gun control rant thread

yamaha wrote: In reply to Strizzo: While the FOPA was a victory, it came at a terrible cost(FA ban).....I still refuse to support the NRA because of it. That is of course, my choice. For those into sports shooting(3 gun for example)....how horrible would the rifle portion be with only 10 shots??

I read somewhere that it was a real pita trying to compete with the guys with deep pockets that had 30 rounders when the budget guys could only get the 10 rd ones until the ban expired.

JoeyM wrote:

Anti-stance wrote:

mattm wrote: [blah, blah, blah]

I don't think you and I are very far off from agreeing with each other. I just think your post was quite sarcastic and obviously a bait to get into an argument with someone here.

I agree. It's fine to have a discussion, but don't be a jerk about it. I hate when we start playing this game

First of all, I would like to apologize for the sarcastic tone of my posts from yesterday. I agree that the tone was sarcastic but the intention was not to provoke anyone into an argument. I thought that the thread might need a little bit of a different viewpoint and perhaps I went too far.

Not to make excuses, but I think if you go back through all 47 pages of this thread, you will find many posts with sarcastic content. The difference between those posts and mine is that my posts obviously are not inline with your opinion on this matter. In this thread in the last few pages there was a picture posted encouraging the banning of weapons for democrats and another that posted pictures of 3 AR platform weapons that was highly sarcastic. I did not see you attempt to invoke the ban hammer for those posts, most likely because they supported your viewpoint.

In the whole this thread has been dominated by viewpoints that were different than mine. My response, after 45 pages of what was mostly an echo chamber, encouraged you to advance a ban for my differing view.

I like and agree with many of the ideas in this thread and I again apologize as my sarcasm meter has a kind of extreme scale; some may even call it broken.

Anti-stance wrote:

mattm wrote: Also, do you care to address any of the data in the links above? The reality says that violent crime is way down from 1980 and that gun ownership in this contry is also down. I am sure it is all a "mainstream media" conspiracy, but do you care to object to anything in particular? Any facts that you do not like?

I had the time to go through your links in your original sarcastic post and do find somethings interesting.

from the CNN article said: "Still, while it is possible to collect accurate data on the number of guns in the United States using manufacturing, import-export and life-cycle data for the guns, the federal government has little idea of who the guns owners are, gun policy experts said. 'The federal government doesn't have good data on anything on guns and that's been done on purpose," said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and senior author of the Injury Prevention Journal study. "The gun lobby has lots of power ... [their] goal is not to have any sort of registration system.'"

Exactly a point I made about you have no idea how many people own guns because there are plenty of private sales that go under the radar. That includes people that are not legally supposed to own a weapon. How can you honestly know how many people are gun owners. The federal government doesn't even know. As far as the Washington Post and The Monkey Cage articles, they are using GSS and Gallup polling. The problem with that, as someone posted in the comment section of The Monkey Cage, is that there are alot of gun owners that would not tell someone over the phone that they have a firearm in their house. Not necessarily because they illegally own one(although I bet there were some polled that did own some illegally) but because who knows if the person calling is legit or maybe the person isn't comfortable telling them about valuables in there house. As far as the Wiki, NBC, WSJ, and Breitbart, they are basically all echoing the same thing that crime is down.... for a number of reasons. They are using larger prison capacities, bigger/more proactive police departments, a decrease in crack cocaine and the GSS and Gallup polls that there are less gun owners in the country. I have yet to meet anyone that got rid of their weapons for safety but at my last two jobs have met several people buying guns for their first time, including women. So IMHO, I think using polls that are a bit intrusive to some people and calling it an end all be all fact that gun ownership is down, might be a little bit of a stretch. But I do not disagree with the fact, as presented in the Wiki, NBC, WSJ, and Breitbart using FBI statistics, that crime is down. That very well could be because of current gun control working then, correct? But by that very same logic, shouldn't crimes have gone up after the sunset of the 1994 AWB? If I understood you correctly before, you do not condone the restriction of weapons that people can own but it should be a little tighter on how people get them. I don't think you and I are very far off from agreeing with each other. I just think your post was quite sarcastic and obviously a bait to get into an argument with someone here.

I agree with you that the gun ownership data is somewhat nebulous as the nature of private sales and those weapons that were "lost" in the great lakes, or at sea, etc etc, make it difficult to determine with certainty the number of gun owners in this country.

As an aside, don't you find it sad that we must rely on polling data from gallup to try to ascertain this data? Like I mentioned before I grew up around family members with weapons and nobody lied or would have lied about the fact that they owned weapons. Perhaps your experience was different, but the idea that the government (state or federal) should never be able to document gun ownership in this country does not sit well with me, and based upon your posts, it appears we may agree on this.

