Gun Control

Amerika · 27-08-2014 9:53pm

Paleface wrote: »

Maybe this girls father has the same story. Not much good to any of them now though.

Perhaps, but I would never have allowed any of my daughters to fire an Uzi at 9... probably not until 16, knowing their limitations. The oldest girl (who was opposed to guns in her liberal days) now has an S&W AR-15 (I don't even have something like that), is quite responsible through upbringing and guidance, and will be running for mayor next election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Ex2rVOUWs

Brian? · 28-08-2014 10:52pm

Amerika wrote: »

The media loved it at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/12/us/girl-7-seeking-us-flight-record-dies-in-crash.html

It's just guns that are evil?

Straw man. I never said guns were evil. I don't even want to ban gun ownership. I just want tighter regulation.

Brian? · 28-08-2014 10:53pm

Amerika wrote: »

The media loved it at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/12/us/girl-7-seeking-us-flight-record-dies-in-crash.html

It's just guns that are evil?

Actually, double straw man. The media didn't love it.

Brian? · 28-08-2014 10:56pm

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps, but I would never have allowed any of my daughters to fire an Uzi at 9... probably not until 16, knowing their limitations. The oldest girl (who was opposed to guns in her liberal days) now has an S&W AR-15 (I don't even have something like that), is quite responsible through upbringing and guidance, and will be running for mayor next election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Ex2rVOUWs

Can you explain the point of that video at all? How does it relate to the discussion?

Amerika · 29-08-2014 3:30pm

Brian? wrote: »

Actually, double straw man. The media didn't love it.

The media did love it... up until the point where she perished in the accident.

Amerika · 29-08-2014 3:32pm

Brian? wrote: »

Can you explain the point of that video at all? How does it relate to the discussion?

It’s germane because it was an interesting display of what happens to some advocates for harsher gun controls and their aversion to guns when convictions were put to test. Perhaps none of these people changed their minds about greater gun control legislation, but I think we saw a change in attitude from most of them towards their aversion to the use of guns after they were better informed on the subject.

Paleface · 29-08-2014 4:37pm

Amerika wrote: »

It’s germane because it was an interesting display of what happens to some advocates for harsher gun controls and their aversion to guns when convictions were put to test. Perhaps none of these people changed their minds about greater gun control legislation, but I think we saw a change in attitude from most of them towards their aversion to the use of guns after they were better informed on the subject.

If anything the video only highlights the fact that firing a gun is an exhilarating experience. People who have never fired one before would find it exciting.

So is driving your car at over 100mph. Doesn't mean its safe and there are laws to restrict it as you endanger yourself and others.

Which brings us back to the original discussion. That American gun laws are too relaxed to the point where they endanger others and most Americans look at guns as a recreational item that any member of society should be able to own and use at their own discretion.

Any argument against this is met with huge resistance based on the second ammendment and home security.

But I ask you, how come so many other countries get by without everyone having a gun and America can't?

Amerika · 29-08-2014 5:15pm

Paleface wrote: »

If anything the video only highlights the fact that firing a gun is an exhilarating experience. People who have never fired one before would find it exciting.

So is driving your car at over 100mph. Doesn't mean its safe and there are laws to restrict it as you endanger yourself and others.

Which brings us back to the original discussion. That American gun laws are too relaxed to the point where they endanger others and most Americans look at guns as a recreational item that any member of society should be able to own and use at their own discretion.

Matter of opinion.

Any argument against this is met with huge resistance based on the second ammendment and home security.

But I ask you, how come so many other countries get by without everyone having a gun and America can't?

Don’t know and don’t much care. Lack of diversity perhaps? History? Ideologies? Perhaps the feeling that if the crap hits the fan, the good 'ole Americans with their frontier attitudes will circle the wagons and save the day?

And why should anyone care what the US does in this matter? Unless of course they were planning on invading us.

