Weekly sober thread: Gun control.

See, this illustrates the problem of terminology we're still dealing with when people talk about gun control. How do you define an "armor piercing" bullet? What is your definition of "armor"? This issue has already been debated and settled in Congress with the NRA's backing, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. If you define "armor" as body armor typically worn by police, then you are advocating banning all hunting rounds which you have already stated are okay with you. Which one is it? Are hunting rifles okay or not? Nearly every center-fire hunting round will easily pass through the typical body armor worn by most police. Handgun rounds that are designed to penetrate body armor are illegal for civilians to possess in the U.S. Who is pushing for armor piercing bullets? Why is this such an emotional issue for you? I think that it is a non-issue that uninformed people who are anti-gun like to parrot to incite emotional reactions in other uninformed anti-gun people.

If you're going to make that argument about a firing rate, you have to define what firing rate is acceptable and what is not. You can't just have a law that says citizens can't possess guns with unreasonable firing rates. Who defines unreasonable? What criteria do you use to make that determination? In the end, it becomes an arbitrary cutoff. Again, the semi-automatic weapons that you have already said are okay are all capable of firing 100 rounds per minute. The only challenge would be the ability to feed enough rounds to them, and I'm fairly certain that ten 10-round magazines would do the trick with practice. Are you going to then force manufacturers to limit the cycling rate of semi-automatic weapons to stay under your arbitrary 100 rd/min firing rate? You can't just say "Ooh, those are bad, nobody should have them." You actually have to write a law that is broad enough to address a problem yet specific enough to limit the unintended consequences.

True, it would have been better. The problem is how do you prevent someone like her from obtaining a gun? She had never been convicted of a crime. She had no history of mental illness. I know that your answer will be "fewer guns," but how do you actually make that happen? You can't just issue a decree that says there should be fewer guns in the U.S. have it just magically reduce the number of guns. It was a .22 handgun that her friend had at his house for personal protection - you've already stated that is okay - so banning the type of weapon or caliber isn't going to work even in your fantasy land. Even if you want to hold him responsible for loaning her the weapon, you still have to insert the word "knowingly" into any legislation, and if she lied and said it was for protection, it would absolve him anyway. Again, there's no reason she would have been turned away from purchasing a gun legally. What laws do we change in order to prevent someone like her from obtaining a weapon?

You don't have a solution, but you want U.S. gun owners to admit that the problem is "too many guns." How does that help? I can agree that there are many people who shouldn't have access to guns. The problem is how to identify those people and limit their access without limiting the rights of the people who should be allowed to have guns. Whose gun do you take away first, and what criteria do you use to do it? How do you determine when you've taken away enough guns? How do you convince responsible gun owners that a little bit more control is a good thing when you have someone like Senator Diane Feinstein saying "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" while she holds a concealed carry permit and owns a .357 revolver? Do you blame gun owners for not trusting the government? Again, the problem is not just admitting that there are too many guns. We have to find a way to actually implement a solution. Unless you have a viable solution to offer that addresses the realities of the situation, then you're just wringing your hands and making yourself appear to hate guns.

My point is that maybe it's not as bad as everyone says - it's definitely not anywhere near the #1 cause of death. Merely cutting the number of accidental poisonings in half would make a bigger difference than eliminating all homicides by firearms. Maybe the reason that it seems like such a big deal is the general dislike for guns that is at the foundation of most of the arguments. I'll take you at your word that you don't hate guns, but other people in this thread have admitted that they're afraid of guns and don't want to be around them, and certainly many other people who have argued for stricter gun control have admitted the same thing. When emotion is the driving force behind any legislative action, we've already lost the battle for an effective solution.

 

Sadly I agree w/ this sentiment. If someone is bent on destruction they will find a way to kill you with a Krispy Kreme, a roll of tape and an elaborate plan.

edit: fix quote.

 

I call bullshit on this; MacGuyver is one of the good guys.

 

You don't have to be afraid of something to properly respect it's power. Accidents like negligent discharges and children getting their hands on loaded weapons is because of complacency. Everyone knows that you should always treat a gun like it is loaded and if they actually did there would be zero accidental shootings and if people actually put some effort into keeping their weapons out of the hands of their children no kids would ever get their hands on a weapon (at least one that has the ability to function anyways). There's a difference between knowing gun safety and actually practicing it.

 

I am rambling here from being drunk but one of my closest friends was shot while leaving a bar after an argument. I was only a few feet from him when it happened. We were done with the argument and started walking home. The guys we got in an argument with started to follow us in their car and after some more words were exchanged my friend was shot with a 9mm pistol about 2 blocks from the bar. I applied my t-shirt to the wound to stop him from bleeding out.

To this day I do not understand why I wasn't shot at also. Both of us still support gun rights. It's hopefully the scariest shit that we will ever experience but it's our thought that regardless of any gun laws this person would have had the gun anyways. From the small town talk that I've heard, the guy that shot my friend was a decent, if not a somewhat troubled, person who was just way too drunk. It's really a tricky situation.

I have a 9mm pistol myself with a 2 full clips under my nightstand. I don't even have much interest in guns. I might go out once every other year and shoot this gun and a shotgun I have but I would never give up either unless they were pried from my fingers. Could guns even be banned effectively? Look at the "war on drugs" and tell me that guns could ever be banned. Even people in a position that require a gun[police, military] are capable of doing something like the Colorado shooter. And if you want to ban certain guns where do you draw the line? I can agree that a civilian shouldn't have a fully automatic weapon but other than that firearms are fairly equal.

I don't want to sound cold but it's just one of those things that will happen. It's incredibly unfortunate but it's a safety vs. freedom thing. The average American[me] wants to be able to do whatever we want as long as we aren't hurting other people. If you start banning things to protect people where do you draw the line? People have found ways to kill each other long before guns were invented.

Also, damn I love spell check.

 

All you really need is a string: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/0 ... chine-gun/</a>

The majority of firearm laws in this country are reactionary, and not well thought out - The ATF is living proof.

 

This is my only experience with fully automatic weapons. When I was in college, I would go deer hunting with a friend and his family on private property of theirs in northern central WI. His father was a federal judge appointed by Reagan, and he had a few federal Marshall's assigned to his court. He invited two of them up for a weekend of hunting, and they brought some confiscated weapons for us to shoot off, including AK-47s and Mac-10s. Fun to shoot? Hell yes. But no one should be allowed to own them. They have one purpose:kill a lot of people very, very quickly.

 

The funny thing about it is, very few fully automatic weapons are actually used in crimes. Like in a 2009 report from California I pulled up, only 2% of all gun violence incidents involved "machine guns" that year. Link: <a class="postlink" href="http://bit.ly/O1b8Vz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://bit.ly/O1b8Vz</a>.

Here's a great chart I snipped from the study I reference to:



Numbers will vary depending on the survey you look at, but overall they are like sharks... widely feared and potentially very lethal, yet few people actually die from them. Another funny thing to note is the guns featured on the first page of that study.

There's lots of folks out there with Class III arms out there, but they use them for recreation (fun!), not violence. I can't say the same for people who illegally own them, but either way you're just suckered into thinking they are the weapons to be afraid of.

Spoiler

Fun fact: you don't need a string or Dremel to make many semi-auto rifles to (almost) full-auto either- you just need a belt loop.

 

Any idea how many are in circulation, especially compared to other guns? The interpretation of that 2% number changes pretty dramatically if they are, say, 2% of all guns or 0.001% of all guns.

 

I think it will be just about impossible to accurately find the total # of firearms in the US, as it's been pointed out already that the statistics and figures vary, but here's a fresh report from the ATF on NFA Firearms (full auto, short barreled, and suppressed).

Link: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.atf.gov/statistics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.atf.gov/statistics/</a>

The chart to look at:



It doesn't break the numbers down to categorize the "type" of NFA firearm registered, but ultimately there's a LOT of legally owned fully automatic weapons out there.

 

That chart shows what California defines as "assault weapons," Not automatic weapons. Out here any semi-automatic rifle with 1 or more evil features (pistol grip, VFG, collapsible buttstock, etc.) is considered an assault weapon. So even with a ridiculously arbitrary definition of assault weapons they are still only used in 2% of gun crime.

 

I appreciate the well thought out response, and I'll admit I could be more educated on specific laws and guns in general (haven't fired one in about 10 years), but holy shit you guys: your country has a gun problem, and not admitting it/dickering around with stats and construing them in any way possible to make it seem like the amount of/ease of access isn't even part of the problem...is part of the problem.

I'll repeat again that in my opinion, you're screwed on this issue. Your country was founded and is flooded with guns -- of course new legislation and comical "gun free zone" signs (which only exist in your country, by the way) aren't gonna help. Killings like Aurora are a spectacle for the rest of the Western world, but I sometimes wonder why it's even a big deal to you guys at all, given that you average more than 12 gun deaths across the country every single day. Your soliders get shot less in war than you shoot each other at home. It's a huge story when a single person gets shot here. In America, it's only newsworthy when it's a dramatic spectacle. Few Western countries break a hundred gun deaths in a year; for America, that's a busy week.

