Gun Control

[notorious]

We have all heard about what happened in Aurora, Co, and I think that Gun Control is going to be a huge topic in the following months.


What measures need to be taken? Do you have any ideas that will help prevent this kind of thing from happening again as it pertains to guns?

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

There are no gun show loopholes. There is no such thing. That's a term created by anti-gun lobbies. Every applicable law outside of gun shows is exactly the same in a gun show. A gun show does not allow for any activity at all that isn't legal in the general public. You can't buy anything at a gun show that you can't legally buy on the street outside your house.

Read this if you don't understand: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...show-loophole/

I used the term 'loophole' because that's the term the news uses. I realize that the gun control lobby says they're everywhere, while the gun rights lobby denies their existence, and each side is equally convinced that they're correct. I get it.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

There sure are alot of posts in this thread dealing with an issue that isn't really an issue. Democrats learned a long time ago that gun control was another way of saying "please shove a red hot poker up my bum in all former Confederate states and all states west of the Mississippi."

Serious gun control isn't going to be an election topic, and it's not something Democrats will immolate themselves over post-election either. They've learned...

I would agree with this. It is certainly not a big enough issue to warrant immediate action by politicians, especially those running for president, who need to address much larger concerns. And I know one other thing, if there weren't so many parts of this country with poor educational system, housing problems, and drug issues, the gun issue wouldn't even exist nearly as much as it does. It would probably more closely resemble Norway which has been pointed out.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Would you guys say the majority of gun owners are against required safety/training courses? Or is it the exact opposite in the the majority is for it?

Also, in the case of what happened in Colorado where the guy purchased 4 guns in a few weeks, I would imagine that is not common due to money and other factors, but do people think that maybe there is room to require more waiting for new gun owners? Maybe you purchase one, then wait a few weeks or whatever it is, then you can get another one? I certainly don't think established owners with permits need to be met with waiting, but for new owners, IMO anyways it seems like a reasonable action to take.

Against safety and training courses? LOLWUT? Why would gun ownership have that affect? That doesn't make any sense. If you own something.. anything, that has dangerous potential, any logical sane person would be in favor of safety and training. No different with vehicles, dangerous materials, etc. If you were a pet owner of say a tarantula or a scorpion, would the act of ownership make you less careful about handling it?

And again, since over 93% of criminals obtain their weapons illegally, extending a waiting period would have a very negligible affect, and wouldn't be worth the cost of implementation.

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Would you guys say the majority of gun owners are against required safety/training courses? Or is it the exact opposite in the the majority is for it?

Also, in the case of what happened in Colorado where the guy purchased 4 guns in a few weeks, I would imagine that is not common due to money and other factors, but do people think that maybe there is room to require more waiting for new gun owners? Maybe you purchase one, then wait a few weeks or whatever it is, then you can get another one? I certainly don't think established owners with permits need to be met with waiting, but for new owners, IMO anyways it seems like a reasonable action to take.

And what would be the point of making someone who already has guns wait another 2 weeks to get another firearm?

A. Said person with evil intention would already posess a weapon or 2 and can just as easily create mayhem with what they already own.

B. If said person was plotting they would just wait the required time.

I personally don't understand why there are waiting periods. Background checks can be done instantly. If it is the first firearm someone is buying it could be a so called "cooling off period" but for the person who already has firearms there would be no such thing as a "cooling off period"

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Against safety and training courses? LOLWUT? Why would gun ownership have that affect? That doesn't make any sense. If you own something.. anything, that has dangerous potential, any logical sane person would be in favor of safety and training. No different with vehicles, dangerous materials, etc. If you were a pet owner of say a tarantula or a scorpion, would the act of ownership make you less careful about handling it?

And again, since over 93% of criminals obtain their weapons illegally, extending a waiting period would have a very negligible affect, and wouldn't be worth the cost of implementation.

But those requirements don't exist on all levels and I have been told those types of legislations would negatively affect people which is why I presume they don't exist. If gun owners are in favor of those types of things, why are they not already requirements? Is there any other reason besides it would have a neglible affect? I guess it still comes back to what someone considers to be an appropriate percentage for it to leave "neglible affect" and become a positive affect.

[LVNHACK]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Makes sense, get a hundred rounds of something in a magazine and it’s going to be heavy.

When I was getting out of the Corps in 1990 the SAW was coming. It was chambered in 5.56, and the capability to fit a 200 rd. drum if memory serves.

When I came back to Iraq in '08 the M249 was in use. Again chambered in 5.56 but would belt feed.

You'd have to search to find all the spec's and the findings on the uses and the developments with the 2 different models.

But I know for a fact that a 30 rd. mag loaded with 28 rds due the weakening of the mag spring, will jam or drop out of the well at the most in appropriate time. Under normal circumstances you smack or tap the mag prior to and after inserting in the well the using the forward assist helps to after inserting the mag...

Nothing like the "oh ****" feeling when your mag drops outta the weapon because you didn't fully seat the damn thing.

FYI U.S. Army recently prohibited magpul magazines by troops.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

There are no gun show loopholes. There is no such thing. That's a term created by anti-gun lobbies. Every applicable law outside of gun shows is exactly the same in a gun show. A gun show does not allow for any activity at all that isn't legal in the general public. You can't buy anything at a gun show that you can't legally buy on the street outside your house.

