gun control rant thread

Strizzo wrote: as for safe storage laws, i think that should be left up to each individual owner to decide. how would your "loaded defense gun" license be enforced? the only way would be spot checks, which would likely use police resources that are already overtaxed, and likely violate the 4th amendment. also keep in mind that not all states require you to have a permit to own a firearm.

Enforcing it would be tough. Spot checks would absolutely be wrong. I would think more along the lines of hefty penalties for if a weapon of yours is stolen or used in a crime and it is found that you did not take sufficient precautions to properly secure your weapon.

Another option would be public awareness campaigns. Billboards and TV ads encouraging people to properly secure their weapons. Provide posters to gun shops encouraging safely storing weapons. The owners would probably love them because, people would buy more things.

It seems like a big problem is that, guns are pervasive in our society, but are still taboo to discuss publicly.

Beer Baron wrote: It seems like a big problem is that, guns are pervasive in our society, but are still taboo to discuss publicly.

Sadly, people like the Brady's have made it that way. If you mention firearms you're either a lunatic prepper that wants anarchy, or you're a criminal mastermind that is going to kill everyone.

Beer Baron wrote: Enforcing it would be tough. Spot checks would absolutely be wrong. I would think more along the lines of hefty penalties for if a weapon of yours is stolen or used in a crime and it is found that you did not take sufficient precautions to properly secure your weapon.

Never once believe that criminals are stupid(which it sounds like you're doing) You could have everything locked up and stored in a vault and one of them could still end up stealing and using them......thats not the issue.

I've met prisoners in IDOC who could make professional looking tattoo guns out of pens, rubber bands, and paper clips......most of them are actually pretty smart, its just they never put themselves towards doing something that wasn't illegal. Larger drug dealers are mathmatical wizards.....I've never seen anything like it.

yamaha wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: Enforcing it would be tough. Spot checks would absolutely be wrong. I would think more along the lines of hefty penalties for if a weapon of yours is stolen or used in a crime and it is found that you did not take sufficient precautions to properly secure your weapon.

Never once believe that criminals are stupid(which it sounds like you're doing) You could have everything locked up and stored in a vault and one of them could still end up stealing and using them......thats not the issue. I've met prisoners in IDOC who could make professional looking tattoo guns out of pens, rubber bands, and paper clips......most of them are actually pretty smart, its just they never put themselves towards doing something that wasn't illegal. Larger drug dealers are mathmatical wizards.....I've never seen anything like it.

But how many of them are honestly able to break a safe or get in without destroying the contents? I doubt that would be the majority. Speaking of that I really need to get a safe soon.

stroker wrote: the problem with the argument is that the Antis are simply trying to mask their ultimate intent which is a disarmed population. You can NEVER get a bunch of antis to sit down and say, "Okay, we think reasonable laws are X, Y and Z." then stick to them.

I think the problem is that the debate is being dominated by the most extreme people of each side. The people on this board are willing to trade certain reasonable things than others. Most people in favor of stronger gun control do believe that most gun owners are reasonable, law abiding, responsible people. Both of these sides seem to accept that there are things we can do to cut down on unnecessary deaths.

However, the people shouting the loudest are the most sensational ones who know all the answers and won't listen to all the irrational crazies on the other side because they're out to get us!

Beer Baron wrote:

stroker wrote: the problem with the argument is that the Antis are simply trying to mask their ultimate intent which is a disarmed population. You can NEVER get a bunch of antis to sit down and say, "Okay, we think reasonable laws are X, Y and Z." then stick to them.

I think the problem is that the debate is being dominated by the most extreme people of each side. The people on this board *are* willing to trade certain reasonable things than others. Most people in favor of stronger gun control do believe that most gun owners are reasonable, law abiding, responsible people. Both of these sides seem to accept that there are things we can do to cut down on unnecessary deaths. !

Here's the disconnect for me.... If they know that most owners are legal, law abiding people, and that the majority of murders involve people with a criminal back ground, then why are we putting more restrictions on the people that aren't breaking hte law?

If someone can answer that without the typical bs, that would be great.

Bobzilla wrote: Sadly, people like the Brady's have made it that way. If you mention firearms you're either a lunatic prepper that wants anarchy, or you're a criminal mastermind that is going to kill everyone.

