Convince me: Assault weapons edition

Grizz said:

yupididit said:

In reply to Grizz :

Federal background checks are the easiest part of the gun buying process. 

I do not think AR's should be banned. I think guns should be more regulated and I think the bar for ownership and usage should be as high as something like a car. 

So to own a gun you should pass a laughably easy test, a basic inspection, and pay insurance in case you have to shoot someone.

 

Now that's funny. And telling.

In reply to yupididit :

The only people who can exercise the right to Orem land ate the people who can afford to. Are you okay with that?  

The price you put on that insurance policy is what you made up. Renters insurance policies are hardly even 10% of that number you just can't up with. 

Anyway, I for one am willing to pay more money for better and safer policies. Even if it prevents only 1 more child from getting shot by someone who should've never had access to a gun in the first place. 

Theres no pricing model for rights vs life. I just know there's a way. I'm two generations at the most removed from not having equal rights based on my skin color alone. Something that our constitution gave me the right to have long ago. We tried many things to make that happen. I don't see how this quest isn't worth it to today's Americans and gun owners.

Bob the REAL oil guy. said:

Ovid_and_Flem said:

I keep running across an interesting statistic that really makes me ponder the gun issue.  Best estimates suggest that there are about 101 guns per 100 people in U.S....by far largest number in the world by far.

But here's the odd statistic:  50% of U.S. civilian owned guns are in the hands of 3% of the population.  Doing the math that means the 3% each have an average of 17 guns.

FWIW I'M a gun owner...I have one handgun,  4 shotguns and a .22 calibre rifle. So I have six.   Just struck me as an odd statistic.

Same here. I own(ed) 6. So either there are a lot of people with 20+ or their statistics are crap. I'm going with the statistics are crap theory. 

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this tired trope. If we really want to tackle school shootings and murders we will address the mental health issue that we are currently completely ignoring. Or the lack of enforcement of laws that we are ignoring. Or the ignoring of all the tell tale signs of something being off like the last 3 shootings. You know, where the local leo ignores crimes and doesn't prosecute students so the school district can get more grant money. 

There are already so many laws that are broken when something like this happens to show adding more laws isn't going to change anything. Lets do something that will have an impact on something. 

And yes, I have an AR. it's a great coyote gun and, honestly, its the miata of the gun world. 

Well, I guess I bump up that statistic. I own 1 shotgun, 4 .22 rifles, 1 30-30 lever action, 1 .308, 1 M1 Garrand, 1 M1 Carbine, 1 .32 muzzle loader, 1 .45 muzzle loader, 2 .50 muzzle loader, 1 .22 pistol, 1 .22 Magnum revolver, 1 .45 black powder revolver and 1 .50 black powder pistol. Oh yeah, almost forgot 1 .177 pellet rifle. I think that's all of them. Most of them I inherited. Grew up shooting plus 20 years in the army around guns. One of the .22 rifles was my grandfathers, it's a single shot bolt action I learned to shoot with. Most of the other was my dads, he enjoyed shooting competition and he built the muzzle loaders. I don't have an AR and don't really care to have one. Carried one in the army, frankly there are better guns out there. Would like a couple more to the collection, like a .45 pistol. Trying to talk my sister out of the M1911 that was dads and now in her possession and doesn't need anymore along with dads shotgun. Would mean I would have to get another gun case as mine is full right now.

Not going to contribute to the discussion other than this though.

Ovid_and_Flem said:

I keep running across an interesting statistic that really makes me ponder the gun issue.  Best estimates suggest that there are about 101 guns per 100 people in U.S....by far largest number in the world by far.

But here's the odd statistic:  50% of U.S. civilian owned guns are in the hands of 3% of the population.  Doing the math that means the 3% each have an average of 17 guns.

FWIW I'M a gun owner...I have one handgun,  4 shotguns and a .22 calibre rifle. So I have six.   Just struck me as an odd statistic.

I know some hardcore collectors who probably have over 100 guns each.  I’d rather they have them than some of the people who only have one or two.

Gun violence in general has been on a long term downtrend, regardless of laws.  Mass school shootings as a subset, though, are up.  While availability of firearms obviously makes it easier, I don’t think it’s the main cause, especially, since with a few exceptions, firearm laws have been getting more restrictive over the past century or so.  

I do think the fetishization of ARs and other military (looking or functioning) weapons plays to power fantasies that potential spree shooters may have.  That fetishization, IMHO, has been caused by people on both sides of the gun control issue.

I'll throw in a quick word.  Any new regulations are only affecting those willing to abide by the law.  Lawful gun owners...those who aren't the perpetrators of the crimes we're seeing.

There are 300m+ firearms out there.  If someone has the motivation to commit a crime using a gun, they have enough motivation to find,steal, borrow a gun for the purpose.  If the end goal is to reduce access to weapons for law-abiding citizens, then say so and carry on.  If the end goal is to reduce crime, there are thousands of paths more suitable and more (truly) common-sense.

My reasoning FOR the “assault rifle” is one that nobody has addressed yet.  I’m a low key, small “p” prepper.  I have very little faith in my fellow man and less so as they come together in large groups.  

My weapons are all very common calibers (think: shared with the military) and designed to do a very specific job.  In the case of my AR that job is to eliminate threats to me and mine.  I trained in the army, served my time in the sandbox, and feel it’s my right as a law abiding citizen to own a tool for a job.  FSM willing i’ll Never have to use it that way but IF that day ever comes, it’ll be too late to run out and pick one up.  

I haven’t used my nail gun in a couple of years but it’s there for when I need to use it as well.  Simply the best tool for the job.

In reply to Crxpilot :

Which comes back to my point earlier - no magic button exists that will stop shootings, but if you don't try something nothing will happen.  Just as all of the advancements in automotive safety won't stop people from getting killed in cars.  But the increase in safety standards has reduced the number and frequency of those deaths.

Would better gun regulation stop every shooting?  No.  But it could stop some, and if one life can be saved it's worth trying.

In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) :

I'll admit I have had thoughts. 

Ian F said:

In reply to Crxpilot :

Which comes back to my point earlier - no magic button exists that will stop shootings, but if you don't try something nothing will happen.  Just as all of the advancements in automotive safety won't stop people from getting killed in cars.  But the increase in safety standards has reduced the number and frequency of those deaths.

Would better gun regulation stop every shooting?  No.  But it could stop some, and if one life can be saved it's worth trying.

This, in a nutshell is what I believe. 

Ian F said:

In reply to Crxpilot :

Would better gun regulation stop every shooting?  No.  But it could stop some, and if one life can be saved it's worth trying.

But that's theoretical.  Would more gun regulation keep a targeted single mother from acquiring a pistol she actually needs for self-defense in a dangerous neighborhood?  It could. And if that's the case I would hate to be the one breaking her the news.

Shotgun pellets don't spread inside a house, unless you have a REALLY BIG house, so that arguments is out, plus they take an eternity to reload, even for us that train with it.  The difference between an assault rifle (i dont own one) and a defensive rifle (I do own an AR15) is intent.  As in, I don't plan to assault anyone, but it is my RIGHT as an American to own a regular capacity semi auto long arm according to the Constitution. And finally, we don't need street cars capable of over 70 mph, but we all still WANT them and it's still a sort of free country so we may still produce, import and buy them.

Crxpilot said:

Ian F said:

In reply to Crxpilot :

Would better gun regulation stop every shooting?  No.  But it could stop some, and if one life can be saved it's worth trying.

But that's theoretical.  Would more gun regulation keep a targeted single mother from acquiring a pistol she actually needs for self-defense in a dangerous neighborhood?  It could. And if that's the case I would hate to be the one breaking her the news.

The entire debate is an argument of theories. Right now, the current theory doesn't seem to be working. 

And I seriously doubt that a single mother with the desire to own a handgun and has the wherewithal to get the training to use it in a stressed situation will be barred from acquiring one.  I had this discussion with my mother after her husband passed and left her with a small arsenal of guns (that all went to his son).  She considered keeping one but I asked her, "if an intruder were to enter the house, do you really think you could shoot them?"  She admitted she could not.  And in that situation, having a gun may likely do her more harm than good.  If she decides to go to a range and get training, she is more than capable of buying one at that time.

In reply to Ian F :

Is this about "assault weapons" or mass shootings? Two different things.

Robbie said:

I, for one, propose we ban all assault vipers but leave hunting vipers alone.

You don't understand the Viper lifestyle. They are perfectly safe in the right hands and are just a tool>

Sorry had to get that out of my system.

Many good points at least in the first page. I love mine but I use it in comps. It is the very very very last thing I would defend my house or family with. 00 in a semi auto shotgun does that job better then anything else. I am not so comfortable with super cheap transfers and pricing as well, same with just a written test there should be a skilled based test that is nationwide that you must pass for each weapon type. I am talking pistol/rifle/semi auto rifle/revolver/ black powder. I am even ok with California rules for locked magazines and 10 round counts for anything civilian owned. That is how much I don't want these things in the hands of people who do not know what they are doing or who want to do harm. I am also OK with most target ammo being less then lethal if they could ever figure it out. Even if it costs me 2-3 cents more a round and keep the hollow points and FMJ stuff to a 50 round count minimum on purchase for the month without a waiver or hunting license.

If I need more then 5-10 rounds of buck shot in my home then E36 M3 has gotten seriously sideways already and I would just remove the lock and if I need more then 100 rounds even in my entire life for actual defence then E36 M3 has seriously hit the fan.

Nick Comstock said:

In reply to Ian F :

Is this about "assault weapons" or mass shootings? Two different things.

Perhaps, but it always seem like the two discussions go hand in hand, for better or worse.  I generally agree that singling out assault weapons as the root cause to be a knee-jerk reaction and banning them would not solve much.  Nor would any minimal amounts of the proposed regulations I've heard.  Everyone wants a quick answer and there are none. 

Bob the REAL oil guy. said:

Or the ignoring of all the tell tale signs of something being off like the last 3 shootings. You know, where the local leo ignores crimes and doesn't prosecute students so the school district can get more grant money. 

Alright color me intrigued.  Since I haven't done my homework, are you saying that the last 3 shootings were setups that the school district was involved with so they could get grant money?  ... and the local LEO was also in cahoots with the district, and knowingly allowed shootings to occur for said grant money?  

Does everyone here agree that "shall not be infringed" needs no interpretation?  Do we all recognize that Edi Amine, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung etc all started their genocides with first gun registration, then gun regulation, then confiscation?  How about the revolutionary war? You know, where the citizens of the American colony chose to "bear arms" against a tyrannical government?  Self defense and sport is a very small portion of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.   That wacko in France killed and injured more people with a Ryder truck than any mass shooting in US history, guess we should put capacity limits on them too.  All of you that keep saying "doing anything is better than nothing" should start with a sledgehammer next time you can't figure out what's wrong with your car.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

We should ban pistols and make 6 foot long 30 pound rifles available no cost to any able qualified household. 

As Grizz alludes to, the vast majority of gun crime is committed with concealable guns. 

Or maybe local LEOs are just too busy trying to catch people in traffic stops than to worry about an angry kid?

Nope, hold on let me get my tin hat. Definitely a conspiracy. 

dropstep said:I usually avoid these conversations because you can't change anyone's mind. Politics, religion and firearm ownership are all things you should keep to yourself anymore.

 

Amen.

In reply to Justjim75 :

If you're going to put the 2nd into the discussion, at least use the whole text:

"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"

It could be argued the whole "well regulated" part is being ignored.

A civilian armed with a few guns is literally of no concern to the Govt.  If you really piss them off, they can take you out and you'll never see it coming. 

xflowgolf said:

Bob the REAL oil guy. said:

Or the ignoring of all the tell tale signs of something being off like the last 3 shootings. You know, where the local leo ignores crimes and doesn't prosecute students so the school district can get more grant money. 

Alright color me intrigued.  Since I haven't done my homework, are you saying that the last 3 shootings were setups that the school district was involved with so they could get grant money?  ... and the local LEO was also in cahoots with the district, and knowingly allowed shootings to occur for said grant money?  

Look into the Florida shooting and the pact the local law enforcement had with the school district. The others there have been tell tale signs that were either not reported or were reported and ignored. The shootings are not setups but a gross negligence of the school district and the local LE.

The problem with the conversation is that the possible solutions outside of gun control are often opposed by the same folks who are opposed to gun control. More mental health funding means expanding medicare/medicaid and providing funding to non-profits from government. More police investigations into potential threats means potential invasion of privacy, and again, more funding for police. More security at schools require better school funding, not to mention school building improvements for security reason would be very expensive and possible interfere with the primary roll of schools to educate children, which means higher taxes. 

We American's do a have a gun-worship problem, but the mass shooting situation, especially in schools isn't going to be resolved by banning or further regulation military-style weapons. I think that's a waste of time due to the divisions this thread has proven.

pheller said:

Or maybe local LEOs are just too busy trying to catch people in traffic stops than to worry about an angry kid?

 

Nope, hold on let me get my tin hat. Definitely a conspiracy. 

The thing is with the exception of Florida these guys have not committed a crime prior to the act. Being angry, being a racist or generally hateful person is not illegal. I don't see where a LEO could do anything at all to prevent this. They could have had 24hr surveillance on this latest kid and wouldn't have been able to do a single thing until the shots were fired. You simply can't arrest someone preemptively.

In reply to Nick Comstock :

In this one, the parents weren't aware of the behavior either. The councelor could have reached out to the parents to let them know of the behavior, giving the parents the option of seeking clinical help for the kid or at the least getting the weapons in the house locked down/out of the house. There were telling behaviors before the act and could have created an opportunity for the family to help the kid out. 

In reply to Justjim75 :

It is just as clear as the line about a “well regulated militia”. If one chose to consider that, you could easily interpret gun ownership requiring at least being in the National Guard.

And the fact that the constitution was intended to change with the times. If anything, it is well behind where it should be.