My sarcasm meter may be broken and I will concede that my posts from yesterday may have gone too far. I think that our opinions are most likely very close on this issue and it is not my intention to alienate anyone.

It is also worth noting that the government is currently breaking that law, trying to make a list of weapons owned by enlisted personel

Probably doing it to save their lives. I heard that last year more service members died of suicide through self inflicted gun shot wounds than in combat.

Edit: here is the link. http://www.stripes.com/news/more-soldier-suicides-than-combat-deaths-in-2012-1.201440

The soldier spouse murder rate is also very high, but can't find a source right now.

mattm wrote:

JoeyM wrote: I agree. It's fine to have a discussion, but don't be a jerk about it. I hate when we start playing this game [ban hammer pic]

First of all, I would like to apologize for the sarcastic tone of my posts from yesterday. I agree that the tone was sarcastic but the intention was not to provoke anyone into an argument. I thought that the thread might need a little bit of a different viewpoint and perhaps I went too far.

Your differing viewpoint isn't "too far," but I thought your sarcasm was a bit sharp...

mattm wrote: Not to make excuses, but I think if you go back through all 47 pages of this thread, you will find many posts with sarcastic content.

You're totally correct. I've even been in the middle of a huge chunk of that with N Sperlo as we harrassed each other about the the "Tactical" vs. the "walnut and polished metal" camps of firearms ownership

mattm wrote: The difference between those posts and mine is that my posts obviously are not inline with your opinion on this matter.

Nope, the difference is that I've known those guys for a few years, and several thousand posts, so I know that they are being silly and not malicious. I don't know you well enough to understand your intent. (I don't know you at all, actually.....I see that you have around 100 posts under your belt, but this is the first that I've noticed you.)

mattm wrote: I did not see you attempt to invoke the ban hammer for those posts, most likely because they supported your viewpoint.

Don't feel so special; you are not being singled out for treatment any different than other people. If I think someone is out of line, I say something. It's part of the "job." Last week I said something similar to another user in a totally non-gun thread. I just didn't like the hostile edge in their attitude. In response, I was told - by one of the regulars - to simmer down.

mattm wrote: I like and agree with many of the ideas in this thread and I again apologize as my sarcasm meter has a kind of extreme scale; some may even call it broken.

Thanks for the apology. For the record, I wasn't planning to lock your account or delete it. I have the ability, but I've only used it with canoes, and plan to keep it that way. (That's why I was given mod abilities...I respond to spam. If you see any, let me know.) I just want everybody to play nice so we don't need to lock the thread. Like I said before, "It's fine to have a discussion, but don't be a jerk about it." (...and for the record, there are a few things I disagree with in this thread, and on many issues I'm a heck of a lot more liberal than most GRMers. Ideology had nothing to do with my opinion that your tone was excessively caustic.)

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

It is also worth noting that the government is currently breaking that law, trying to make a list of weapons owned by enlisted personel

Probably doing it to save their lives. I heard that last year more service members died of suicide through self inflicted gun shot wounds than in combat. Edit: here is the link. http://www.stripes.com/news/more-soldier-suicides-than-combat-deaths-in-2012-1.201440 The soldier spouse murder rate is also very high, but can't find a source right now.

You're probably right....that would be an understandable reason for them to consider this action....I still don't approve of it, though. (i.e. the negatives, IMHO, outweigh the positives.) Besides, knowing who has guns at home won't prevent people from accessing guns while on base. The way to reduce soldier suicides is to deal with mental health issues. Care is available, but I'm under the impression that it is not always easy to get. The process should be streamlined and de-stigmatized.

JoeyM wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

It is also worth noting that the government is currently breaking that law, trying to make a list of weapons owned by enlisted personel

Probably doing it to save their lives. I heard that last year more service members died of suicide through self inflicted gun shot wounds than in combat. Edit: here is the link. http://www.stripes.com/news/more-soldier-suicides-than-combat-deaths-in-2012-1.201440 The soldier spouse murder rate is also very high, but can't find a source right now.

You're probably right....that would be an understandable reason for them to consider this action....I still don't approve of it, though. (i.e. the negatives, IMHO, outweigh the positives.) Besides, knowing who has guns at home won't prevent people from accessing guns while on base. The way to reduce soldier suicides is to deal with mental health issues. Care is available, but I'm under the impression that it is not always easy to get. The process should be streamlined and de-stigmatized.

And here we go actually expecting to fix the root cause of the problem and not the tool being used.

On a completely serious note (and back on topic), if someone is intent on killing many many people, what real difference does it make if they are armed with a semiautomatic pistol with 10x 13 round magazines instead of 13x 10 round magazines? Magazines are cheap enough, and certainly anyone intending to do harm is going to have a bunch at their disposal. Changing magazines, even for someone like me who's ejected a magazine from a pistol maybe two dozen times, takes like 2 seconds.