It isn't either/or. I can be both.

yamaha wrote: Never once believe that criminals are stupid(which it sounds like you're doing) You could have everything locked up and stored in a vault and one of them could still end up stealing and using them......thats not the issue.

You do not need to make a perfectly effective system capable of stopping all attempts. You just need to make it suitably difficult to effectively discourage most people from trying. The risk + effort needs to be greater than the reward.

And yeah, someone can crack a safe, but not all safes are the same. They need to know the safe is there, know what kind of safe it is, bring the tools for that safe, and have time to open it. What are they going to do? Show up with an angle grinder and hope no one notices and calls the police while they're grinding off hinges?

Even if it is not 100% effective, maybe it's 70% effective. Is keeping guns secure really a hardship that unduly limits the rights of gun owners? We're potentially making a difference without giving up much.

Beer Baron wrote:

stroker wrote: the problem with the argument is that the Antis are simply trying to mask their ultimate intent which is a disarmed population. You can NEVER get a bunch of antis to sit down and say, "Okay, we think reasonable laws are X, Y and Z." then stick to them.

I think the problem is that the debate is being dominated by the most extreme people of each side. The people on this board *are* willing to trade certain reasonable things than others. Most people in favor of stronger gun control do believe that most gun owners are reasonable, law abiding, responsible people. Both of these sides seem to accept that there are things we can do to cut down on unnecessary deaths. However, the people shouting the loudest are the most sensational ones who know all the answers and won't listen to all the irrational crazies on the other side because they're out to get us!

Really? I don't see/hear a lot of people on the side of the 2nd amendment screaming "NO REGULATION AT ALL EVER!" What I am seeing is the people in favor of disarming US citizens choosing a very interesting time/tragedy to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda. Strange they weren't talking about new regulations after any of the shootings before the election.

If you want to stir things up, go on a gun web board and say "nobody needs a 30 round clip". You will be crucified for several reasons.

I grew up with guns and have been shooting since at least 5. I own a small collection, but dont get to shoot anymore beacuse tehre is no where to shoot . I feel people need to be checked out before they can make a purchase. In SC, its done on the spot at a dealer. I don't think that check looks at mental stuff, due to HIPPA.

Bobzilla wrote: Here's the disconnect for me.... If they know that most owners are legal, law abiding people, and that the majority of murders involve people with a criminal back ground, then why are we putting more restrictions on the people that aren't breaking hte law? If someone can answer that without the typical bs, that would be great.

Because there are still people out there breaking the law. And it is okay to inconvenience a responsible, law abiding person and make them jump through hoops if the result is to prevent someone criminally inclined from harming someone.

So, it is okay to have a 3-day waiting period and background checks. The law abiding person still gets their gun. The guy who wants to kill somebody is discouraged.

This is also happening because most people don't fully understand the issue. They see problems with gun violence, and think something should be done. The loudest talking points are both extreme. The strong pro-gun people keep shouting that nothing needs to be done, and these people don't agree with that. They agree more with the strong gun-control people.

poopshovel wrote: Really? I don't see/hear a lot of people on the side of the 2nd amendment screaming "NO REGULATION AT ALL EVER!" What I am seeing is the people in favor of disarming US citizens choosing a very interesting time/tragedy to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda.

And this is why I am more on the pro-gun side. I'm just not as strongly on that side as most people in this thread.

poopshovel wrote: Really? I don't see/hear a lot of people on the side of the 2nd amendment screaming "NO REGULATION AT ALL EVER!" What I am seeing is the people in favor of disarming US citizens choosing a very interesting time/tragedy to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda. Strange they weren't talking about new regulations after any of the shootings before the election.

Orly? I haven't gone a single day without at least 3 memes about how guns are the most awesomeness thing in the world and that Stalin (Obama) is going to take them ALL away on Facepage.

