendering of such guns is "no penalty", while any other discovery by law enforcement of such guns (after a suitable grace period, of course) results in heavy fine and/or jail time. Basically, you have two months to turn these in, and if we catch you with them after, you'll be in for it. No need to go door to door.

Sorry, I'm driving. Anyways, yes this is exactly my thought.

 

[Schlzm]

To add to the above question. Would it be a "hey there Mr. AR owner, sorry you just lost ~$1200.00, better luck next time." or do you agree that there might be some sort of compensation for a turn in other than "good job you don't go to jail now."?Schlzm

Well, I don't really expect any ban to include existing weapons, but if such a thing happened, I would hope and expect the owners to be compensated for their loss. We force government to compensate property owners when their land is taken via eminent domain, so the precedent would seem to be there already.

That is honestly my biggest concern once people start talking about banning things. If an individual isn't compensated for following the law there will be little incentive to follow the law. Schlzm