Gun Control

[SEC=UGA]

But doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that if they are made illegal that they'd still be out there? Seems to me like they are a little to invested in the idea to have half measures.

 

eta: also, I was wondering why you think people should have armor piercing, hollow tipped or explosive rounds?

 

 

Due to my brevity, you misunderstood my stand on armor piercing and explosive rounds. No, those should not be available to the public. Hollow points are necessary for their man-stopping power.

 

I'm confused by your first question, my apologies.

[Duchess Jack]

I'm confused by your first question, my apologies.

 

 

I had to check on it myself. I was in regards to law enforcement not wanting assault rifles in non-military, non-law enforcement hands. My point was regarding the mantra that criminals will always be able to get guns. You'd figure that law enforcement would know this more than anyone else - yet they still think that banning assault rifles is a good idea.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Duchess Jack

[SEC=UGA]

I had to check on it myself. I was in regards to law enforcement not wanting assault rifles in non-military, non-law enforcement hands. My point regarding the mantra that criminals will always be able to get guns. You'd think that law enforcement would know this more than anyone else - yet they still think that banning assault rifles is a good idea.

 

 

I thought that's what you were asking but just wanted to clarify.

 

The idea that outlawing assualt rifles would get them off the street is a red herring. I am convinced that they would still be prevalent.

 

Now, one thing that you do have to consider is that most of these assault rifles in the hands of criminals do have a shorter life cycle. For the most part they are not well maintained and get beat up going from owner to owner. I'm guessing the theory is that eventually due to lack of cleaning and the eventual confiscations the number of assault rifles would begin to diminish over time.

 

I do believe that assault rifles would still be available to these criminals, much as they were available during the assault rifle ban during much of the 90's.

[DMD]

Let's say its stolen and a crime is committed with it - or lets say you were short on cash and had to sell your gun (not that you would). Isn't it important for members of law enforcement to know where the gun came from?

 

 

If it was stolen, I would report it along with the serial number. If I sold it, gave it as a present or loaned it to a friend, what does that matter? It is not like there are crimes where they leave the gun behind so it can be tracked. If a gun was used in a crime, what does it matter who owned it? The only reason I can think of to want to know who owns weapons is so that the government knows where legally owned guns are so they can collect them. I do not see any other purpose. Any gun that was sold as new in the past decade (?) was sold after a background check so they know who bought it originally anyway. Registering owners is just a red tape mess that doesn't accomplish anything.

[detlef]

If it was stolen, I would report it along with the serial number. If I sold it, gave it as a present or loaned it to a friend, what does that matter? It is not like there are crimes where they leave the gun behind so it can be tracked. If a gun was used in a crime, what does it matter who owned it? The only reason I can think of to want to know who owns weapons is so that the government knows where legally owned guns are so they can collect them. I do not see any other purpose. Any gun that was sold as new in the past decade (?) was sold after a background check so they know who bought it originally anyway. Registering owners is just a red tape mess that doesn't accomplish anything.

 

Please clear something up for me. New guns are only sold after a background check, but from there it doesn't matter who owns them? Doesn't that mean that someone with a clean background check could buy guns and then sell them to people who wouldn't check out? Doesn't that essentially make it pointless to have the background check to begin with?

 

I'm genuinely curious here.

[DMD]

Please clear something up for me. New guns are only sold after a background check, but from there it doesn't matter who owns them? Doesn't that mean that someone with a clean background check could buy guns and then sell them to people who wouldn't check out? Doesn't that essentially make it pointless to have the background check to begin with?

 

I'm genuinely curious here.

 

 

Right. As I mentioned in a previous post, I saw some young woman buying a .45 with her Manson-esque boyfriend sitting there whispering to her. I would bet a lot of money that the gun was for him. When they give a background check, you have to state you are buying the gun for your own purposes and for no one else but obviously once the gun hits the parking lot, it goes where ever it goes. So yes, a background check is a very easily circumvented thing. If a gun is sold between two people, I think it is supposed to go through a registered gun dealer (pay a fee to them) and the paperwork is up to date on that weapon. But obviously that probably happens so little as to be never. You have to go through a licensed dealer on any gun made after 1900. But there is a huge set of guns (say 200 million or more) that existed prior to the tracking and that are not "trackable".

 

Different states have different laws regarding how many guns you can buy in particular time period. In Texas, I found this:

 

• You should be aware that if you buy 2 or more handguns within 5 business days from the same retailer, that retailer is required by federal law to send a form to the BATFE giving them all your information & the info of the handguns that you bought. This is supposedly to help them "investigate" illegal trafficking of weapons. They are not required to purge this info from their system & can retain it forever. There is no law stating what they can or can’t do with this info. If you don’t want them to have this info, you can buy your handguns from different retailers or space your handgun purchases at least 6 business days apart.

 

[bpwallace49]

Please clear something up for me. New guns are only sold after a background check, but from there it doesn't matter who owns them? Doesn't that mean that someone with a clean background check could buy guns and then sell them to people who wouldn't check out? Doesn't that essentially make it pointless to have the background check to begin with?

 

I'm genuinely curious here.

 

 

Yep. Called straw buyers. That is how a lot of guns get smuggled to Mexico after purchase in US border states.

[DMD]

I also think there is a limit to how many black rifles you can buy at a time because so many headed to Mexico for the drug trade.

[detlef]

If I sold it, gave it as a present or loaned it to a friend, what does that matter?

 

I'm having a hard time putting the above quote together with your response. It sounds like it does matter.

Right. As I mentioned in a previous post, I saw some young woman buying a .45 with her Manson-esque boyfriend sitting there whispering to her. I would bet a lot of money that the gun was for him. When they give a background check, you have to state you are buying the gun for your own purposes and for no one else but obviously once the gun hits the parking lot, it goes where ever it goes. So yes, a background check is a very easily circumvented thing. If a gun is sold between two people, I think it is supposed to go through a registered gun dealer (pay a fee to them) and the paperwork is up to date on that weapon. But obviously that probably happens so little as to be never. You have to go through a licensed dealer on any gun made after 1900. But there is a huge set of guns (say 200 million or more) that existed prior to the tracking and that are not "trackable".

 

Different states have different laws regarding how many guns you can buy in particular time period. In Texas, I found this:

• You should be aware that if you buy 2 or more handguns within 5 business days from the same retailer, that retailer is required by federal law to send a form to the BATFE giving them all your information & the info of the handguns that you bought. This is supposedly to help them "investigate" illegal trafficking of weapons. They are not required to purge this info from their system & can retain it forever. There is no law stating what they can or can’t do with this info. If you don’t want them to have this info, you can buy your handguns from different retailers or space your handgun purchases at least 6 business days apart.

 

 

[detlef]

An Army vet chimes in on more people carrying guns

 

Serving in a combat zone means constant vigilance against unseen enemies. It means wearing heavy body armor, no matter what the weather is doing. It means taking weapons with you when you eat or use the restroom. It means, quite literally, never putting them down. The common argument made by gun-rights advocates is that they “don’t want to be in a one-way firefight,” which argues for not restricting the sale of things like semiautomatic weapons, high-capacity magazines and tear-gas grenades. Their contention is that the only real way to stop dedicated shooters is for there to be plenty of other shooters around.

 

Those who truly believe that need to be carrying a gun right now, wherever they are. They need to keep it closer than I kept my weapon in Iraq. In Iraq my fellow soldiers’ lives were on the line. Soldiers’ lives are important — but our families’ safety is even more precious.

 

Those who truly believe that anyone should be able buy semiautomatic weapons will need a gun at soccer practice, at church, at “Batman” movies. That’s the only logical choice. And civilian life will feel almost like being in Iraq.

 

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has compiled a 62-page list of mass shootings since 2005. What’s striking is that there isn’t a single example of a concerned bystander with a concealed-carry permit who stopped a mass shooting. I believe that what I learned in Iraq holds true for the United States: constantly carrying weapons is harder than it sounds, and a determined gunman will orchestrate a mass shooting precisely where and when we are least prepared for it.

 

[Perchoutofwater]

I say civilians don't need machine guns and this is what you offer?

 

 

 

If he had no insurance, I have no sympathy for him and you don't know if he shot anybody or if his store was looted anyways.

 

I have insurance on my business. That insurance also pays me what I've averaged a month in profits each month that my business is inoperable. My insurance does not pay the salaries of my employees, so they would be screwed if that happened.

 

First off, I don't need a lecture on the meaning of the Constitution from a career civilian. Unlike a career civilian I was willing to die for it so I have a concept of its meaning an applications to daily living.

 

Here is a list of things that also would have been helpful in those situations:

 

nuclear weapon

tank

bazooka

adamsite

lysergic acid

cyanide gas

mustard gas

ricin

sarin

anthrax

penicillin if you are eating at Lubys

 

That is ridiculous, and you know it, but your whole argument regarding guns is ridiculous.

 

Besides, she didn't leave her AR-15 in the car, she left her pistol. I don't feel any safer from Arab terrorists or whacked out nerds when everyone brings their pistol to the movies or walks around town with their AR-15. There is not a single shred of evidence that civilians with weapons would have done any good in either situation.

 

Do you honestly think it would have made it worse?

 

See, I have as much of a right to be and feel safe as you do. Why do you surmise that soldiers aren't allowed to carry weapons around base when not on duty? Why hasn't the Army changed that? We all know the answer - even the Army knows you don't need a bunch of people running around with guns looking for a reason to use them.

 

I have a constitutional right to carry a weapon. You do not have a constitutional right to feel safe. Soldiers aren't allowed to carry when not on duty because just like the brass in police forces the brass in the armed forces more often than not are more politicians than actual police officers or servicemen.

 

 

Feeling safe is not a right, just like being successful is not a right. I have a right to be armed based on the second amendment.

[DMD]

I'm having a hard time putting the above quote together with your response. It sounds like it does matter.

 

 

It does not matter in the sense of preventing any crime or having any effect other than red tape and a way in which the government can take guns away from you. It does matter to them by law that transactions are recorded in most states.

[Perchoutofwater]

An Army vet chimes in on more people carrying guns

 

 

I constantly carry my 1911 except where I am forbidden by law to do so. My wife constantly carry's her 1911 except where forbidden by law to do so. I do carry my gun at my daughter's soccer practice. I do carry my gun at church, as do a large number of the people in our congregation, and when I go to see Batman this weekend, I will be carrying my gun. Yes at first it takes some getting used to, and can be somewhat uncomfortable. After carrying for a few weeks, it becomes second nature.

 

As to the statistics gathered by the Brady Campaign, first I'd question them simply due to where they come from. They used Brady who was shot by a .22 to ban so-called "assault weapons". Secondly the "fact" that there haven't been any mass shootings stopped by a concerned citizen, how do you prove that? I know here in the city where I live, a guy with a CHL effectively prevented one by chasing the guy off. He was firing on a courthouse, and the armed citizen scared him off prior to him shooting a bunch of people even though he had already shot 20 rounds or so. Second example just look at what the old man did in the internet cafe just this week or the week before. Whose to say that wouldn't have become a mass shooting had he not stepped in? The media is mainly liberal, and liberals typically don't like guns. So they rarely report stories where armed citizens have prevented more carnage. Name one mass shooting that has happened in a place that allows people to carry a concealed weapon. The common denominator between all of these mass shootings is they have taken place in areas that restrict law abiding citizens from carrying weapons.

[detlef]

It does not matter in the sense of preventing any crime or having any effect other than red tape and a way in which the government can take guns away from you. It does matter to them by law that transactions are recorded in most states.

 

Sorry, but it sounds like you primary point is that, what's the point of regulating the sale of guns if people are going to break the law anyway. Is that truly your point?

 

Could that criteria not be used to argue for the abolishment of any number of laws?

 

Most of your points in favor of having more people carrying guns around reference "sane, law-abiding, and well trained people". However, you also seem to be saying that it's rather pointless to try and restrict sale to the same. So, in reality you're simply advocating that more people in general have guns and simply hope that enough of them are sane, law-abiding, and well trained.

[DMD]

Sort of correct - it is largely pointless to regulate the sale of guns as the criminal type yet again do not play by the rules and circumvent them. I guess the difference in your statement "Could that criteria not be used to argue for the abolishment of any number of laws?" is that laws are made up against criminal acts and owning a gun is not a criminal act. You make people jump through a hoop or two if they care to remain a law-abiding citizen.

 

I don't care if anymore people carry guns. They already have that ability and are doing so if they wanted. I don't carry a gun personally. And I never mentioned "sane, law-abiding, and well trained people" need more guns. I could care less if no one else ever buys a gun. My point is that measures to limit ownership and reduce sales are ineffective when it comes to the criminal element and registration of guns accomplishes nothing other than allowing for an easier manner to disarm law abiding citizens. The registration accomplishes nothing else. It does not lower crime. Understand too that each state and in some cases municipalities can have widely varying gun laws so a blanket statement is hard to make.

[SEC=UGA]

They can track my guns all they want, they can register my guns all they want, I'll send them a picture each year of my guns and where they are kept.

 

For more than one reason, they will never come to my house and successfully take them from me.

[detlef]

I constantly carry my 1911 except where I am forbidden by law to do so. My wife constantly carry's her 1911 except where forbidden by law to do so. I do carry my gun at my daughter's soccer practice. I do carry my gun at church, as do a large number of the people in our congregation, and when I go to see Batman this weekend, I will be carrying my gun. Yes at first it takes some getting used to, and can be somewhat uncomfortable. After carrying for a few weeks, it becomes second nature.

 

As to the statistics gathered by the Brady Campaign, first I'd question them simply due to where they come from. They used Brady who was shot by a .22 to ban so-called "assault weapons". Secondly the "fact" that there haven't been any mass shootings stopped by a concerned citizen, how do you prove that? I know here in the city where I live, a guy with a CHL effectively prevented one by chasing the guy off. He was firing on a courthouse, and the armed citizen scared him off prior to him shooting a bunch of people even though he had already shot 20 rounds or so. Second example just look at what the old man did in the internet cafe just this week or the week before. Whose to say that wouldn't have become a mass shooting had he not stepped in? The media is mainly liberal, and liberals typically don't like guns. So they rarely report stories where armed citizens have prevented more carnage. Name one mass shooting that has happened in a place that allows people to carry a concealed weapon. The common denominator between all of these mass shootings is they have taken place in areas that restrict law abiding citizens from carrying weapons.

 

1) I have no doubt that you are entirely comfy with your gun. Based on your many posts here, I might be inclined to say that you relish the notion of feeling that cold steel against your hip. But I think that misses the point.

 

2) That point being is that it seems rather apparent that you'd prefer an increase in the number of people carrying guns. You've actually gone so far in the past as to insult me for choosing not to own one. I believe that's the "It's gonna get more like Iraq" point the guy is making. Everyone walking around, packing heat, on the look-out for where the next gun fight may erupt.

 

3) But it's not enough for a guy like me to simply feel ill at ease with the notion of everyone walking around with guns and want to see some modicum of controls put in place to see to it that, for instance, crazy people don't get them. No, apparently, I practically need to thank you because you think you're making the streets safer even if I don't. Apparently guns are the one place where we need to throw our hands up and not bother to police in any way at all because bad guys will find a way. After all, anything beyond that is one step closer to Obama coming into your house and taking away every precious firearm you own.

 

4) In short, I'm sure you've done whatever you were supposed to do in your state to get a CC permit. Mind you, given your state, I'm going to guess that they err on the side of not making that super hard to do (though I'm sure you'd argue otherwise). However, that doesn't mean I have to like it. That doesn't mean I have to share your opinion of how effective you'd be in a combat situation. So, please understand that your "arguments" (or that TX congressmans arguments) about what an asset you'd be to the public in a situation like this is only as effective as someone is prepared to recognize. In other words, they're basically worthless. It's like pointing to the Bible to prove God exists. It's only a relevant argument to someone who already believes it's true.

[detlef]

I don't care if anymore people carry guns. They already have that ability and are doing so if they wanted. I don't carry a gun personally. And I never mentioned "sane, law-abiding, and well trained people" need more guns. I could care less if no one else ever buys a gun.

You basically did. First you implied how level headed certain armed citizens would be in a situation such as what happened in the theater and then wondered aloud how such a person could have stopped or at least curtailed the damage done in that shooting.

 

Given that one of the sticking point of this debate is how effective armed movie goers would have been, it's hard not to take that as an argument for why more would be a good thing.

I respectfully but strongly disagree. An armed citizen - a rational law abiding one - would not just start shooting unless it was very obvious who the shooter was and that shooting at him would not hit someone else. Otherwise, do not shoot or even draw your gun. The fact that no one else had a weapon there allowed him to kill 12 people and injure 30+ more. He freely sprayed the crowd. Is it really better to allow a movie theater full of people to turn into a bloodbath instead of someone trying to stop him? This is another case of some nutcase being allowed to massacre people and there being no way to stop him. Honestly, I cannot fathom being satisfied that there was no one else there with a weapon that could have stopped him. If it could have saved one life it was worth it. How could it have been any worse than it already was?

 

[matt770]

This thread is making me realize I need to unpack ol' Nelly and Bertha, give them a good cleaning and take them to the range. It's been too long.

[Perchoutofwater]

1) I have no doubt that you are entirely comfy with your gun. Based on your many posts here, I might be inclined to say that you relish the notion of feeling that cold steel against your hip. But I think that misses the point.

 

 

I do like having it on my hip most of the time. I won't lie, there are times when it can be uncomfortable or a pain in the butt.

 

2) That point being is that it seems rather apparent that you'd prefer an increase in the number of people carrying guns. You've actually gone so far in the past as to insult me for choosing not to own one. I believe that's the "It's gonna get more like Iraq" point the guy is making. Everyone walking around, packing heat, on the look-out for where the next gun fight may erupt.

 

 

I really don't care one way or the other. I just don't want the government whether federal or local to infringe upon my right to protect myself and my family. What you do or do not do to protect yourself and your family really doesn't matter to me. I'm sorry if I've insulted you in the past, that was not my intention. Having said that there are plenty here that have insinuated that I'm paranoid for wanting to carry a gun. I carry for multiple reasons, not just to protect me from thugs with guns. To me it is no different than carrying a knife. You can kill someone with a knife, but it has other uses to. I carry to protect my animals and my children from feral dogs and hogs where I live, and to protect myself when bow hunting from hogs, coyotes, and cats.

 

3) But it's not enough for a guy like me to simply feel ill at ease with the notion of everyone walking around with guns and want to see some modicum of controls put in place to see to it that, for instance, crazy people don't get them. No, apparently, I practically need to thank you because you think you're making the streets safer even if I don't. Apparently guns are the one place where we need to throw our hands up and not bother to police in any way at all because bad guys will find a way. After all, anything beyond that is one step closer to Obama coming into your house and taking away every precious firearm you own.

 

 

I have no problem with background checks and waiting periods. I would even promote more thorough background checks. I wouldn't have a problem requiring all gun sales to go through a FFL holder, and it to be a felony to buy or sale them without it. I don't want someone who is clinically insane to own a gun either. I don't want someone that has been convicted of a violent crime to own a gun. ( I do not have a problem with some felons owning guns, depending on the nature of the crime they committed.) My problem is with gun registration. I think if you pass a background check then you should be able to buy the guns you want to by with out the government knowing what and how many you bought.

 

4) In short, I'm sure you've done whatever you were supposed to do in your state to get a CC permit. Mind you, given your state, I'm going to guess that they err on the side of not making that super hard to do (though I'm sure you'd argue otherwise). However, that doesn't mean I have to like it. That doesn't mean I have to share your opinion of how effective you'd be in a combat situation. So, please understand that your "arguments" (or that TX congressmans arguments) about what an asset you'd be to the public in a situation like this is only as effective as someone is prepared to recognize. In other words, they're basically worthless. It's like pointing to the Bible to prove God exists. It's only a relevant argument to someone who already believes it's true.

 

 

To get a CHL in the state of Texas you have to pass a very thorough background check which takes on average about 60 days. It is much more thorough than the background check required to buy a firearm. You have to take a 10 hour class, pass a written test, and pass a shooting test. You have to take a 5 hour recertification class every 5 years.

 

I have taken two different tactical shooting classes. Not all CHL holders take tactical shooting classes, as they are not required. I didn't necessarily take the course to learn how to defend myself, but rather I wanted to shoot on the tactical range. I did it for the same reason I shoot skeet with my shotgun or do long range shooting with my rifle. I did it because I really enjoy shooting, like some enjoy golf, and others enjoy racing, skiing, cycling, etc...

[Duchess Jack]

I have no problem with background checks and waiting periods. I would even promote more thorough background checks. I wouldn't have a problem requiring all gun sales to go through a FFL holder, and it to be a felony to buy or sale them without it. I don't want someone who is clinically insane to own a gun either. I don't want someone that has been convicted of a violent crime to own a gun. ( I do not have a problem with some felons owning guns, depending on the nature of the crime they committed.)

 

I get the feeling that the gun lobby (NRA) disagrees with you on many of the above points. Are you an NRA member?

[DMD]

 

You basically did. First you implied how level headed certain armed citizens would be in a situation such as what happened in the theater and then wondered aloud how such a person could have stopped or at least curtailed the damage done in that shooting.

 

Given that one of the sticking point of this debate is how effective armed movie goers would have been, it's hard not to take that as an argument for why more would be a good thing.

 

 

I am not really sure what is meant by having more - people that want to already are and those who do not are not carrying. I do think that based on every CHL holder that I know, that I would have greatly preferred that they be there in that theater because I feel confident that they would have at least slowed down the shooter and therefore saved a few people from getting shot or they might have stopped him cold. I am not advocating forcing people to carry a gun. By this point I am not even sure what I am arguing anymore.

[Perchoutofwater]

I get the feeling that the gun lobby (NRA) disagrees with you on many of the above points. Are you an NRA member?

 

 

I was a NRA member for years, but when they supported HR 5175 I decided not to renew my membership. I now support the SAF.

[Hugh 0ne]

Perch, all BS aside, when is the last time you had to discharge your weapon to protect you or your family from a kittycat or a puppy roaming rabid in your imaginary little Wild West?

Edited July 26, 2012 by Hugh 0ne

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch, all BS aside, when is the last time you had to discharge your weapon to protect you or your family from a kittycat or a puppy roaming rabid in your imaginary little Wild West?

 

 

Last deer season I had a sow charge me on my way to my deer stand. About 4 years ago I killed a boar in my backyard. It had gored one of my dogs the day before.