Legitimate gun question [on topic]

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

There's very few gun getting through airport security.
I wonder why? OH, someone is controlling access to the terminal building. Same can be done at a school. The idea of arming a few teachers is dumb. By the time the armed teacher would get clear across the school to the room where the shooting was, 20 kids would be dead. All teachers would need to be armed. Got to keep the perp out. I mentioned this in another thread: kill everyone on death row, and then reposition those guards at schools. Guys on death row have more protection than elementary schools!

I don't think airport type security is really possible in every single school. Armed teachers would minimize fatalities. I also suggested having armed security guards/LEO's.

Except Jonh Hinckley Jr. kind of proves that doesn't work.

Hinckley was up against the most well armed body guards on the planet and they never fired a single shot to stop him. He gave up after running out of bullets.

An armed force might be one part of slowing some down, but the idea of going up against one absolutely doesn't even phase a true crazy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[beowulf 1]

How many people did he kill? There is no way to stop a truly determined crazy person. They will be able to arm themselves regardless of anything you have proposed and they will do their best to kill people. But not having people there to stop them is just shirking our duty to protect our children.

[faulknerwn 36]

And not just schools but the mall, the movies, college campuses, churches... Having armed guards everywhere just turns us into a police state - it seems like making it harder to stop crazy people from getting guns is the only helpful thing.

Gang bangers shooting each other are always going to have access to guns But a lot of the people in these recent killings were more loners and anti-social. They probably didn't have active "underground" criminal friends. They mostly didn't have any friends... So it would be harder to get weapons for them.

I understand why normal people want guns. But I also think we should be able to make it a lot harder for these nut jobs to get them.
I don't think a full on ban would do any good. Living in tx I am aware of how people to react to that. But I think maybe required background checks for all gun sales might help.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

The only reason I don't have any Meth is because I don't want any. Not because it's not available.

I see, so even though the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding citizens, they'll all participate in black market illegal activities if a ban was in place.

Okay. Good to know.

There are plenty of people out there who are otherwise law abiding but still buy and use pot illegally. Those people probably feel that the ban is stupid, and that it's not a big deal because their having and smoking pot isn't hurting anyone. Likewise if you implemented a "hard" ban on, say, "semi-automatic weapons with removable magazines," you'd have a lot of otherwise law-abiding people who felt that the ban is stupid, and would have no trouble purchasing them on the black market because they felt their owning the firearms wasn't hurting anyone.

There would be somewhat fewer firearm purchases but there would be a vastly expanded black market because you will have funneled a lot of new customers into it. Now you have otherwise law-abiding citizens subsidizing a market that doesn't care how crazy or how criminal their customers are. Just like with illegal drugs, the dealers don't care who their customers are, "...well hey, well that's the way it is."

Quote

Quote

So you really think banning semi automatic weapons would make them go away?

I think throwing up your arms and saying nothing can be done doesn't make the problem go away either.

I think you have to start with the assumption something can be done. Not to completely eliminate, because that probably isn't possible, but to do something in the direction of helpful rather than fuck it.

I agree with the idea that throwing your hands up doesn't change anything or fix any presented problems, but if a suggestion is presented, and someone responds explaining why it won't help, the fact that they don't then also present a counter suggestion doesn't make their argument about why the original idea isn't a good one any weaker.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

And not just schools but the mall, the movies, college campuses, churches... Having armed guards everywhere just turns us into a police state - it seems like making it harder to stop crazy people from getting guns is the only helpful thing.

Gang bangers shooting each other are always going to have access to guns But a lot of the people in these recent killings were more loners and anti-social. They probably didn't have active "underground" criminal friends. They mostly didn't have any friends... So it would be harder to get weapons for them.

I understand why normal people want guns. But I also think we should be able to make it a lot harder for these nut jobs to get them.
I don't think a full on ban would do any good. Living in tx I am aware of how people to react to that. But I think maybe required background checks for all gun sales might help.

I have my CHL. I will draw down on crazy person trying to kill people. Other CHL holders will do the same and try and protect themselves and those around them. The thing is banning guns wont stop them from getting them.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I don't have a theoretical problem with people owning all these guns - but I do want a way to keep the weapons out of the hands of crazy folks. Background checks are at least a start but tons of people are really anti required background checks

No.

Tons of people are against back-door registration lists which governments could then use to collect guns or harass owners following a ban as with the SKS Sporter in California and all semi-automatics in Australia.

People are also against added fees.