You want screaming? Here ya go-

http://front.moveon.org/want-to-see-a-theyre-coming-for-our-guns-dude-totally-lose-his-sht-on-piers-morgans-show/?rc=fb.fan

Beer Baron wrote: So, out of curiosity, are even the staunchest pro gun rights folks on this board adamantly opposed to any kind of additional gun control? Are there ideas for gun control that you would consider? Or is any step to limit things just a slippery slope towards disarmament? Not saying this to pick fights, but rather to be able to prove to my ultra anti-gun aunt that the vast majority of gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who are open to dialogue, and sensationalist ultra-right-wing pundits are not representative of the average gun enthusiast. (Personally, I think things like laws on safe storage of firearms make a lot of sense. Perhaps add a class of firearms license, easier to obtain than a concealed carry permit, for people who want to keep loaded firearms for home defense.)

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Goldwater

So, if some of us oppose more gun laws and question constitutionality, logic, and effectiveness of many of the existing laws about firearms, we are not "reasonable, responsible people who are open to dialogue"?

Why is the dialogue automatically and predictably about which additional kind of gun control we need to add to the big, steaming pile already in effect? Lets talk about all unnecessary deaths and injuries, and other costs of criminals and mental incompetents. Let's talk about all of the implications of the detention of possibly mentally ill individuals. Let's also talk about personal responsibility and limited government, and the effect of restricting the natural right of self defense.

Gun-related law changes I would consider:

Nationwide reciprocity for concealed weapons licenses, including provisions for those jurisdictions that require no license.

Federal punishment for convicted felons in possession of firearms.

Repeal / overturn the GFSZA (If you don't know what that is, you have no business asking for new laws related to firearms). It's obviously ineffective against the mass murderers and actually makes their mission easier. Possession within the school building we can discuss, but I am concerned about disarming what we assume are responsible people - teachers, employees, and normal passers-by - in what have become targets for the punks out to make a name for themselves. The GFSZA is also on very shaky constitutional grounds.

Amend the GCA '68 (If you don't know what THAT is ... ) to specifically define what constitutes dealing in firearms, with numbers. Selling one or two firearms a year, or selling off a collection once in your life is not "engaging in the business", per the congressional testimony at the time. Also, specifically define "sporting use" test for deciding which firearms can be imported to include all common peaceful uses of firearms such as any formal or informal competition, and not just some non-shooter's idea of deer hunting. Plinking is certainly sporting, as is Service Rifle competition (for over a century).

Cone_Junky wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Really? I don't see/hear a lot of people on the side of the 2nd amendment screaming "NO REGULATION AT ALL EVER!" What I am seeing is the people in favor of disarming US citizens choosing a very interesting time/tragedy to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda. Strange they weren't talking about new regulations after any of the shootings before the election.

Orly? I haven't gone a single day without at least 3 memes about how guns are the most awesomeness thing in the world and that Stalin (Obama) is going to take them ALL away on Facepage. You want screaming? Here ya go- http://front.moveon.org/want-to-see-a-theyre-coming-for-our-guns-dude-totally-lose-his-sht-on-piers-morgans-show/?rc=fb.fan

I was speaking more about what I'm hearing on TV/Radio. I'm not on Facebook, and I'm not really interested in what moveon.org has to say about anything. So there ya go.

I do believe that the folks who have been patiently waiting on their hands and knees for a tragedy such as this to occur (after the election, of course,) are by and large in favor of disarming American citizens, and generally have little or no respect for the constitution, nor do they have an understanding of the intent behind the 2nd amendment. If that makes me a whack job, then fine, I'm a whack job. A whack job with GUNS ZOMG!!!

Beer Baron wrote: So, out of curiosity, are even the staunchest pro gun rights folks on this board adamantly opposed to any kind of additional gun control? Are there ideas for gun control that you would consider? Or is any step to limit things just a slippery slope towards disarmament?

I'm adamantly opposed to any kind of additional ANYTHING control at this point.

For decades, the federal government has completely ignored several Amendments, and in general forgotten about the Amendment process entirely. I know it's popular to say the government is ignoring the Constitution, but let's face it, they have. The balance of power has tipped insanely toward the executive branch, with the judicial branch bought and paid for: the next President who gets the ability to nominate two Supreme Court Justices will destroy the entire thing. Executive Orders will be the new normal.

Let's be topical and take the second Amendment: the right to bear arms grants the American people access to military-grade weapons of war. The writers weren't stupid, they said "arms" not "muskets" or "sabers" or "cannons," but "arms." You want to put restrictions on those arms? You're going to have to pass another Amendment. Did the writers forsee nuclear weapons when they wrote that? No. There's a really easy solution to that, though: make an Amendment banning private holdings of nuclear etc weapons. They did it for booze!

TL;DR: The 27 Amendments represent fundamental laws of the United States, to modify them means a fundamental change, which requires... a fundamental law (Amendment).

Beer Baron wrote:

stroker wrote: the problem with the argument is that the Antis are simply trying to mask their ultimate intent which is a disarmed population. You can NEVER get a bunch of antis to sit down and say, "Okay, we think reasonable laws are X, Y and Z." then stick to them.

I think the problem is that the debate is being dominated by the most extreme people of each side. The people on this board *are* willing to trade certain reasonable things than others. Most people in favor of stronger gun control do believe that most gun owners are reasonable, law abiding, responsible people. Both of these sides seem to accept that there are things we can do to cut down on unnecessary deaths. However, the people shouting the loudest are the most sensational ones who know all the answers and won't listen to all the irrational crazies on the other side because they're out to get us!

I'd say "sorta". I am willing to have the discussion, but am unwilling to agree to any sort of "gun control" measures that would only affect those who follow the law. a criminal that steals a gun isn't going to take the revolver and leave the semi-auto rifle because one is banned and the other is not, they're already breaking the law. imposing more restrictions on those of us who do not want to break the law, but merely want to be free to decide for ourselves how many bullets a magazine should hold, or how many "military style" features our guns can have instead of allowing somone a thousand miles away dictate what they think is best for me. you can throw away all of the discussions about revolting against tyrrany, stopping civilian disarmament, whatever. what the whole argument boils down to is that there are people who want to dictate people's lives to them, and other people who refuse to be told how & where & when they can do things that honestly has nothing to do with the people that want to dictate to them.

strengthening the quality of the "no buy" database - doesn't affect me. requiring background checks on private purchases - no problem, actually a lot of what the "gun control" movement has done has made it more difficult for regular folks to have access to the NICS check system.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

If they want in or want something unlocked, they can and will. For example, touch keypad safes......an amateur could crack one in under 15 minutes by dusting the buttons and going by the heaviest used ones.....dial locks(not that popular now) actually require skill. My point is, never underestimate the criminal element. If you do, they'll win.

yamaha wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: If they want in or want something unlocked, they can and will. For example, touch keypad safes......an amateur could crack one in under 15 minutes by dusting the buttons and going by the heaviest used ones.....dial locks(not that popular now) actually require skill. My point is, never underestimate the criminal element. If you do, they'll win.

I still think most of the criminal element would have tough time cracking safes. Yes there are some but I think the responsible thing to do as a gun owner is lock them up.

Cone_Junky wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Really? I don't see/hear a lot of people on the side of the 2nd amendment screaming "NO REGULATION AT ALL EVER!" What I am seeing is the people in favor of disarming US citizens choosing a very interesting time/tragedy to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda. Strange they weren't talking about new regulations after any of the shootings before the election.

Orly? I haven't gone a single day without at least 3 memes about how guns are the most awesomeness thing in the world and that Stalin (Obama) is going to take them ALL away on Facepage. You want screaming? Here ya go- http://front.moveon.org/want-to-see-a-theyre-coming-for-our-guns-dude-totally-lose-his-sht-on-piers-morgans-show/?rc=fb.fan

we've already discussed how Alex Jones made gun-owners and 2A supporters look like a bunch of nutjobs a couple pages back. anyone who lived in Austin, Tx in the last 15 or 20 years would know that he's been crazy for a long time.

BUT, i'm sure moveon left out how piers and some of his buddies on the show sat around talking about how nice it would be to invite Jones to a boxing match and "show up with a semiauto (that you got legally), and pop him" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzLwlHYWvjM

Beer Baron wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Here's the disconnect for me.... If they know that most owners are legal, law abiding people, and that the majority of murders involve people with a criminal back ground, then why are we putting more restrictions on the people that aren't breaking hte law? If someone can answer that without the typical bs, that would be great.

