Gun Control

Overheal

http://dailynexus.com/2014-06-05/sen-boxer-proposes-pause-for-safety-act/

Senator Barbara Boxer proposed the Pause for Safety Act last Friday, which under certain circumstances would grant law enforcement greater power to confiscate firearms, as well as allow family members to prevent someone close to them from being allowed to purchase a firearm.

The proposed legislation — a direct response to the shooting in Isla Vista on May 23 — includes three main provisions. First, the act would allow family members to obtain a “gun violence prevention order” that would allow family members to prevent a person close to them, on a temporary basis, from purchasing a firearm if they are thought to pose a threat to themselves or others. The second includes a “gun violence prevention warrant” that would allow law enforcement to confiscate previously purchased firearms if authorized by a court of law. Lastly, the legislation would make it a mandatory universal practice for law enforcement to make use existing gun registries when responding to a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate.

Looks like yet another piece of kneejerk legislation. However, I don't mind the idea that people can refer someone they know might be dangerous to being flagged by the national registry, in theory. Similarly in some states with Mental Health acts, you can refer family members for involuntary care in the most extreme circumstances where they are a present harm to themselves or to others.

The new legislation – The Pause for Safety Act – will include the following provisions:

• One, it would help ensure that families and others can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm.
• Two, it would help ensure that families and others can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant that would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if a court determines that the individual poses a threat to themselves or others.
• Three, it would help ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing gun registries when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate.

I doubt it would pass like that.

Brian?

Yeah. That bill will never pass the house.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Yeah. That bill will never pass the house.

As well it shouldn’t! The legislation as I understand it allows anyone to ask for one of these restraining orders. Noting to protect an individual from some gun-control activist going to a local gun range and getting the names of people on the sign-in sheet. Then petitioning the judicial system for gun violence prevention warrants claiming that they believe these individuals are about to commit a crime, or a danger to themselves. So you then have a squad of police officers showing up on your doorstep, guns in hand and edgy with the idea you could be armed and dangerous, in order to confiscate your firearms.

comongethappy

guns dont kill people.

Americans disproportionate predication towards homicide kills people.

Brian?

comongethappy wrote: »

guns dont kill people.

They most certainly do.

Americans disproportionate predication towards homicide kills people.

That helps too.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

As well it shouldn’t! The legislation as I understand it allows anyone to ask for one of these restraining orders. Noting to protect an individual from some gun-control activist going to a local gun range and getting the names of people on the sign-in sheet. Then petitioning the judicial system for gun violence prevention warrants claiming that they believe these individuals are about to commit a crime, or a danger to themselves. So you then have a squad of police officers showing up on your doorstep, guns in hand and edgy with the idea you could be armed and dangerous, in order to confiscate your firearms.

Guns that are held unconstitutionally should be confiscated anyway IMO. I.e. guns held by anyone not a member of a well organised militia.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Guns that are held unconstitutionally should be confiscated anyway IMO. I.e. guns held by anyone not a member of a well organised militia.

Oh that revisionist history again...

"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."

This one is much easier to determine than what came first... the chicken or the egg. The Reserve Militia are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, consists of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Oh that revisionist history again...

Excuse me?

"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."

This one is much easier to determine than what came first... the chicken or the egg. The Reserve Militia are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, consists of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

So not actually being part of a militia means by law everyone is part of a militia. The logic is brilliant.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i love the twisted logic anti gun people have to employ just to argue their way out of understanding a basic english sentence.

sin_city

Anyone have details on a comparison between people on medication in the USA Vs Switzerland?

Brian?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i love the twisted logic anti gun people have to employ just to argue their way out of understanding a basic english sentence.

Go on.

I'm not anti gun by the way. I'm pro gun control.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

Go on.

I'm not anti gun by the way. I'm pro gun control.

Pro gun control for citizens but not for the state?

Gotcha....I like the Swiss model myself.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Pro gun control for citizens but not for the state?

Gotcha....I like the Swiss model myself.

Don't be facetious. I'm pro gun control.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

Don't be facetious. I'm pro gun control.

I can't find out the % of the Swiss on medication but in the US I've seen 70% a lot and somerthing like 48% on anti-depressants.

Amerika

Since it seems it’s the Democrats who are all gooey over gun control legislation, perhaps they should introduce legislation to have all handguns and so-called assault weapons confiscated from all Democrats, and make it where Democrats cannot purchase guns in the future. I might even support that legislation.

gavindublin

Brian? wrote: »

Go on.

I'm not anti gun by the way. I'm pro gun control.

Just stumbled onto this topic.

Whats your defination of gun control? If you dont mind me asking

Brian?

gavindublin wrote: »

Just stumbled onto this topic.

Whats your defination of gun control? If you dont mind me asking

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.

Amerika

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.

By "assault rifles" are you referring to fully automatic rifles? Or do you include even those cosmetically mean-looking semi automatic rifles (that require you to pull the trigger every time a bullet is singly fired), that make wussies pee in their pants just by the sight of them?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

By "assault rifles" are you referring to fully automatic rifles? Or do you include even those cosmetically mean-looking semi automatic rifles (that require you to pull the trigger every time a bullet is singly fired), that make wussies pee in their pants just by the sight of them?

I mean assault rifles. That would include these "mean looking semi auto rifles" as you call them.

Let's be honest, they're generally penis extensions. I'm a fan of shooting for sport and I honestly don't see the point of owning a .22 that looks like an M16 anyway. What are you going to hunt with it? Are you going to use it to protect against home invasion? No, it's too cumbersome.

Can you honestly tell me the use of owning an AR15?

Btw, converting them to fully auto is not rocket science.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

I can't find out the % of the Swiss on medication but in the US I've seen 70% a lot and somerthing like 48% on anti-depressants.

The point? It's the anti depressants fault ?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I mean assault rifles. That would include these "mean looking semi auto rifles" as you call them.

Let's be honest, they're generally penis extensions. I'm a fan of shooting for sport and I honestly don't see the point of owning a .22 that looks like an M16 anyway. What are you going to hunt with it? Are you going to use it to protect against home invasion? No, it's too cumbersome.

Can you honestly tell me the use of owning an AR15?

Btw, converting them to fully auto is not rocket science.

So you would want my Henry US survival rifle 22LR outlawed then? It's a nice compact rifle that can be kept in the car and out of sight to use for target practice at minimal ammunition costs. And a 22LR can be an effective self defense tool, especially being semi auto.


As to an AR15... it is the perfect rifle for self defense. It is also the ideal tool to use for varmints like the nasty coyotes we have around here (unfortunately the state I live in does not allow you to hunt with a semi auto unless it’s a shotgun).

As to “converting them to fully auto is not rocket science,” well you would be breaking the law. And if someone is inclined to ignore the law concerning firearms, then any gun control legislation would be meaningless, wouldn’t it?

Witcher

Brian? wrote: »

Can you honestly tell me the use of owning an AR15?

Btw, converting them to fully auto is not rocket science.

You know AR-15's etc. are legal in Ireland right?

Brian?

Blay wrote: »

You know AR-15's etc. are legal in Ireland right?

I do. That doesn't give them a purpose.

Witcher

Brian? wrote: »

I do. That doesn't give them a purpose.

So the Gardai are licencing firearms to people that have no use for them is what you're saying?

Despite 'good reason' being the single most important aspect of applying for a firearms licence.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

So you would want my Henry US survival rifle 22LR outlawed then? It's a nice compact rifle that can be kept in the car and out of sight to use for target practice at minimal ammunition costs. And a 22LR can be an effective self defense tool, especially being semi auto.

Yes ban. Are you going to list rifles one by one now ?

As to an AR15... it is the perfect rifle for self defense. It is also the ideal tool to use for varmints like the nasty coyotes we have around here (unfortunately the state I live in does not allow you to hunt with a semi auto unless it’s a shotgun).

There are far more suitable guns for both. In a home invasion I'd want a 9mm or a .38 hand gun. Preferably with hollow point ammunition. Anything larger and you risk shooting through walls and injuring or killing your own family.

Killing coyotes, a .22 bolt action rifle is ideal. Larger game, larger calibre rifles. What do you hunt deer with?Zero need for an AR15 IMO.

As to “converting them to fully auto is not rocket science,” well you would be breaking the law. And if someone is inclined to ignore the law concerning firearms, then any gun control legislation would be meaningless, wouldn’t it?

It would. It's no deterrent to criminals or people with nefarious intent. Remove the AR 15 from circulation and make the whole thing more difficult.

Brian?

Blay wrote: »

So the Gardai are licencing firearms to people that have no use for them is what you're saying?

Despite 'good reason' being the single most important aspect of applying for a firearms licence.

Are they? Well they shouldn't be IMO. All opinion here.

Have you a practical use for an AR15 to share?

Witcher

Brian? wrote: »

There are far more suitable guns for both. In a home invasion I'd want a 9mm or a .38 hand gun. Preferably with hollow point ammunition. Anything larger and you risk shooting through walls and injuring or killing your own family.

A pistol has a much shorter sight radius, it's much easier to miss with. Even a small movement at the muzzle can have a drastic effect on accuracy at distance.

You can get hollow point ammunition for a rifle.

Witcher

Brian? wrote: »

Are they? Well they shouldn't be IMO. All opinion here.

Have you a practical use for an AR15 to share?

Well the Gardai believe there is a need for them so we'll have to go with them.

People use them hunting and target shooting, same as any other firearm. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean there is no reason to own them.

Brian?

Blay wrote: »

Well the Gardai believe there is a need for them so we'll have to go with them.

People use them hunting and target shooting, same as any other firearm. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean there is no reason to own them.

I honestly can't see a reason to own them. To me the dangers of having them in circulation out weigh the usefulness in a massive way.

Witcher

Brian? wrote: »

I honestly can't see a reason to own them. To me the dangers of having them in circulation out weigh the usefulness in a massive way.

You could say that about any fiream. For minimal risk we should only have air rifles and single shot shotguns.

When's the last time you heard of anyone being killed with a legally held firearm of any type here? It just doesn't happen.

No matter what firearms are available there is always a risk, these threads normally come down to 'Sure you only need a .22 and a shotgun', yeah that's fine but Derrick Bird killed 12 people in the UK with those exact firearms, the death toll could easily have been higher only he killed himself.

No matter what hoops you have to jump through to get a gun; is someone is determined enough they will go through the rigmarole. Anders Breivik waited a year, went to training courses, attended a range regularly..all so that he could get firearms.

Brian?

Blay wrote: »

A pistol has a much shorter sight radius, it's much easier to miss with. Even a small movement at the muzzle can have a drastic effect on accuracy at distance.

I'm aware of that. If I'm shooting in a house, no way am I going out my bedroom door with an AR.

Any of gun owning friends who own ARs, sleep with a hand gun close and the AR locked away.

Brian?

Blay wrote: »

You could say that about any fiream. For minimal risk we should only have air rifles and single shot shotguns.

When's the last time you heard of anyone ebing killed with a legally held firearm of any type here? It just doesn't happen.

No matter what firearms are available there is always a risk, these threads normally come down to 'Sure you only need a .22 and a shotgun', yeah that's fine but Derrick Bird killed 12 people in the UK with hose exact firearms, the death toll could easily have been higher only he killed himself.

Again. I am not anti gun. I am pro gun control.

Give me one practical use for owning an AR.

Witcher

Brian? wrote: »

Again. I am not anti gun. I am pro gun control.

Give me one practical use for owning an AR.

I already gave you two about 4 posts back.

You have to realise that this is one of the most anti gun countries in Europe, some of the laws here are the most idiotic sh1t you will ever read. Yet AR-15's etc are still available so there are practical uses for them.

Brian?

Blay wrote: »

I already gave you two about 4 posts back.

You have to realise that this is one of the most anti gun countries in Europe, some of the laws here are the most idiotic sh1t you will ever read. Yet AR-15's etc are still available so there are practical uses for them.

You didn't give me a practical use. Target shooting is not a practical use, you could justify owning a 50 cal machine gun that way.

My hunch, the Gardaí happily issue licences based on knowing and trusting gun club members.

Witcher

Brian? wrote: »

You didn't give me a practical use. Target shooting is not a practical use, you could justify owning a 50 cal machine gun that way.

My hunch, the Gardaí happily issue licences based on knowing and trusting gun club members.

Well no because that's a CAT A weapon in Europe and is illegal across the EU as a result. F/A rifles also one of only 3 actual firearms types that are prohibited by Irish law.

There are only two uses for firearms in Ireland hunting or target shooting, if you're not doing either of those you don't get the gun.

Supers and C. Supers don't know all the people they issue licences to personally, firearms applications are a tiny part of their duties.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

The point? It's the anti depressants fault ?

I dunno, as I said 70% of Americans are on medication I don't know what it is for the Swiss.

What are the differences between Swiss and US?

Also, should we have knife control too?

If we are going to have true gun control then the police have to comply also.

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

I dunno, as I said 70% of Americans are on medication I don't know what it is for the Swiss.

What are the differences between Swiss and US?

Also, should we have knife control too?

If we are going to have true gun control then the police have to comply also.

I think I can help you here.

I am a native-born US Citizen. My family, those who aren't here in the US, is about 50% Swiss.

My family members in CA and those in CH think your questions are ridiculous, and that you are purposefully misconstruing the issue.

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

I think I can help you here.

I am a native-born US Citizen. My family, those who aren't here in the US, is about 50% Swiss.

My family members in CA and those in CH think your questions are ridiculous, and that you are purposefully misconstruing the issue.

Thanks...that's good...now I have the opinions of one family.

Again, does anyone have stats on the percentage of the population on medication in Switzerland?

Seaneh

sin_city wrote: »

Thanks...that's good...now I have the opinions of one family.

Again, does anyone have stats on the percentage of the population on medication in Switzerland?

What does "on medication" mean?

70% of Americans "on medication" could mean that 70% of Americans regularly take anything from aspirin or asthma inhalers to antipsychotics. It's a meaningless, and is wager fictitious, figure.

Witcher

Seaneh wrote: »

What does "on medication" mean?

70% of Americans "on medication" could mean that 70% of Americans regularly take anything from aspirin or asthma inhalers to antipsychotics. It's a meaningless, and is wager fictitious, figure.

I think the figure is from here;

www.healthline.com/health-news/policy-seventy-percent-of-americans-take-prescription-drugs-062113

Seaneh

Blay wrote: »

I think the figure is from here;

www.healthline.com/health-news/policy-seventy-percent-of-americans-take-prescription-drugs-062113

So 70% are on some type of medication, ranging from aspirin to antipsychotics. Again, what relevance does that have to the price of cabbage? It's a totally meaningless statistic.

Witcher

Seaneh wrote: »

So 70% are on some type of medication, ranging from aspirin to antipsychotics. Again, what relevance does that have to the price of cabbage? It's a totally meaningless statistic.

That's for sin_city to answer, I just googled for the figure.

sin_city

Similar gun laws in Switzerland...I'd just like to see how much medication they are taking there.

Just wondering why they don't have so many mass shootings.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Similar gun laws in Switzerland...I'd just like to see how much medication they are taking there.

Just wondering why they don't have so many mass shootings.

What's the population of Switzerland?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

What's the population of Switzerland?

And what is the ethnic makeup of Switzerland's population? A tolerated, and even glorified, culture of violence and little regard for human life spreads across the boundaries of attitudes and values. I’d wager diversity is a rather alien term there.

Seaneh

Amerika wrote: »

And what is the ethnic makeup of Switzerland's population? A tolerated, and even glorified, culture of violence and little regard for human life spreads across the boundaries of attitudes and values. I’d wager diversity is a rather alien term there.

I see, it's all dem darn minorities fault.

Amerika

Seaneh wrote: »

I see, it's all dem darn minorities fault.

Ignore those pesky statistics provided by the FBI, and never look at the US population breakdown by race in comparison, eh?

We’re all just one big happy family… kumbaya right? Easy to say from those looking in from the outside. We call them "armchair quarterbacks" over here.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

LeinsterDub

Brian? wrote: »

What's the population of Switzerland?

Total
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/total_number_of_gun_deaths/178

Rate
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/178

Amerika

Seaneh wrote: »

I think you forgot the other two k's in your name, to be frank.

"Statistically Speaking" only has one k. And stop calling me frank.

Overheal

Brian? wrote: »

Let's be honest, they're generally penis extensions. I'm a fan of shooting for sport and I honestly don't see the point of owning a .22 that looks like an M16 anyway. What are you going to hunt with it? Are you going to use it to protect against home invasion? No, it's too cumbersome.

If I'm shooting in a house, no way am I going out my bedroom door with an AR.

you incorrectly assume "Home Invasion" is the only justified reason, and more importantly that you view "Home Invasion" as happening inside a hallway or something, whereas a legitimate property owner - surprise - can actually own land. A farmer, for instance, can be subject to trespassing. Someone living outside of an urban area may be subject to wild predators as well. In Alaska its from what I understand a very common practice for members of the population to be armed.

Have you a practical use for an AR15 to share?

The law is I feel deliberately a bit loose about the definition of what is and is not a so-called "legitimate" use of a gun that will satisfy extremist groups, because at the end of the day law-abiding citizens will be subject to citizens whom are not. Not to turn this into a "Gun-Free Zone" debate, but those tragedies have happened.

Converting them to fully auto is also illegal though, the conversion kits are illegal and being found with one, is also illegal.

SeanW

Brian? wrote: »

They most certainly do.

Then tell me why Switzerland is not a blood soaked mess? They have more guns per capita there than the U.S?