Democracy, as a practical application, was founded in the US. The principles found in our Constitution are what made it work and thrive. We'll amend what's need changing, and the 2nd amendment is fine just the way it is -- from the viewpoint of a vast majority of the US population.

Manic Moran · 31-08-2014 4:48am

Paleface wrote: »

Any argument against this is met with huge resistance based on the second ammendment and home security.

Not just Second Amendment. What too many non-Americans (and, in fairness, a whole bunch of Americans as well) forget is that the vast majority of the 50 States have a right to arms in their State Constitutions as well, as binding on that State's legal framework as the federal protection. For example, Delaware Art1 S20 says "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.", or Nebraska Art 1 S1 "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof."

But I ask you, how come so many other countries get by without everyone having a gun and America can't?

They're not the US, with the same history, makeup or geography.

ChicagoJoe · 31-08-2014 6:15pm

Bullets and Burgers :rolleyes:. Driving a car requires the person is over 17 and has a license, and insurance to operate. Depending on the US state or locality, there is no requirement to register nor a requirement to permit to own or operate various different forms of firearms. But what kind of parents or state allows a 9 year old child gun lessons and with a machine gun at that. We have thousands of people walking around with weapons they are not sensible enough to know how to properly use them. Almost every other week we see videos with idiots doing something that anyone with some common sense would not do.

eire4 · 31-08-2014 10:15pm

Amerika wrote: »

A tragic accident yes, but how is it “another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control?” Accidents can happen in the best of circumstances. Did she own, or buy the Uzi herself? And wasn’t she under the supervision of a trained shooting instructor? One can question the decision of why a 9 year old is shooting a high powered fully automatic machine gun in the first place, but it has nothing to do with lax gun control.

It is a perfect example of lax gun control in America because a 9 year should not be allowed to be shooting an automatic machine gun period.

Manic Moran · 01-09-2014 4:50pm

eire4 wrote: »

It is a perfect example of lax gun control in America because a 9 year should not be allowed to be shooting an automatic machine gun period.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I have a more open mind on the subject, much more closely related to the skill and experience of the shooter and the type of firearm, not the chronological age of the shooter. I would be careful about giving a 25-year-old novice an Uzi.

eire4 · 01-09-2014 8:35pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

That is a matter of personal opinion. I have a more open mind on the subject, much more closely related to the skill and experience of the shooter and the type of firearm, not the chronological age of the shooter. I would be careful about giving a 25-year-old novice an Uzi.

Yes that is a matter of personal opinion. I have mine which clearly differs from yours as I do not think it is accetable for a 9 year to be allowed to use an automatic machine gun. That is fine that we disagree.
Lets cut out the subtle cheap shots though with your needless I have a more open mind cheap shot trying to imply my opinion is not really valid.

Manic Moran · 01-09-2014 10:30pm

With respect, on the matter at hand, my statement is accurate. You have a closed opinion on the subject, stated with no exceptions or qualifiers. I have a more open position, dependent upon various factors. It isn't meant as a cheap shot, it's a statement of relative values.

Skylinehead · 04-09-2014 4:12pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

That is a matter of personal opinion. I have a more open mind on the subject, much more closely related to the skill and experience of the shooter and the type of firearm, not the chronological age of the shooter. I would be careful about giving a 25-year-old novice an Uzi.

By that logic there would be 9-year olds who would be allowed to drive on the roads. There isn't, and with good reason.

eire4 · 04-09-2014 7:30pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, on the matter at hand, my statement is accurate. You have a closed opinion on the subject, stated with no exceptions or qualifiers. I have a more open position, dependent upon various factors. It isn't meant as a cheap shot, it's a statement of relative values.

Well if being against 9 year olds being allowed shoot automatic machine guns is having a closed mind on the subject I happily will hold that position.

Manic Moran · 04-09-2014 8:20pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

By that logic there would be 9-year olds who would be allowed to drive on the roads. There isn't, and with good reason.

Driving is a far more complicated process mechanically, with more rules, regulations and, most importantly, decision-making required.

