The Gun Control Thread

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Brought about by the other thread.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Speaking of disarmament (and I'm not trying to derail the thread towards this direction, though I may make a new one,) the McCarthy bill (which hasn't been voted on yet) would ban virtually all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, or any other weapon "originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

 

That's fucked up.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Not sure what's so bad about that, but I don't know a lot about firearms to begin with. I guess I don't see why you need a semiautomatic weapon for self-defense or hunting purposes.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Need shouldn't even be an issue, but anyway.

 

A semiautomatic just means there's one shot with each pull of the trigger, without reloading. The wording regarding "originally designed for military or law enforcement" is what royally sucks. What about handguns "originally designed for law enforcement"? For all the slippery slope arguments conservatives tend to make, this one is a slippery friggin' cliff.

[EricMM 0]

And need certainly IS an issue. There is no assumption that anyone needs an automatic weapon, for example. Nor would it be reasonable that your average joe on the street would be able to control one if he did use it. I just don't like the people saying, "second amendmant means ANY GUN I WANT" because there is a limit.

I am hugely in favor of gun regulation. I want there to be serial numbers and identification. NO gun shows, at all. Everyone who buys a gun should have their picture, address, etc. in the same way we do cars. Strong background checks, and no guns for convicted violent felons.

 

On the other hand, beyond that caveat, I don't really see the need to make gun regulation any more strict that "car regulation"

[snuffbox 0]

Background checks & sensible safety precautions of the like - yes.

 

Banning of a particular gun - nope.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

 

That doesn't say anything about not being allowed to have certain guns.

 

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't a vaild parallel either, because Joe Reponsible Gunowner having an Uzi isn't hurting anybody or restricting anyone else's rights.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

I'm absolutely fine with regulation to the degree of keeping weapons away from violent felons (who could just get them anyway, but that's beside the point,) but speaking from a personal standpoint of having never been convicted of a felony, etc. I should be able to buy a gatling gun if I wanted one.

[EricMM 0]

There is absolutely no benefit to you having a gatling gun, and a huge amount of risk.

 

That's your answer.

[snuffbox 0]

Gatling gun would be a good time.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

There is absolutely no benefit to you having a gatling gun, and a huge amount of risk.

 

That's your answer.

 

Going back to your car example, the same could be said about a Ferrari. We're not allowed to drive over the posted speed limit anyway, so why should people be allowed to buy cars that go twice that?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

 

That doesn't say anything about not being allowed to have certain guns.

 

That bolded part seems to get ignored quite a bit by the gun lobby.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Regarding gun shows:

 

These are only conventions where there are the same gun transactions as there are in gun stores or between private citizens. There's already massive penalties for Federal Firearms Licensed vendors messing up their paperwork. The bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms shouldn't throw any more red tape in there unless their goal is just to explicitly wreck gun shows. Besides, what percentage of guns from gun shows end up being used by the people that buy them in felony crimes anyway? I'd be willing to bet it's extremely low.

[EricMM 0]

Well as long as they track the persons picture, and have a gun show on monday, get the persons name and social security number, do a background check, and have ANOTHER gun show on Wednesday where they actually get the gun (or have background checks done beforehand so you can get a badge or something) thats okay.

 

You're barking up the wrong tree if you're asking me to defend Ferraris... But you knew that? Again, why the fuck would you need a gun of that calibur? If you have a pistol or a shotgun, you can protect yourself against a robber, and if you go batship a cop can drop you after you get one shot off or something. With a machine gun like that, the equation is off.

[snuffbox 0]

Shooting up targets such as old wrecked cars for entertainment purposes.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

 

That doesn't say anything about not being allowed to have certain guns.

 

That bolded part seems to get ignored quite a bit by the gun lobby.

 

Because nobody congregates in militias anymore due to the BATF kicking the doors in. In principle, I don't see anything wrong with a militia. We also aren't still struggling to be an independent nation from England.

 

HOWEVER, before anyone gets grabby, imagine the government of this country descends into something more tyrannical. The militia would then become viable again. In a nutshell, tyranny becomes a lot less likely when the vast majority of the nation's citizens are packing heat. Look at Cambodia for a historical example of a dictator decimating an unarmed populace.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Again, why the fuck would you need a gun of that calibur? If you have a pistol or a shotgun, you can protect yourself against a robber, and if you go batship a cop can drop you after you get one shot off or something. With a machine gun like that, the equation is off.

 

Are you suggesting the police don't carry semiautomatic/automatic weapons?

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

What's fundamentally wrong about having something ridiculous simply for the sake of it? Does anyone NEED a huge mansion? Or a giant garage full of sports cars? Or more than ten million dollars? That shouldn't be restricted. Neither should a big gun.

 

Besides, it's astronomically expensive to shoot anything around .50 caliber anyway, relegating it to serious gun collectors/sportsmen or the fabulously wealthy. It's not like an inner-city thug is going to get a BAR out of someone's trunk.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Maryland is planning on taxing ammo 5 cents a round. I dont know whether it has anything to do with gun control or not..but anyway. And actually its part of a larger bill to encode ammo so the police can keep a better detailed database or something..

 

Hunters are already throwing a fit like someone tried to ban guns in MD.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Five cents adds up quick.

 

Besides, there are already nigh-foolproof ways to tell if a bullet came from a gun. The hunters have a right to be pissed.

[EricMM 0]

Chris Rock's joke comes closer to fruition.

 

And my views on large houses and fast cars nonwithstanding, you must be joking when you say that there is no difference between that and having a fully automatic god-knows-how-many-bullets-a-minute machinegun.