Usually mandatory background checks get implemented with a prohibition on private transfers which means that a Federal Firearms Licensee must be involved. Each transfer through them generates a form 4473 which could be collected to generate a registration list. The FFLs charge for the transfer and states can have their own fees with the combination totaling up to $75 in California.

I might support a free mandatory background check with a prohibition on record retention for approved transfers, but that seems unlikely given the political winds and influence of the National Association of Stocking Gun Dealers.

Given a choice between mandated transfers through dealers and no check I prefer the later. In theory I could perish in a mass shooting although that's a little less likely than being struck by lighting. In theory I could be murdered, although with a very low chance of living someplace with economic disparity on the wrong side of the poverty line and no chance for risk factors like joining a street gang or illegal drug trade I'm as safe as I would be someplace with stricter laws. OTOH, there's a near 100% chance that I'll buy another gun.

Finally there's the slippery slope or camel-in-the-tent (once you let its nose in the rest will follow). Overwhelming evidence suggests that gun control does not reduce crime. The usual political response to that is to keep the existing law and when that doesn't work add something else. With reasonable laws in place that decreasing numbers of gun people agree on what follows will be disagreeable.

[burtonjm 0]

One of the things that bothers me about the “mandatory background checks” arguments is that it’s essentially 50% un-enforceable. In most places a background check is already required if you’re buying from a store/gun show (i.e. needing to go through an FFL). However, if I don’t own guns but want to buy one from a friend/relative/misc. acquaintance, there is very little the government can do to force that person to call in a background check on me. The background check solution would only work for guns sold commercially.

I also don’t understand why everyone seems so focused on trying to stop guns from getting in the hands of people with mental disorders. Don’t get me wrong, based on previous shootings we should make it difficult for people with mental disorders to purchase firearms. However, this is a small part of gun violence. At least an equal amount of attention should be paid to adding hurdles for criminals to obtain firearms who will (typically) subsequently use them during violent crimes.

On the topic of high capacity magazines/assault rifles: I don’t like the idea of posting a round count as a hard limit. If the magazine fits in the grip of my handgun with no extension I don’t consider it a high capacity magazine. Yes, the stock magazine in my handgun holds 15 rounds. It is the exact length of the grip and does not protrude from the bottom of the weapon. I don’t consider that to be a high capacity magazine. If I was limited to a 10 round magazine, the ~2 seconds it would take to swap mags would have a very limited impact on the outcome. The argument that “assault weapons” are more deadly than “regular” guns is silly. First the argument tries to ban military-style weapons. The Beretta 92FS is a military weapon. Is it any different from a Glock, Sig, S&W or H&K handgun? Hardly. If the aim is to go against military style rifles, the argument is still weak. Due to its length, in a close quarters situation (such as these shootings have been) a rifle hardly gives the criminal an advantage. Add that to the fact that the bullet in an AR-15 is roughly the same size as the bullet fired by the Ruger 10-22 my grandfather gave to me on my 10th birthday, a .45 cal 1911 would inflict significantly more damage (also negating the high-capacity magazine argument, because most standard .45 magazines have an 8 round capacity).

As far as “Gun Free Zones” go, I think it is one of the dumbest things to post. This may be a bit of hyperbole, but bear with me because I feel it needs to be said. House A has a sign next to the front door that says “All weapons, including concealed firearms, are prohibited on these premises”. House B has a sign next to the front door that says “I exercise my right to bear arms”. As a criminal looking to commit a robbery, which house will be the easier/less risky steal? I think this concept transfers to places that post “Gun Free Zone” signs. Everyone knows that 99% of schools are weapon free. The criminal goes into this area knowing that law abiding citizens are not permitted to adequately defend themselves in this location and they take advantage of it. I would guess that there would be a statistically significant drop in mass shootings if such locations had a sign that allowed concealed weapons on the premises, or simply removed the advertisement that individuals inside are unarmed.

This last point is mostly a semantics thing, but it still bothers me. The strongest supporters of stricter gun control often don’t understand simple terms, i.e. Semi-Automatic vs Automatic. I can’t count the number of articles I have read that call standard Bushmaster AR-15s automatic weapons. It would take a 20 second Google search for anyone to find the answer and delay the onset of everyone thinking that person is an idiot. Their argument becomes even more egregious when you read statements such as, “ban all semi-automatic weapons”. It’s pretty clear most people making this argument don’t understand this concept.