I'll also repeat that I fucking love America. Maybe it's because I'm a tourist, but whenever I go there, it seems you guys are more polite than here in Canada. And aside from hockey, poutine and shitty rap, our culture is nearly identical yours. Shit, I live in the most gun-happy part of Canada and it's still night-and-day different from how you regard them. For many reasons (guns being one of them), shooting and getting shot is just part of your national identity.

And you guys -- you specific guys, here on the message board -- who fall into the majority of responsible gun owners, in no small way provide cover for the psychos who commit the atrocities when you equate "right to protect myself" with "almost any gun should be available to anyone who hasn't already used a gun to hurt someone else" (again, too late to go back now that they're everywhere). Some of you are even serious when you bring up accidental car or food or roller coaster deaths as if they are in any way comparable at all. To me, it feels eerily similar to moderate religious folks providing cover for extremists. It's at the point where politicians are scared to even mention the issue, let alone have a reasonable public debate about it.

So I'll shut up and leave you guys alone to navigate the differences and nuances between bullet types, firing rates, automatics versus rifles, home protection versus guns in bars, who should be able to carry, and hillarious comparisons to other causes of death. But please know, I'm not just trying to be a dick. In my circles of friends I often defend the world-wide stereotype of Americans being rude, ignorant, obnoxious, world-policing yokels, because I know first-hand that, for the most part, it's simply not true.

But I could never defend your near-unanimous stance on guns. The few face-to-face gun conversations I've had with Americans (not debates, just talking about guns in general), end up with the American getting the same glassy glint in their eyes I see when talking to Jebus freaks. Part of me gets sad that my second favourite country can have something so awful in common with countries I'd be actually scared to step foot in, and basically give the finger to anyone with the audacity to even suggest they have a problem.

 

We don't have a "gun" problem. We have a poverty problem. We have a drug problem. We have a crime problem. We've got a public education problem. People who are uneducated, do drugs, and live their entire lives in poverty are more likely to commit more crimes. That is fact.

All of that boils down to we've got a stupid, shitty people problem.

 

I already posted this brief editorial, but it was for the sake of posters like yourself. I suggest you read it.

Spoiler

This says it all:

 

I own a lot of guns. I am a historical collector and for the most part own guns older than 1950. I enjoy guns as much as the next American but I will never be a member of the NRA. There are some serious gaps in our laws and enforcement that need to be tightened and the NRA blindly fights any and all attempts at gun control, no matter how reasonable. For example: The Gun Show Loophole

 

First time posting, long time lurker, but I might as well jump in with both feet:

I will start by saying that I am pro gun guy, have a concealed carry permit and own multiple guns. I go to the range a couple of times a month for both the enjoyment/challenge of target shooting and to familiarize and be proficient with my weapons in case they are ever needed to protect myself, my business or my family. I have friends that sell at gun shows and friends that are collectors like kilo, so I may be a little biased in my views on gun control.

But, IMO the biggest problem with gun control today is that, like everything else in American law right now the proper laws are not being enforced. There is no "gun show loophole." It is illegal for someone who has a legal disability to own or purchase a firearm. It is illegal for someone to sell a firearm to someone under disability. Both of these parties are criminals that would make the transaction one way or another. If a criminal is caught with an illegal firearm do we need a new law saying that he is not allowed to own it? No, there are already laws on the books for that. More laws only keep the law abiding citizens from guns. Maybe if there was a mandatory 20 year sentence for violating the current laws, things would be different. But in the above article some of dealers were given "monitoring programs", how about prison?

Americans have a distinct distrust of the Government. I can legally walk into any gun store and purchase a firearm and yet would still prefer to purchase at a gun show. Is there a price difference? Not really. Is it more convenient? No, have to wait for the show to roll around. Can you purchase a firearm without another tick being added to your name with the Government? Yep. To some people it matters, others not so much.

New immigration laws, new gun laws, new banking laws? How about we enforce what we already have and stop looking for politicians and special interest groups to make a name for themselves.

/rant

 

Wait, i'm confused.

You say there is no loophole and then go onto say you prefer buying your guns at shows because its not tracked (or whatever)... isnt that the very loophole that article was talking about?

Not tracked and no mandatory background check at these shows so it makes it easier for someone to get a hold of a weapon they shouldnt and wouldnt be allowed to IF there were tracking/checking.

Serious question, not being a dick.

EDIT: Ah OK, i get what you were saying now. Sorry im a little slow this morning. Ill just shutup now and go mainline some coffee or something.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the point he's making is: he would choose the option to go to a gun show and not have it tracked, but that option only exists because the laws aren't being properly enforced.

 

I have been to quite a few gun shows and the only time I wasn't subjected to a background check was when I bought a rifle off of someone in the crowd. May vary from state to state or show to show.

That is like buying one from a classified ad though. As long as you are from the same state no FFL transfer is required.