Gun Control

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.

sin_city · 08-10-2014 2:40am

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:

Probably should not allow until a certain age.

Say between 13 and 18...Same issue as driving a car really.

Black Swan · 08-10-2014 8:30am

sin_city wrote: »

Probably should not allow until a certain age.

Say between 13 and 18...Same issue as driving a car really.

14 is the minimum age for obtaining a drivers license in the State of South Dakota. The minimum age for hunting in South Dakota is 10, but requires an 18 years or older mentor to accompany the child.

Brian? · 08-10-2014 10:00am

djflawless wrote: »

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

No. The laws in Ireland are far more restrictive than anything I proposed.

sin_city · 08-10-2014 10:58pm

Black Swan wrote: »

14 is the minimum age for obtaining a drivers license in the State of South Dakota. The minimum age for hunting in South Dakota is 10, but requires an 18 years or older mentor to accompany the child.

Ok, each to their own....I think it's more to do with living where there would be dangerous wild animals in South Dakota. There haven't been any mass shooting there...Maybe if you give guns to kids young that is the cure????

I think 16 or 18 would be reasonable but there is no science behind my opinion, just a personal point of view.

Black Swan · 09-10-2014 4:00am

sin_city wrote: »

Ok, each to their own....I think it's more to do with living where there would be dangerous wild animals in South Dakota.

South Dakota was only given as an example for one of the 50 states, which all exhibit differences in their state laws, including those that pertain to firearms.

As for SD, I do not recall any significant number of "dangerous... animals" there. There are certainly plenty of "wild animals" (in addition to domestic livestock) that I would not consider dangerous, like herds of wild deer, that would be dangerous to the bonnet of your vehicle if you hit one at 112 km/h (a speed quite common on the I-29). We almost hit one buck on the freeway traveling that speed at night the last time I visited that state.

Manic Moran · 09-10-2014 1:43pm

There's the occasional bear in the Black Hills, apparently.

Brian? · 09-10-2014 3:27pm

sin_city wrote: »

Ok, each to their own....I think it's more to do with living where there would be dangerous wild animals in South Dakota. There haven't been any mass shooting there...Maybe if you give guns to kids young that is the cure????

I think 16 or 18 would be reasonable but there is no science behind my opinion, just a personal point of view.

It's hard to find enough people in South Dakota for a mass shooting. The population is 850,000. 17th largest state and 46th for population density.

Black Swan · 09-10-2014 10:34pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's the occasional bear in the Black Hills, apparently.

There's a few that have been appearing in the southern coastal region of the Bear Flag State in the news, coming down from the dry nearby 3,900m mountains that looked PRETTY BIG! Can I borrow one of your M1A2 Abrams with prototype TUSK equipment and Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station (CROWS) 50 machine gun at the commander's station? Oh, can you also disable the governor so that I can go faster than 96 km/h on our freeways?

sin_city · 09-10-2014 11:15pm

Brian? wrote: »

It's hard to find enough people in South Dakota for a mass shooting. The population is 850,000. 17th largest state and 46th for population density.

How many people own guns there?

Manic Moran · 10-10-2014 1:46am

Black Swan wrote: »

There's a few that have been appearing in the southern coastal region of the Bear Flag State in the news, coming down from the dry nearby 3,900m mountains that looked PRETTY BIG! Can I borrow one of your M1A2 Abrams with prototype TUSK equipment and Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station (CROWS) 50 machine gun at the commander's station? Oh, can you also disable the governor so that I can go faster than 96 km/h on our freeways?

Who's been teaching you these things? It, unfortunately, probably wasn't me.

Gun Control

Comments