To conclude, I don’t know what the solution is. Do I want criminals and people with mental disorders to freely wield firearms? Absolutely not. Am I biased towards my viewpoint? Probably. Do I believe banning “assault weapons”/magazine sizes/guns in general is the answer? Absolutely not. Should background checks be required? 100% yes. Maybe something that could help is widespread gun education. On day one of handling a firearm I was taught to respect and fear the power contained in my hands. It is not something to be taken lightly. I have taught many friends to shoot, and the first thing I do, every time, regardless of whether or not they have “shot before” is review safe handling of firearms. If fencing can be taught in gym class, why not spend a couple days covering safe handling and respect for firearms, followed by a session of even BB-gun shooting applying the safety concepts that were just taught. In my opinion, shying away from the problem only makes it worse (see putting your head between your legs during a nuclear bomb threat).

I’m still thinking on the topic because I, as much as everyone else, want the shootings to stop. So far I don’t have a viable solution. I can only hope this post keeps the gears turning for everyone else, possibly clarifies details for people too afraid/lazy to ask/Google, and hopefully in the near future we can devise a feasible plan to address the issue. In the mean time, I will buy the guns the law allows me to, store them responsibly, and enjoy them safely. Because, America.

This shit, right here, is OK

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I'm not super familiar with these - but could a shooter still not get several rounds a second off? I'm not sure but I would think that outside of a war zone that a semi-automatic could cause just as much damage as an automatic. Magazine capacity seems more important

The firearm is simply the tool its the person using it that makes it deadly or not. Charles Witman killed all but 4 of his victims using bolt action rifles. 16 dead, 32 wounded.

JFK killed with a bolt action rifle.

RFK killed with a .22 round commonly referred to derisively as a plinking round.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Your ideas sound reasonable to me - but as someone pointed out we do want to allow hunting.

Its interesting to note that outside of the USA in first world countries that allow firearm ownership its for the purpose of either hunting or target shooting not self defence. Protection of society is seen as the job of the police. Even before the handgun ban in the UK you couldn't carry or own for self defence.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Some sort of minimum mental certification for ownership. Something roughly analogous to a 3rd class medical. It won't catch everything. It's wouldn't be designed to. What it would be designed to do is have somebody look at the owner every couple of years to determine if the guy passes the basic sniff test of sanity.

Additional safeguards if anyone in the same domicile is under 18 or has mental issues; locking gun cabinets, trigger locks, etc.

Limits on amount of kinetic energy per minute a device can potentially deliver. Part of the problem with previous bans was the definition used to define "assault weapon." It described specific configurations of devices rather than describing the function of the device itself; which is sending lead down range at a target. That just lead to gun manufacturers running around looking for loopholes to redefine their weapons. The more quickly you can send lead down range, the more dangerous the weapon is. It's just that simple. Find a better description for what it is we're trying to limit. To me it makes no sense whatsoever to treat a .22 cal plinker the same as a AR-15 when it comes to magazine sizes. Let's talk about the total potential destructive power per minute rather than some vague magazine size which is going to be grandfathered, loopholed, buttoned and worked around.

What you propose would end hunting. Most AR 15's are .223 caliber and that isn't a very high powered round. It's not suitable for hunting deer.

Nope. My understanding is hunting existed for several years before the AR-15 was invented. Single action bolt to boot.

And this is exactly my point. A single bullet would be allowed that is much more powerful than the AR-15, but the total amount of kinetic energy, not per round, but per minute would be what would be considered.

So taking the proposal into consideration what level of energy per minute would the cut off point be at? In the UK we can't have semi automatic centre fire weapons but rimfire is Ok as are straight pull centre fire. Yet straight pull rifles can be pretty quick in the right hands and .22 ammo is still lethal in the sort of range that these mass murders tend to take place in. Where do you draw the line?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Anti-gun people might get mandatory background checks on private transfers or a 50 caliber ban.

Why the hysteria over .50 Cal weapons? It just shows that these people really don't understand the capability of other firearms (which is just as well otherwise they'd never leave their houses!)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Almost all of the discussion I have heard on this topic is around eliminating the access to guns by people with a mental disorder. To me that seems like treating the symptom, not the root cause.

We glorify violence to such a degree, that people with a mental disorder think it's a way to get their 15min of fame while they suicide by cop (or their own weapon). The acceptability of violence is part of the problem.