Read this if you don't understand: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...show-loophole/

From 2004 to 2006, ATF conducted surveillance and undercover investigations at 195 gun shows (approximately 2% of all shows). Specific targeting of suspected individuals (77%) resulted in 121 individual arrests and 5,345 firearms seizures. Seventy nine of the 121 ATF operation plans were known suspects previously under investigation.

^{The offenses included convicted felons suspected of buying guns; suspected straw purchasers; individuals selling firearms as a business without a license; persons possessing prohibited firearms such as unregistered machine guns and sawed-off shotguns; and FFL's were not documenting transactions or requesting background checks as
required by federal law.}

[Brock]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

So your point is that a law didn't change illegal behavior. Well, that's astounding.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

And what would be the point of making someone who already has guns wait another 2 weeks to get another firearm?

I agree with this which is why I made sure to point out that established gun owners would have no need to wait. But what about a first time owner? I know the Colorado case is awfully specific but humor me. Say he walks into the shop on July 6th and they say you can only purchase one handgun. Then you must wait a week or two for your next one, and so on and so forth. Perhaps after a months time or whatever then, he is eligible for whatever he pleases. Well he wouldn't have had what he had on the 20th. Sure he could have got them illegally but it would have been harder, especially for some well to do kid with no friends or connections.

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

A. Said person with evil intention would already posess a weapon or 2 and can just as easily create mayhem with what they already own.

B. If said person was plotting they would just wait the required time.

Those scenarios are certainly possible but I don't think they are absolutes at all. The people that commit these types of things are certainly not mentally stable. They will go through phases of wanting to do it and ones where they do not want to do it. For example, say someone is suffering from bipolar disorder and they are looking to raise mayhem. In the depressive episode they are what you would think, which is depressed and all the associated issues that comes with it. In this phase they are physically more of a danger to themselves than anyone else but at the same time this is when their hatred for others will fester and develop. So if they are to swith into the manic episode, they will purchase anything and everything with no concern for money or anything else logical. They will be euphoric and have a sense of invincibility. Also common is a decreased need for sleep and racing thoughts. Clearly this is not a person you want having access to multiple weapons all at once. I know it is a specific example, but it is relevant.

Originally Posted by 2bikemike

I personally don't understand why there are waiting periods. Background checks can be done instantly. If it is the first firearm someone is buying it could be a so called "cooling off period" but for the person who already has firearms there would be no such thing as a "cooling off period"

Again, I agree with your notion about someone who owns firearms already.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

conducted surveillance and undercover investigations at 195 gun shows (approximately 2% of all shows). Specific targeting of suspected individuals

So...... The ATF did their jobs, proving that the law is being enforced at gun shows? Is that what you're trying to prove?

Are you surprised that after surveillance and undercover investigations, they managed to catch a majority of those they already knew to be breaking the law?

So much for those gun show "Loopholes"......

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Brock

So your point is that a law didn't change illegal behavior. Well, that's astounding.

Originally Posted by KC Fish

So...... The ATF did their jobs, proving that the law is being enforced at gun shows? Is that what you're trying to prove?

Are you surprised that after surveillance and undercover investigations, they managed to catch a majority of those they already knew to be breaking the law?

So much for those gun show "Loopholes"......

No my point was that Fish's post was silly. You obviously can buy guns illegally at gun shows and there is willing individual sellers to do that.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

No my point was that Fish's post was silly. You obviously can buy guns illegally at gun shows and there is willing individual sellers to do that.

Nobody is arguing that you can't buy guns illegally. And it should be of no surprise that criminals targeted by the ATF were caught trying to buy guns illegally. That's exactly the way it's supposed to work. The fact that the ATF caught criminals they were targeting doesn't change the fact that guns shows are not significant in providing guns used in crime. Would you care to challenge that fact, or will you stick with showing that the ATF caught a significant portion of the criminals they were targeting in undercover investigations? Hopefully you can see the difference. Buying/Selling illegally does not mean that the result of the sale will be violent crime. That's the huge gap you're failing to bridge.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Nobody is arguing that you can't buy guns illegally. And it should be of no surprise that criminals targeted by the ATF were caught trying to buy guns illegally. That's exactly the way it's supposed to work. The fact that the ATF caught criminals they were targeting doesn't change the fact that guns shows are not significant in providing guns used in crime. Would you care to challenge that fact, or will you stick with showing that the ATF caught a significant portion of the criminals they were targeting in undercover investigations? Hopefully you can see the difference. Buying/Selling illegally does not mean that the result of the sale will be violent crime. That's the huge gap you're failing to bridge.

You did.

A gun show does not allow for any activity at all that isn't legal in the general public. You can't buy anything at a gun show that you can't legally buy on the street outside your house.

I agree with you that buying/selling illegally does not mean that the gun will be used in a violent crime, but it is a crime even though the punishment is not much of a deterrent. If they would change the law to mandatory 10 years for both the buyer\seller it might slow some of it down.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

You did.


I agree with you that buying/selling illegally does not mean that the gun will be used in a violent crime, but it is a crime even though the punishment is not much of a deterrent. If they would change the law to mandatory 10 years for both the buyer\seller it might slow some of it down.

Ouch. That seems awfully excessive, especially for a first time offender.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

You did.

That was in response to your "loophole" comment and he's still right, illegally purchasing a gun doesn't mean there is a legal loophole.