Because there are still people out there breaking the law. And it is okay to inconvenience a responsible, law abiding person and make them jump through hoops if the result is to prevent someone criminally inclined from harming someone. So, it is okay to have a 3-day waiting period and background checks. The law abiding person still gets their gun. The guy who wants to kill somebody is discouraged. This is also happening because most people don't fully understand the issue. They see problems with gun violence, and think something should be done. The loudest talking points are both extreme. The strong pro-gun people keep shouting that nothing needs to be done, and these people don't agree with that. They agree more with the strong gun-control people.

I believe what most people in this thread see is that first the assault rifles will be taken away. Then a shooting will happen with pistols and those will get taken and etc.

93EXCivic wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: If they want in or want something unlocked, they can and will. For example, touch keypad safes......an amateur could crack one in under 15 minutes by dusting the buttons and going by the heaviest used ones.....dial locks(not that popular now) actually require skill. My point is, never underestimate the criminal element. If you do, they'll win.

I still think most of the criminal element would have tough time cracking safes. Yes there are some but I think the responsible thing to do as a gun owner is lock them up.

Depends on the safe. Some of the smaller/cheaper ones have exposed hinges. Takes but a couple whacks with a good hammer to get into one of those. So then what? You now require a scertain type of safe that can be used? What happens when they find a way to pop those?

This is what happens when you start down a slick mountain side in a pair of dress shoes....

Bobzilla wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: If they want in or want something unlocked, they can and will. For example, touch keypad safes......an amateur could crack one in under 15 minutes by dusting the buttons and going by the heaviest used ones.....dial locks(not that popular now) actually require skill. My point is, never underestimate the criminal element. If you do, they'll win.

I still think most of the criminal element would have tough time cracking safes. Yes there are some but I think the responsible thing to do as a gun owner is lock them up.

Depends on the safe. Some of the smaller/cheaper ones have exposed hinges. Takes but a couple whacks with a good hammer to get into one of those. So then what? You now require a scertain type of safe that can be used? What happens when they find a way to pop those? This is what happens when you start down a slick mountain side in a pair of dress shoes....

I never said to make it a law... I just said it was the responsible thing to do if you are going to own guns. Jeez...

Bobzilla wrote: Here's the disconnect for me.... If they know that most owners are legal, law abiding people, and that the majority of murders involve people with a criminal back ground, then why are we putting more restrictions on the people that aren't breaking the law? If someone can answer that without the typical bs, that would be great.

Yes, there are those who would like to (impractically and unreasonably) to get rid of all guns. I suspect most realize that is not really possible even though they may wish it.

The majority of the population (I suspect) at this point is more concerned with the idea of guns that are optimized for killing a lot of people. They see them as hard to justify from a defense standpoint.

The current concern (well, the reason for the concern) is the result of mass shootings. Very high profile, very shocking, especially to non-gun people.

Why affect the law abiding citizens? Well, the high profile massacres are generally done by non-criminals, using legally obtained weapons. The weapons of choice are clearly high capacity rifles and pistols.

Obviously, the concerns have drifted a bit (talking about gun crime in general etc.) from the focus I mention , but I think that is the primary issue.

Osterkraut wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: So, out of curiosity, are even the staunchest pro gun rights folks on this board adamantly opposed to any kind of additional gun control? Are there ideas for gun control that you would consider? Or is any step to limit things just a slippery slope towards disarmament?

I'm adamantly opposed to any kind of additional ANYTHING control at this point. For decades, the federal government has completely ignored several Amendments, and in general forgotten about the Amendment process entirely. I know it's popular to say the government is ignoring the Constitution, but let's face it, they have. The balance of power has tipped insanely toward the executive branch, with the judicial branch bought and paid for: the next President who gets the ability to nominate two Supreme Court Justices will destroy the entire thing. Executive Orders will be the new normal. Let's be topical and take the second Amendment: the right to bear arms grants the American people access to military-grade weapons of war. The writers weren't stupid, they said "arms" not "muskets" or "sabers" or "cannons," but "arms." You want to put restrictions on those arms? You're going to have to pass another Amendment. Did the writers forsee nuclear weapons when they wrote that? No. There's a really easy solution to that, though: make an Amendment banning private holdings of nuclear etc weapons. They did it for booze! TL;DR: The 27 Amendments represent fundamental laws of the United States, to modify them means a fundamental change, which requires... a fundamental law (Amendment).

This deserves repeating. The slippery slope seems to get steeper every time we have a crisis.

Osterkraut for President.