The AWB is not the answer. A small percentage of murders are committed with rifles. The AWB as it was written and has been proposed, does not address but a small percentage of those rifles even. Look at our rates of murder by beating, or stabbing, or "other weapon". All are higher than murder (this goes back to the glorification of violence).

Mental health care. We don't have any anymore. Not really. But discussing mental health isn't as politically charged as discussing gun bans. So nobody talks about it.

In my way of thinking, glorification of violence, and the lack of mental health care are the two major factors.

Putting limits on the general public because of our neglect of a subset of that public is wrong on a few different levels. Mainly the fact that it means continued neglect on the subset of the public that needs help.


And really... don't bother talking about wanting to allow hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

I'd agree with you but add a overly hegemonic national self image which is reflected in the media. People can't live up to the expectations place upon them and so begins societal alienation.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[devildog 0]

Quote

There's very few gun getting through airport security.
I wonder why? OH, someone is controlling access to the terminal building. Same can be done at a school. The idea of arming a few teachers is dumb. By the time the armed teacher would get clear across the school to the room where the shooting was, 20 kids would be dead. All teachers would need to be armed. Got to keep the perp out. I mentioned this in another thread: kill everyone on death row, and then reposition those guards at schools. Guys on death row have more protection than elementary schools!

Actually, internal tests by the TSA show a failure rate of 50-80% (about) on weapons getting through. Airport security its a sham.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Your ideas sound reasonable to me - but as someone pointed out we do want to allow hunting.

Its interesting to note that outside of the USA in first world countries that allow firearm ownership its for the purpose of either hunting or target shooting not self defence. Protection of society is seen as the job of the police. Even before the handgun ban in the UK you couldn't carry or own for self defence.

Switzerland comes to mind as being directly against that.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Automatic weapons may be hard to get...

Are you aware that it's not possible to buy automatic weapons from FFL in the US?

Sure you can from a Class 3 FFL. They are really expensive and you have to pay a fee to the ATF and go through some special paper work and back ground check. I think there has only been like one or two crimes committed by a legal owner of a full auto weapon with said weapon since this went into effect and it's been that way for a long time. Not sure how long.

So, what you're saying is...stricter gun regulation on weapons with high kinetic potential per minute works.

Think about it.

I have

But what is not being taken into account is how few crimes are commited with the guns you want to ban

Sure, three in the last year

But the stats have been posted on this forum before and the percentages are really low

So, IMO what you propose does no more than the first ban

Browning sporting BAR type rifles have been around much longer than the AR types. Your senario would have them banned too

I guess all of this kind of shoots a hole in the ban of a type of gun. For me anyway

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

And not just schools but the mall, the movies, college campuses, churches... Having armed guards everywhere just turns us into a police state - it seems like making it harder to stop crazy people from getting guns is the only helpful thing.

Gang bangers shooting each other are always going to have access to guns But a lot of the people in these recent killings were more loners and anti-social. They probably didn't have active "underground" criminal friends. They mostly didn't have any friends... So it would be harder to get weapons for them.

I understand why normal people want guns. But I also think we should be able to make it a lot harder for these nut jobs to get them.
I don't think a full on ban would do any good. Living in tx I am aware of how people to react to that. But I think maybe required background checks for all gun sales might help.

To me, you have just made the argument for allowing people to arm themselves

LEO's can not protect. They primarilty investigate, catch and jail

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your ideas sound reasonable to me - but as someone pointed out we do want to allow hunting.

Its interesting to note that outside of the USA in first world countries that allow firearm ownership its for the purpose of either hunting or target shooting not self defence. Protection of society is seen as the job of the police. Even before the handgun ban in the UK you couldn't carry or own for self defence.

Switzerland comes to mind as being directly against that.

could you please explain what you mean by that ?

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

There's very few gun getting through airport security.
I wonder why? OH, someone is controlling access to the terminal building. Same can be done at a school. The idea of arming a few teachers is dumb. By the time the armed teacher would get clear across the school to the room where the shooting was, 20 kids would be dead. All teachers would need to be armed. Got to keep the perp out. I mentioned this in another thread: kill everyone on death row, and then reposition those guards at schools. Guys on death row have more protection than elementary schools!

I don't think airport type security is really possible in every single school. Armed teachers would minimize fatalities. I also suggested having armed security guards/LEO's.

I read about a school here in Texas that did arm their teachers. Not that dumb of an idea in my opinion.