 

A big house never killed anyone.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Besides, what percentage of guns from gun shows end up being used by the people that buy them in felony crimes anyway? I'd be willing to bet it's extremely low.

 

I would agree that the statistic is probably low, but it's unlikely that the number would do much to dissuade folks who are looking for more gun control anyway. How many felony arrests have occurred without ever finding the weapon? How many crimes aided or enabled by illegal gun purchase have gone undetected?

 

I think the implicit fear with gun shows is that they are prone to "straw purchasing", where somebody with legal standing makes a surrogate purchase of a gun for a potential felon. Straw purchasing is considered a felony, but that's a deterrent that's incurred after the fact - the felonious act has still taken place, as an indirect result of that surrogate purchase.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Five cents adds up quick.

 

Besides, there are already nigh-foolproof ways to tell if a bullet came from a gun. The hunters have a right to be pissed.

 

Its $50 on a 1000 rounds but I dont know how much 1000 rounds cost before..

They're all saying they'll go to Delaware or Virginia for ammo, or the internet..but if they were to get caught with the ammo they'd be in huge trouble.

 

Im actually for getting rid of the 2nd Ammendment since it has no more context in todays world as it did in the late 1700's America. The 2nd ammendment was based on the fact that early americans had to be worried about British/Indians/Wild Animals attacking them on a daily basis and with limited technology there weren't very many other ways to protect themselves. Today, theres no excuse to need a gun. Get an alarm sytem, get a pack of dogs, put up a fence..whatever..but you dont need a freaking gun to protect your property even if you're a bazillionaire with a house the size of Texas.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

What specific weapon are you even referring to? I mean, an Uzi? an AR-15? Some imaginary comic book machine gun?

 

Lets say a MAC-10, which is a really common automatic weapon that I know enough about to have an argument. 9mm or .45 caliber, and probably no magazines larger than 30 rounds that I've ever heard of. That could be unloaded somewhere between 1 and 2 seconds. That's far less ridiculous than the

god-knows-how-many-bullets-a-minute machinegun

. you're referring to.

 

And don't even get me going about car fatalities, since we're discussing the dangers inherent in risky luxuries.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Im actually for getting rid of the 2nd Ammendment since it has no more context in todays world as it did in the late 1700's America. The 2nd ammendment was based on the fact that early americans had to be worried about British/Indians/Wild Animals attacking them on a daily basis and with limited technology there weren't very many other ways to protect themselves. Today, theres no excuse to need a gun. Get an alarm sytem, get a pack of dogs, put up a fence..whatever..but you dont need a freaking gun to protect your property even if you're a bazillionaire with a house the size of Texas.

 

How about a crackhead, a carjacker, or someone robbing your house? Hell, you live out in the sticks by your own admission. I know you have little reason to live and all, but do you really think the cops are going to show up in time to do anything other than catch the guy who just shot you for your HDTV? That's just self defense, there's plenty of sporting reasons to own a gun.

[Perfxion 0]

My personal def. of gun control: two hands steadying the weapon for a clean shot.

 

I am all for background checks, paperwork, some redtape, banning of DRUG and VIOLENT crime convicted felons from getting a gun(Martha Steward is a convicted felon but her crime is not gun bannable in my book). I am against ANY gun from being banned. Just make it a tougher process to legally own a tommy gun.

 

I read somewhere that almost all legal guns used in action are either under self defense OR domestic issues(IE: The Marvin Gaye case).

 

I am for taxing all bullets, it makes people who own "big bad boom boom sticks" to pay money for the govt to ante up on their list of weapons. However, it is on the cities and states not to send their cops into scenes where its a colt .45 or bretta glock vs a tech-9 or AR-15.

 

I hope people know that on the world market the AK-47(model 1963) is one of the cheapest guns on the market, for no more than 200 bucks and you can have one. So why do cops only have shotguns for back ups and not the also cheap M-16 or overpowerful M-14?

[EricMM 0]

You were the one talking about a gatling gun.

[MrRant 0]

And need certainly IS an issue. There is no assumption that anyone needs an automatic weapon, for example. Nor would it be reasonable that your average joe on the street would be able to control one if he did use it. I just don't like the people saying, "second amendmant means ANY GUN I WANT" because there is a limit.

I am hugely in favor of gun regulation. I want there to be serial numbers and identification. NO gun shows, at all. Everyone who buys a gun should have their picture, address, etc. in the same way we do cars. Strong background checks, and no guns for convicted violent felons.

 

On the other hand, beyond that caveat, I don't really see the need to make gun regulation any more strict that "car regulation"

 

1. Felons can't get guns. Legally.

2. There are background checks. When I got my handgun they had to run me both through the local and FBI databases. If I wanted a concealed weapons permit, I'd have to get my fingerprints done.

3. They have records of your address, SS#, phone number, DL, etc. Just not a picture.

[EricMM 0]

Alright, fine.

 

Then everything's jake.

 

But what about gun shows? Do they have all the databases too? Do they fingerprint, etc.?

 

And what about the calibur and ... rapidity question?

[MrRant 0]

Gun shows? Depends on the state as it's a private person to private person deal.

 

Rapidity? I don't think automatic weapons are really needed by the general public and they can't be manufactured for them anymore so the ones you see are ones that are pre-ban. Calbibur? There shouldn't really be a restriction as a larger calibur can be more beneficial for self defense. A .45 for example will blow a hole in someone big enough to cause a great amount of blood loss and stop that person. A 9mm can stop someone, but not all the time as it's a much smaller wound and it's possible for them to continue on adrenaline.