I was somewhere between 8 and 10 when I fired my first 'automatic firearm', an air-powered pellet gun at a funfair which emptied the 100 pellets in about five seconds with the trigger held down. All I needed to do was remember "Point at the red star you're trying to cut out." A tad easier than driving. A belt-fed .22 wouldn't be any more difficult or dangerous.

InTheTrees · 05-09-2014 3:57am

On private property 9 year olds can drive a car or a tractor.

Even in (gasp!) Ireland.

Its not illegal.

InTheTrees · 05-09-2014 3:59am

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Driving a car requires the person is over 17 and has a license, and insurance to operate.

No it doesn't.

You can drive a car as soon as you can reach the pedals.

I believe you're talking about getting a Drivers License aren't you?

Paleface · 05-09-2014 9:32am

Any law can be broken in your own home or anywhere else for that matter if an authority isn't there to catch you doing it. People break laws all the time with no repercussions. But thats not what we are discussing here.

No law was broken by handing this girl an Uzi. She also broke no law by accidentally killing her instructor. Everyone is innocent yet a man is dead as a result of a completely avoidable scenario. A change in the law would have prevented it. Just as changing many gun laws would prevent thousands of deaths in the US each year. (gasp!)

Brian? · 05-09-2014 11:17am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Driving is a far more complicated process mechanically, with more rules, regulations and, most importantly, decision-making required.

I was somewhere between 8 and 10 when I fired my first 'automatic firearm', an air-powered pellet gun at a funfair which emptied the 100 pellets in about five seconds with the trigger held down. All I needed to do was remember "Point at the red star you're trying to cut out." A tad easier than driving. A belt-fed .22 wouldn't be any more difficult or dangerous.

I'll ask you a question, what's the downside of bringing in an age restriction for firearms or types of firearms?

In this case the upside would have saved a mans life. Why are you so against reasonable regulation?

If a law was inacted today barring anyone under 18 owning or operation an automatic firearm, the negative effect would be?

AbusesToilets · 07-09-2014 7:49pm

Brian? wrote: »

I'll ask you a question, what's the downside of bringing in an age restriction for firearms or types of firearms?

In this case the upside would have saved a mans life. Why are you so against reasonable regulation?

If a law was inacted today barring anyone under 18 owning or operation an automatic firearm, the negative effect would be?

It's quite difficult in the US to privately own or fire an automatic weapon. The permit process is a long one and subject to the whims of the Sheriff's department in the county you live in. Once you have the weapon, it can still be illegal for another person to operate it, depending on where you live and the permit restrictions.

Laws don't prevent accidents, good judgement tends to be far more effective. The instructor shot there should have recognised the risks involved and certainly should have anticipated the likely recoil movement of the Uzi. I've seen plenty of grown men pushed back by a M-4 on auto, a nine year old girl is not likely to be able to control an Uzi on auto.

Matt Holck · 07-09-2014 8:42pm

don't the US pass out automatic weapons in the middle east?

AbusesToilets · 07-09-2014 9:30pm

Matt Holck wrote: »

don't the US pass out automatic weapons in the middle east?

Eh?

Matt Holck · 07-09-2014 10:17pm

At last count by the U.S. government, 79% of weapons transfered to Middle Eastern governments come from the United States, not counting transfers to groups like ISIS, and not counting weapons in the possession of the United States.

https://occupywallst.org/forum/what-to-do-about-isis-by-david-swanson/

AbusesToilets · 08-09-2014 12:10am

What do foreign weapon sales have to do with US firearms laws?

InTheTrees · 08-09-2014 1:39am

I believe Russia is the largest exporter of weapons worldwide.

InTheTrees · 08-09-2014 1:42am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's quite difficult in the US to privately own or fire an automatic weapon. The permit process is a long one and subject to the whims of the Sheriff's department in the county you live in.

Exactly.

And this is why in some (Arizona, Nevada) western states its a tourist attraction to go and fire these things.