Schools could control access/entry points waaaaay better than they do. Doesn't have to have as much security as airport but an armed guarde near the door might help. Arming a few teachers, and not the door is a dumb idea. Why, by the time the armed teach got to the classroom where the shoot was kids would already be dead. Look at Giffords shooting case in AZ. Joe Zamudio who was carrying a gun, heard shots from afar yet couldn't get there in time to do any good.
Arming teachers is not as good as controlling access to the school grounds or building. I'm much rather sit in a class knowing the building was secured, not knowing a teacher had a gun on the second floor, and a 100 yards from where I was sitting where the door was wide open.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's very few gun getting through airport security.
I wonder why? OH, someone is controlling access to the terminal building. Same can be done at a school. The idea of arming a few teachers is dumb. By the time the armed teacher would get clear across the school to the room where the shooting was, 20 kids would be dead. All teachers would need to be armed. Got to keep the perp out. I mentioned this in another thread: kill everyone on death row, and then reposition those guards at schools. Guys on death row have more protection than elementary schools!

I don't think airport type security is really possible in every single school. Armed teachers would minimize fatalities. I also suggested having armed security guards/LEO's.

I read about a school here in Texas that did arm their teachers. Not that dumb of an idea in my opinion.

Schools could control access/entry points waaaaay better than they do. Doesn't have to have as much security as airport but an armed guarde near the door might help. Arming a few teachers, and not the door is a dumb idea. Why, by the time the armed teach got to the classroom where the shoot was kids would already be dead. Look at Giffords shooting case in AZ. Joe Zamudio who was carrying a gun, heard shots from afar yet couldn't get there in time to do any good.
Arming teachers is not as good as controlling access to the school grounds or building. I'm much rather sit in a class knowing the building was secured, not knowing a teacher had a gun on the second floor, and a 100 yards from where I was sitting where the door was wide open.

Looks like they are going to do this in South Dakota too

Good for them

Time to end gun free zones

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,116]

While personally I think that arming teachers probably introduces more potential problems than solves them (but then guns are a problem-solving mechanism, not a problem-preventing one), I also think that sort of action should be left to each individual school and school district.

Of course, the one that was attacked wasn't the kind of school that one might expect gun violence at.

I read an editorial recently that said that airport security had probably cost 10's of thousands of lives. Why? Because (x) people (they gave the reason for hte calculation) had most likely decided not to fly because of the hassle, and driving long distances is more dangerous than flying long distances.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Croc 0]

I believe that the problem stems from the wording of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. There is some discussion as to whether it has one or three commas, but here is the version in the Library of Congress:

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.

I think it is clear that the Founding Fathers intended that "the people" would, mostly, be organized into Militias. These would be local organizations--groups of people who would know each other. Perhaps we need to re-think the Second amendment or require that gun owners belong to them. That would help prevent mentally unstable persons from getting guns. Nothing, of course, could prevent gun violence entirely.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Also we could up the number of convicted felons prosecuted for attempting to buy guns. In a two year period 27,000 felons failed the NICS check for purchasing a firearm in Pennsylvania. They were felons, checked the box that indicated they weren't felons, then signed the line that indicates that they acknowledge that lying on the form is against the law. You'd think that the trial for this would last about 5 minutes and have a 100% conviction rate.

They managed to get 423 convictions. A whopping 1.5% conviction rate.

this is a radical idea - actually enforce existing laws on the books. Great point.

Actually, I mean this is a great example that when people say "enforce the existing laws" that it's not just a bumper sticker quote. It's really true.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It seems like that dems want to ban stuff and reps want to ban nothing and no one is taking a middle ground.

actually, it's not really split along party lines very much - the gun thing is one topic that's pretty orthogonal and is more along the lines of individual rights vs gov regulation. I hate to make it a party thing, Dems around here are very divided, so are the Reps

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

No problem.
Do a search for Class 3 firearms. A full auto Thompson runs about $15,000 to $20,000

so only the rich crazies can get them....the government needs to subsidize sales of automatic weapons to poor crazies to make it fair

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I believe that the problem stems from the wording of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. There is some discussion as to whether it has one or three commas, but here is the version in the Library of Congress:

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.

I think it is clear that the Founding Fathers intended that "the people" would, mostly, be organized into Militias. These would be local organizations--groups of people who would know each other. Perhaps we need to re-think the Second amendment or require that gun owners belong to them. That would help prevent mentally unstable persons from getting guns. Nothing, of course, could prevent gun violence entirely.

There is very little, if any doubt, that the 2A is meant to protect the rights of an idividual to own and carry firearms

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln