# A Gun control solution - perhaps

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 7, 2018.

1. ### Truck Captain StumpyThe Right Honourable Reverend Truck CaptainValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,263
yeah, because it worked so well at Columbine. did you not read any link I provided at all?

no, I am not acting outraged etc... I am asking a question and would like to see your specific evidence
incorrect. when you disagree and are wrong, then you're wrong. Your subjective opinion is irrelevant

and I'm not a gun nut.
I am a gun owner. Most of my firearms are older than you and your father combined.
I am also a retired federal agent with military and civilian experience
ah, so opinion clearly marked as such is "shit" because it doesn't reflect yours?

Hmm... where did I just read that? Oh right! your above projection... lol

externally it's the "same". Internally, as you note, it's different. It's not "disabled".

the round fired is irrelevant as it's also fired by numerous hunting rifles, semi-automatic and otherwise
Functionally, it's no different than any other semi-automatic rifle
that is fact. not shit.

I disagree. We have effective laws that would have limited the recent shootings, yet weren't enforced. The same laws were enforced in Everett, WA and the on site LE was effective in Maryland.

the key word is "enforced". Many states don't fully comply with background checks reporting. That means loopholes where criminals can legally purchase. until enforcement is fixed, no law made will be effective. This is best demonstrated by the Ice comment about dynamite, etc.
again, enforce the law, for starters. We have effective laws (Everett). we lack enforcement and funding.

if we generate more law without considering conflicting areas, and we don't enforce current law, then it means failure.
if I were to suggest anything it would be: you can't compare different cultures without consideration for said cultures - it's like comparing apples to firetrucks based upon colour. just because they're both red (or green) doesn't mean the apple can spray 1000GPM, nor does it mean the firetruck is edible.

also: Crime isn't about the tool, otherwise even AUS would ban cars, screwdrivers, hammers and cell phones

3. ### spidergoatLiddle' Dick TaterValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,966
It looks like a military weapon, and thus shares much of the same functionality, without full auto fire. Same ammo. Same high capacity mag. Same psychological effect. Why be against banning a gun when as you say, you can get similar functionality from a hunting rifle?

5. ### pjdude1219The biscuit has risenValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,121
no your a gun nut. any one who thinks basic psychology doesn't apply to them is a nut. and i sincerely doubt your guns are that old.

no its shit because it a lie. its be the same thing as saying different sized engine version of a car are 2 completely different unrelated things that look similar.

nope still shit. most hunting rifles can't easily be converted to fully automatic assault rifles. all you need to turn an ar-15 to fully automatic is replace a couple of small parts. no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise the ar-15 was designed as a military assault rifle. the mere fact they changed a few, with the right skills, easy to replace parts to take away full auto doesn't change anything. the original civilian version of the ar-15 was an m-16 with one less notch on the select fire control. they kept the bloody bayonet lug on it till that was banned in 94. ignoring the history and moddability to increased lethality is not being honest

7. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
22,491
Do honestly believe that effective law enforcement of regulation is actually possible given that most police would probably sympathize with the pro gun lobby?

I have been surprised that the law enforcement haven't lobbied for greater uniform gun control in the form of union action , strikes , walk outs, marches. They haven't as far as I have read. Yet they are the ones in the firing line the most.
Why is that?
When police start marching in the streets en-mass protesting for the regulation of guns, only then would I take the desire to prevent the next mass school shooting seriously.

8. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,240
Didn't exist.
Besides, nobody expects perfection - except the two factions of the bothsides jamb.
None of which require any of the armament involved in your ridiculous fantasies of fending off charging predators.
In particular, none of which indicate a benefit from a 30 round clip and a rapid fire rifle of any kind, let alone these .223s directly at issue.
Which you are unable to describe without dealing in cartoon-level fantasy.
So we won't punish the inanimate object, for breaking the new laws.
Nonsense. Controlling dangerous tools is part of the standard approach to limiting their potential for harm. All dangerous tools are controlled - especially explosives.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Some of us, anyway.
So making it easy for them, even marketing firearms designed for their convenience, is something the law should address.
It just needs to address the normal person in general.
Yep.
And you clearly distinguish the illegally owned ones.
That's how the law works, in general. All laws work like that.
- - -
About one in four spree killers has or had identifiable mental health issues prior to the slaughter. That's a smaller percentage than equipped themselves with easily restricted firearms.

And of course mental health issues are an aspect of gun control - restrictions on gun possession by the disturbed, temporary sequestration of firearms from domestic abusers, etc. We might address the mental health issues involved in giving back to disturbed children the arsenals confiscated by the police, handing the confused and delusory AR-15s to play with after the police warned against doing that, but that's primarily a gun control issue in the event.

Meanwhile, no one here has any objection to better dealing with mental health issues specifically, apart from gun control. You could start a thread, even. You can find a few suggestions in older threads and posts by me, for starters. Getting rid of Republican Party politicians, for example, would allow significant progress on that front.

Meanwhile, back to the thread topic here.

9. ### Truck Captain StumpyThe Right Honourable Reverend Truck CaptainValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,263
why ban a rifle based upon cosmetics?
*

where did I state basic psychology doesn't apply to me?
Oh right. you have no ability to produce the requested evidence supporting your argument so you instead attack the poster and make unsubstantiated claims.

Feel free to continue your blatant false claims and attacks - and trolling. as I already noted earlier

*

most police also didn't wear seat belts yet they enforced the seat belt law
the sheriff or leadership of a department pick how enforcement is done for the most part. Deputies or LE personell have a limited choice, especially now that body cams and recording equipment are standard. example: In our area, speeders are ignored by local deputies unless you're being reckless. Yet the state police are always handing out tickets to speeders.
most cops I know are pro-gun. Most I know state one reason is because they're very aware that they can't be everywhere. Another reason given is that certain types of people can't compete physically with a criminal and require additional protections against their predation.

This issue is something that is talked about a lot as well and most also state that it's nonsensical to punish everyone for the actions of a minority that refuse to obey the law.

that is because you're biased based upon your culture and beliefs
the desire to stop school shootings isn't unique to gun control fanatics.

what if the opposition told you that the only way they would take you seriously is if you'd been repeatedly victimized by criminals?

10. ### Truck Captain StumpyThe Right Honourable Reverend Truck CaptainValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,263
I'm not arguing perfetion, I am arguing that the Assault weapons ban in place during Columbine which expressly forbade the AR-15 didn't stop the shooting.

Your reply that it "didn't exist" is disconcerting as you've claimed to read the science and studies, etc.
the law linked and referenced specifically calls out the AR Colt and any duplicates, copies, etc. and expressly forbids large capacity magazines
This reinforces my points and underscores my comments about the core problem, the efficacy of banning a style of weapon that is involved in 1% or less of crime in order to stop school shootings, and that criminals don't obey the law.

moreover, anyone making the claim of the dangers of firearms based upon crime rates is arguing from a point of serious ignorance.

an example that may clarify why I make that claim:
if you only see the statistics for automobile deaths and crime related data, you would draw the conclusion that ownership of a car is deadly
you cannot get a clear picture of automobiles and their positive uses, nor can you clearly see the importance of ownership of a car in a culture or region
the only conclusion you can derive from the data is that cars are deadly

I'm attempting to keep it simple for obvious reasons
claims of fantasy are your personal wishful thinking - not everyone lives the same way
no, they're not. Cars aren't tightly controlled at all

in point of fact, you don't even need a drivers license to own a car, nor do you require insurance. you only need to pay taxes on it and have a proof of purchase
that is all that is required for car ownership
that is debatable
for some, anyway
What happened to personal responsibility?
is that a non-issue?

sorry, but that is nonsensical, IMHO

what kind of normal person? normal gun owner? normal regular user? or normal trained user? normal citizen? normal athlete? normal video game player?
what age range of "normal" applies? a normal citizen between 14 and 34 who is actively playing video games will likely be able to pull a trigger faster than a normal citizen even in the same age range who is technologically inept... then you consider the

the point being: why punish the majority for the crimes of a minority?

it's not logical to punish law abiding citizens because a criminal doesn't obey the law, so why advocate for a law that only punishes people who obey the law?

and about 1% of gun crimes are comitted with assault weapons, yet you're advocating their control

worse still, in the overall statistics, the overwhelming number of deaths by firearms are by suicide, followed by drug- and gang-related crimes (FBI, BJS, NIH)
maybe we should ban gangs, drugs and suicide?

11. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
22,491
I think the one of the best way to tackle gun control in the short term is to target the manufacturers and importers and not the gun owners. Given the disingenuous nature of the discussion, no result is possible. IMO

Perhaps over 10 year so so there may be change...

12. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,240
Same as any other such law.
Excellent question - one that has to be answered when considering almost any law or regulation.
I believe the punishments written into the law will be reserved for those who break it. That's the normal policy.
Yep.
And with good cause, majority support, etc.
We need improvements in the governance of all those. This particular thread is focused on gun control.

13. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,240
No one has ever stopped a charging grizzly bear because they had a high capacity magazine, nor ever will (barring a full automatic). No one ever has or ever will need a high capacity magazine to defend themselves from predators - or even the more dangerous moose, hogs, and cacti, that threaten their wellbeing in the wilderness. That's a cartoon fantasy.
And I'm saying: So?
Three of the four weapons carried at Columbine were illegal, and available only via lax enforcement of the law. As were the pipe bombs. Are we to assess laws against sawed off shotguns and pipe bombs as futile because they can, with effort, be broken - because they "punish" only the law-abiding?

14. ### Truck Captain StumpyThe Right Honourable Reverend Truck CaptainValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,263
not sure I agree, though some laws are such.

most laws are based on the culture's morality or sense of fairness. This is best demonstrated by current US equality laws, IMHO. The constitution was vague enough to consider all men equal but we've had to clarify it to include race, gender, etc and we're pushing to provide protections of equality under the law for LGBT. That in no way is punishment of the masses due to the actions of a few, though it was instigated by the stupidity of a few. That is protection of people's rights and punative only to those who break the law, which is the same of the bulk of the laws, especially those that are supportive of the Constitutionally protected rights.

which brings it back to the 2nd amendment - there are existing laws that are quite effective. This is best demonstrated by the WA prevented school shooting. So the failure that lead to the FL shooting means it's directly due to lack of enforcement.

Given this point, then enactment of restrictive laws based upon arbitrary cosmetics and the random assignment of a number of rounds to a magazine is irrational, especially considering the targeting of "assault weapons" is wholly due to the failure of the system to actually enforce the law in certain places. That enactment would in no way be protecting anyone else's right whatsoever. It's purely punitive and it directly attacks law abiding citizens for the purpose of restrictions due to ignorance of the criminal statistics.

that is where the problem lies. The production of a law like H.R. 5087 isn't about punishing those who break the law. It's reactive, for starters, and that's never a good thing to do, as demonstrated by other reactionary laws (Example: laws requiring automobile owners to hide or even dismantle cars when horses pass). It's design is to limit the ability of everyone access to a firearm strictly because of cosmetic and irrational fears.

A law that is reserved for those who break it doesn't actively punish existing people. And making a new gas operated semi-automatic platform would punish users and manufacturers alike and would only lead to others actively attempting to ban it due to irrational fears and ignorance.

I still think that producing a new law would be illogical considering the existing shootings tend to predominantly be due to lack of enforcement of existing laws. it's just one more law to not enforce that may confuse the issue.

sorry, there is not "good cause", nor majority support, otherwise 5087 would have been passed unanimously

the good cause is to stop school shootings and protect the nations children. There is no rational reason to target a weapon that is normally not used to kill the nations children or shoot up a school. That would be like banning Ramen noodles because pasta makes people fat.

assumption based upon ignorance and fear.
Just because you're a city boy doesn't mean your reality is true everywhere

like I said, your argument comes from fear, irrational beliefs and ignorance. You are adopting the perspective of a person who is middle or upper middle class living in a relatively safe community where the expectation is that LE is capable of protecting you. In rural areas the response times are exceptionally long, even when you're living in a town. This is due to the lack of enforcement statements I've been making because funding and resources are limited. You are literally making an argument from ignorance simply because you can't comprehend rural living.
and again, enforcement was the issue. thank you
this is demonstrative of laws that were passed due to a high rate of misuse. IOW - they had demonstrated precedent (starting in the Prohibition era). It was not banned being used in 1% or less of crimes, it was a favourite of criminals as it was easily concealed, deadly in close quarters and readily available with the purchase of a shotgun and a hacksaw. The sawed off was (and still is) popular as a concealed weapon for crime.

More importantly, Sawed off shotguns are not illegal unless they're too short (barrel less than 18 inches), so they're restricted, not illegal (BATFE)

Pipe bombs are also not illegal. they're restricted. Rural people regularly manufacture and use these to remove stumps, etc, and for other purposes (crop protection comes to mind)

Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
sculptor likes this.
15. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,815
circa 1955-56: When my step dad decided to build us a house in the woods, he had to remove some trees.
After cutting them down and up, he went to the hardware store and bought some dynamite. He and his helper dug under the stumps, stuck in a stick of dynamite, shoveled some dirt back in, lit the fuse and ran. They cleared the place for the house in a few days. I grew up in that house.(Thanx Bob)

I wonder, could he have done the same today?(but, I doubt it)

Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
16. ### Truck Captain StumpyThe Right Honourable Reverend Truck CaptainValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,263
yes and no
he can get a license to use dynamite, but that takes time and money, plus likely would have to hire someone
you can, however, use black powder. This is quite popular in rural areas now that Dynamite is restricted.
Some counties, like our current homesite, require you to warn the local LE before detonations because of the high hunting traffic that may be present. They usually contact the local dispatch office for emergency services as well, though not always.

sculptor likes this.
17. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,240
The ones at Columbine were illegal.
And all modification of shotgun barrel length is illegal in my State.

18. ### Truck Captain StumpyThe Right Honourable Reverend Truck CaptainValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,263
yes. for one reason it was because they were used in the commission of a felony. see: BATFE

sorry to hear that.
Sometimes a short barrel is better.

19. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,240
You seem to have lost track of my argument altogether.
Re the high capacity magazine and high fire rate to fend off predators:
I am adopting the perspective of someone who has lived for months in wilderness areas and around predators, and finds your fantasies of blazing away with an AR-15 equivalent and 30 round magazine at some charging grizzly to be cartoon level absurdity.

Meanwhile, "restrictions" - as you emphasize for pipe bombs and such - are all I'd be after for AR-15s and the like.

That's not true.
I'm certainly not advocating anything arbitrary or random. If you want to avoid arbitrary and irrational in those with power, contribute to the new laws.

How about this: magazine sizes as large as a normal person can fire accurately in the time it takes a grizzly or feral hog (similar speeds) to complete a standard charge. That would be directly from your claimed criterion, not random or arbitrary at all.

So about six rounds. Unless you would prefer an arbitrary or random number somewhat higher?
- - - -
Short is ok, within limits - if it's manufactured that way.
The law bans modification, so lengthening the barrel as well - which was an issue a while back, with some crow hunters. It's just a badly written law - what happens when informed people don't contribute.

20. ### ForrestDeanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
364
Even if they banned all guns people will still be able to acquire practically any gun they wish.

21. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
36,323
Two questions:

(1) On what basis do you assert gun safety advocates aren't targeting the failures of the legal system, law enforcers, and state?

(2) Why not take prosecutorial discretion away from prosecutors and require them to enforce the law?​

22. ### Truck Captain StumpyThe Right Honourable Reverend Truck CaptainValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,263
I am equally incredulous to those who claim "the perspective of someone who has lived for months in wilderness areas and around predators"

IMHO - the occasional trek to a tree stand or taking a month or two vacation from a city or suburban job/life being the perspective of someone who has lived for months in wilderness areas and around predators is like saying that owning a two-car garage on one acre of land makes you capable of comprehending the privledge, wealth and hardships of the Kennedy Clan.

so I guess that makes us about even wrt incredulity

I would suggest 30 rounds. it's fair, it logical, and anything higher may possibly be restricted or licensed

and before you say it: No, I am not claiming I can fire that many rounds at a charging animal of any kind (except under special circumstances)
it's great for tight brush country where a 30 meter shot is long distance due to heavy growth... that is what I meant

.

H.R.5087

Also, IMHO, the actions surrounding the FL shooting are an example - most gun control advocates failed to actually hold any local or federal agencies accountable for the shooter as they had ample opportunity to stop it legally. (again, this was demonstrated in Everett, and the LEO in the Maryland shooting incident was capable and acted quickly)

it makes me wonder why they have discretion in certain cases

where do the checks and balances come from in the legal system and how can they be dealt with under circumstances that may be "grey" areas?

You've mentioned a problem in the past that is relevant to question 2: irresponsible shooter killed kid with "unloaded" gun
he wasn't prosecuted

IMHO, it is not only wrong not to prosecute, but it's the very definition of negligent homicide
The prosecutor was empathetic to the pain of the grieving father, and perhaps there is cause for that, however, I would have prosecuted in his place. Likely the prosecutor felt it would have wasted time and money as the jury would have been empathetic to the father, and perhaps he may have a point, but it should have been the choice of the jury.

We are in agreement that gun owners should be held accountable for their actions.

23. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,815
Mossberg 500 Compact Cruiser 12 gauge shotgun with 7.5" barrel registered as AOW "Any Other Weapon". Weapons classified as AOWs transfer with a $5 tax stamp instead of the traditional$200 tax. Comes with cylinder bore choke, pistol grip, 2+1 shot capacity, folding vertical forward grip, and parkerized finish.