Prostitution is also legal in Nevada. Cannabis is legal n Washington and Colorado. There is a huge difference between Federal Law and State law in a lot of issues. Most states in the union are very resistant to federal intrusion into their affairs.

And western states have always had more liberal gun laws since the cowboy days and nothing will change that, especially the Federal Government attempting to step in.

Matt Holck · 08-09-2014 3:50pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

I believe Russia is the largest exporter of weapons worldwide.

second largest

Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations

InTheTrees · 08-09-2014 4:48pm

Matt Holck wrote: »

second largest

Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations

Curious. I dont see those numbers you posted anywhere in the article you linked to.

These are from Wiki:

2013 rank Supplier Arms exports
1 Russia 8283
2 United States 6153
3 China 1837
4 France 1489
5 United Kingdom 1394
6 Germany 972

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters

InTheTrees · 08-09-2014 5:05pm

Here's a story from yesterday about a mountain lion attack on a 6 year old in Cupertino, which is in the heart of Silicon Valley.

No guns involved but it illustrates why some perfectly normal law abiding people in the west resist the suggestion they give up their rifles.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mountain-lion-attack-20140907-story.html

Brian? · 08-09-2014 6:35pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's a story from yesterday about a mountain lion attack on a 6 year old in Cupertino, which is in the heart of Silicon Valley.

No guns involved but it illustrates why some perfectly normal law abiding people in the west resist the suggestion they give up their rifles.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mountain-lion-attack-20140907-story.html

Who's asking them to give up their rifles?

InTheTrees · 08-09-2014 6:59pm

Its a thread about gun control.

eire4 · 08-09-2014 7:08pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a thread about gun control.

Correct. But you still have not answered the questioned. Who is asking them to give up their rifles?

Brian? · 08-09-2014 7:41pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a thread about gun control.

I know. But who's asking them to give up their rifles?

There is a huge difference between being anti gun and pro gun control.

InTheTrees · 08-09-2014 7:45pm

Hmm.

o
k
a
y

If we're really getting into semantics, I actually said "the suggestion" didnt I?

I never said anything about anyone "asking" anyone else to do anything.

Matt Holck · 08-09-2014 9:14pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Curious. I dont see those numbers you posted anywhere in the article you linked to.

These are from Wiki:

2013 rank Supplier Arms exports
1 Russia 8283
2 United States 6153
3 China 1837
4 France 1489
5 United Kingdom 1394
6 Germany 972

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters

most of those american weapons must be give aways through the defense budget

FISMA · 09-09-2014 1:53am

Brian? wrote: »

Who's asking them to give up their rifles?

eire4 wrote: »

Who is asking them to give up their rifles?

Politicians do not ask gun owners to surrender a rifle, they force them to.

The people to which InTheTrees refers have probably already lived through such an event, the Clinton AWB for example, or the effects thereafter at the State level. It is not a hypothetical future event, but a factual past.

Neither of you doubt that Obama, Feinstein, Pelosi, or Bloomberg would love to see rifles confiscated, do you?

There are hundreds of rifles currently banned from millions of Americans. CT for example recently banned about 100 guns. If you include clones, the list is extensively longer. If you feel like doing a bit of homework, you will find similar lists in NY, CA, NJ, and MA, to start.

Matt Holck wrote: »

most of those american weapons must be give aways through the defense budget

Where do I sign up?:rolleyes:

Manic Moran · 09-09-2014 11:44am

Brian? wrote: »

I know. But who's asking them to give up their rifles?

There is a huge difference between being anti gun and pro gun control.

Depends on where you are. Under the current regulatory system in place in California, a private citizen will find it pretty much impossible to purchase a new pistol in a few years. It's all being done in the name of safety and 'reasonable restriction.' We don't expect it will survive the court challenge currently ongoing, but neither do we omit the current effect such 'control' can have.

Manic Moran · 09-09-2014 12:08pm

Brian? wrote: »

I'll ask you a question, what's the downside of bringing in an age restriction for firearms or types of firearms?

In this case the upside would have saved a mans life. Why are you so against reasonable regulation?

If a law was inacted today barring anyone under 18 owning or operation an automatic firearm, the negative effect would be?

Owning is already illegal.

Operating prohibition takes away several things. Firstly, a leisure hobby or sporting career. There are plenty of automatic firearms which can be safely fired by under-18s, be it because of size/weight or calibre. Blazing away with a belt-fed .22 is a lot of fun, and no more dangerous than blazing away with a semi-auto .22. Both firearms need to be handled with the same level of respect and care. And those who wish to make a sporting career of it would be artificially withheld. I posted a video of Katelyn Frances on the AH thread on the incident as an example.

Secondly, it may require purchase of a second firearm. If I own a select-fire AR, under your proposed prohibition, I can't let my daughter shoot it even in semi-auto mode. US firearms law categorises select-fire weapons as machineguns, regardless of what setting the selector is on at any moment in time.

Ultimately, you want to legislate for stupidity. The guy is dead because he was an idiot, gave the wrong person the wrong gun and then stood in the wrong place. Late last year, a 25-year old tourist was killed for the same reason: She was given a revolver, S&W Magnum .500, fired one round, the recoil on the revolver brought it back up to her head, and as, apparently, she was flinching, she fired a second round, killing herself. This couldn't be legislated for on the basis of age or of type of weapon. Fundamentally this sort of daftness comes down to individual responsibility, in both cases the person at fault was the range staff, and the only difference here, despite the same cause and effect, is the emotional response to the concept of "young girl with machinegun" as opposed to the actual important concept of "person given inappropriate weapon." But what's the proposed solution? "Don't give young girls machineguns", a blanket and inappropriate knee jerk response. It's that sort of thing which irks me more than the specifics of the proposal.

Skylinehead · 09-09-2014 7:55pm

What sport uses automatic weapons? Hardly target practice etc.

Not sure what your point is on select fire weapons, because at the end of the day, they're still automatic guns.

Manic Moran · 10-09-2014 12:19am

Skylinehead wrote: »

What sport uses automatic weapons? Hardly target practice etc.

3-gun, at least :https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yd4B77PkeaU

K-9 · 10-09-2014 11:30am

Mod:

Stick to the topic please. There are threads about ISIS and Syria on the main politics board or users can start a new thread if they so wish.

mister gullible · 06-10-2014 2:45pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's the proposed solution? "Don't give young girls machineguns", a blanket and inappropriate knee jerk response.

So it's ok to give young girls machineguns in some circumstances, maybe lightweight .22 automatics in controlled and 'fun' situations. I like a bit of huntin' and shootin' myself but have to laugh ruefully at that one. Is there any commonsense left in this world? :rolleyes:

Black Swan · 07-10-2014 6:38am

Admittedly I have mixed emotions about the proposed gun laws that occur in the US. Unfortunately such laws are all too often proposed to their legislatures after the news media fans the flames following a tragic and isolated incident that included a gun. Not always a time for rational discussion and decision making, much less legislation.

Citizens that value gun ownership are threatened with the gradual erosion by legislation and court rulings of what they perceive to be their rights to own guns. Private rights of citizens are a compelling argument, especially when such citizens don't break laws. Opposing this, non-gun citizens see no compelling reasons for gun owners to possess fully automatic assault weapons, many of which were originally designed for the military to kill other humans in war.

As for civilians using fully automatic weapons to defend themselves against robbers, assault, or metro gang attacks, per se, I find this a bit over-the-top Hollywood film super hero imagination stuff, and problematic in design or practical use. Furthermore, I do not see a compelling argument for the use of fully automatic weapons for hunting. But should fully automatic weapons be allowed for sport and fun on the range? Why should private law-abiding citizens be deprived of their rights due to very small number of isolated incidents by criminals? The debate continues.

I have some sympathy for the erosion of private gun ownership rights, not because I wish to have guns of any sort, which I don't. Rather I've seen the erosion of sword ownership rights occur in Ireland, especially as pertains to the katana. I have such a blade, which is real (not a ceremonial wall mount), but now worry that I will not be able to return home with it without some problems. Of course anti-gun advocates may use similar arguments against the katana, as they do against fully automatic weapons (not practical for self-defense while shopping Grafton Street at night, etc.).

djflawless · 07-10-2014 6:44am

Brian? wrote: »

4th times a charm eh?

Healthy gun control for me would be a system that includes:

A register for all owners.
A tracking system for purchasing ammunition.
No concealed carry allowed.
No assault rifles.
Nothing over a .44 caliber unless you are hunting bison/Grizzley bears and have a permit to do so.
All owners must possess a relevant permit. Full FBI background checks for permits at owners cost.

That pretty much sums up the most important changes. Some of which are laws in some states already. My frame of reference is Arizona. Where none of the above are laws.

sooooo you want the yanks to take on our firearms approach???

Witcher · 07-10-2014 7:08am

Black Swan wrote: »

Admittedly I have mixed emotions about the proposed gun laws that occur in the US. Unfortunately such laws are all too often proposed to their legislatures after the news media fans the flames following a tragic and isolated incident that included a gun. Not always a time for rational discussion and decision making, much less legislation.

Citizens that value gun ownership are threatened with the gradual erosion by legislation and court rulings of what they perceive to be their rights to own guns. Private rights of citizens are a compelling argument, especially when such citizens don't break laws. Opposing this, non-gun citizens see no compelling reasons for gun owners to possess fully automatic assault weapons, many of which were originally designed for the military to kill other humans in war.

As for civilians using fully automatic weapons to defend themselves against robbers, assault, or metro gang attacks, per se, I find this a bit over-the-top Hollywood film super hero imagination stuff, and problematic in design or practical use. Furthermore, I do not see a compelling argument for the use of fully automatic weapons for hunting. But should fully automatic weapons be allowed for sport and fun on the range? Why should private law-abiding citizens be deprived of their rights due to very small number of isolated incidents by criminals? The debate continues.

Very few people own fully automatic firearms in the US. They can't be bought new anymore and in the second hand market you're talking thousands of dollars for even the cheapest models and tens of thousands for the popular ones.

The cost of the gun, ammo prices, and the BATFE paperwork means that only a tiny number of people actually own a fully automatic rifle. They're not something the average shooter can go to a shop and just pick up.

Manic Moran · 07-10-2014 1:34pm

mister gullible wrote: »

So it's ok to give young girls machineguns in some circumstances, maybe lightweight .22 automatics in controlled and 'fun' situations. I like a bit of huntin' and shootin' myself but have to laugh ruefully at that one. Is there any commonsense left in this world? :rolleyes:

Yes.

I note you laugh ruefully, but do not actually put forward a reason as to why a young lass cannot properly operate a .22LR auto. As you are a shooter, you are doubtless aware that the recoil of such a firearm is hardly going to overwhelm anyone above the age of five and the only difference between a single-shot and an auto is the repeated application of that insignificant recoil. Everything else, from stance to basic firearm safety rules, remain absolutely the same.

"I think it's daft" is not a proper basis, I would submit, for enacting legislation.

Manach · 07-10-2014 1:39pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

"I think it's daft" is not a proper basis, I would submit, for enacting legislation.

In general, given what I've read on the subject, that phrase at times could be the model of jurisprudential theorising on crafting Government acts.

Black Swan · 08-10-2014 12:38am

Blay wrote: »

Very few people own fully automatic firearms in the US.

That may be so, but many law-abiding gun owners see legislation against fully automatic weapons as part of a larger, long term erosion of their rights to bear any kinds of guns for self-defense, hunting, and sport. Additionally, erosion of private citizen rights by government overtime is even a larger issue.

Gun Control

Comments