Please, from someone on this thread who thinks that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is a good idea. Why is it a good idea? My gun has 13 standard. It doesn't stick up out of the bottom of the gun. It comes with the gun. Why is 13 bad but 10 (or 7 in NY) is okay?

Bobzilla wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

It is also worth noting that the government is currently breaking that law, trying to make a list of weapons owned by enlisted personel

Probably doing it to save their lives. I heard that last year more service members died of suicide through self inflicted gun shot wounds than in combat. Edit: here is the link. http://www.stripes.com/news/more-soldier-suicides-than-combat-deaths-in-2012-1.201440 The soldier spouse murder rate is also very high, but can't find a source right now.

You're probably right....that would be an understandable reason for them to consider this action....I still don't approve of it, though. (i.e. the negatives, IMHO, outweigh the positives.) Besides, knowing who has guns at home won't prevent people from accessing guns while on base. The way to reduce soldier suicides is to deal with mental health issues. Care is available, but I'm under the impression that it is not always easy to get. The process should be streamlined and de-stigmatized.

And here we go actually expecting to fix the root cause of the problem and not the tool being used.

A suicidal soldier will find a gun one way or the other. Doesn't really matter if he has one. It make little difference.

tuna55 wrote: Magazines [u]WERE[/u] cheap enough, and certainly anyone intending to do harm is going to have a bunch at their disposal.

Fixed for accuracy. I was looking for a couple spare mags for my EDC (Taurus 24/7Pro Compact .45). The 10rd mags are gone/Backordered and cost $45 now. The 12-rd are $65 and also out of stock.

Good thing my 1911 mags are still cheap.

tuna55 wrote: On a completely serious note (and back on topic), if someone is intent on killing many many people, what real difference does it make if they are armed with a semiautomatic pistol with 10x 13 round magazines instead of 13x 10 round magazines? Magazines are cheap enough, and certainly anyone intending to do harm is going to have a bunch at their disposal. Changing magazines, even for someone like me who's ejected a magazine from a pistol maybe two dozen times, takes like 2 seconds. Please, from someone on this thread who thinks that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is a good idea. Why is it a good idea? My gun has 13 standard. It doesn't stick up out of the bottom of the gun. It comes with the gun. Why is 13 bad but 10 (or 7 in NY) is okay?

IMO, the reason NY chose 7 was a) because they couldn't get an agreement on 5, and b) because nearly every semiauto pistol made has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds or more. note that currently owned 10 round mags are grandfathered, but can only be loaded with 7 rounds, and 10 round mags can no longer be sold when it fully goes into effect in April. so at the very least you can't buy "NY legal" mags for a bit until all the companies make 7 round mags for all their guns. of course, some companies are no longer sold here so i guess you won't be able to get a new "NY legal" mag for them and will just be SOL.

mattm wrote: My sarcasm meter may be broken and I will concede that my posts from yesterday may have gone too far. I think that our opinions are most likely very close on this issue and it is not my intention to alienate anyone.

It's a touchy subject and some people get a little excited about it. I have done it too. No big deal.

in actual gun news, DiFi is revealing her AWB today: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/22/miller-national-assault-weapon-ban-coming-thursday/

i hear she's "going to have lots of assault weapons around" for the announcement.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/assault-weapons-ban-be-introduced-today_697613.html

tuna55 wrote: On a completely serious note (and back on topic), if someone is intent on killing many many people, what real difference does it make if they are armed with a semiautomatic pistol with 10x 13 round magazines instead of 13x 10 round magazines? Magazines are cheap enough, and certainly anyone intending to do harm is going to have a bunch at their disposal. Changing magazines, even for someone like me who's ejected a magazine from a pistol maybe two dozen times, takes like 2 seconds. Please, from someone on this thread who thinks that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is a good idea. Why is it a good idea? My gun has 13 standard. It doesn't stick up out of the bottom of the gun. It comes with the gun. Why is 13 bad but 10 (or 7 in NY) is okay?

Flawed logic......they think of anything more than a revolver(although I've owned a 7 and 8 shot 357mag) as being "High Capacity".....they need to learn weapons were designed for a certain capacity, and therefore in most cases, have a standard capacity.

I don't even think my .45 colt lever action would be legal in NY......ZOMG, it holds 8rds.... BTW, if anyone is looking for a good deal on a lever action, they're pretty cheap right now.....

yamaha wrote: Flawed logic......they think of anything more than a revolver(although I've owned a 7 and 8 shot 357mag) as being "High Capacity".....they need to learn weapons were designed for a certain capacity, and therefore in most cases, have a standard capacity.

Exactly my position. I want to hear from the libs on this site as to what supports their position on this. I can usually reason out most of the positions, even if I don't agree. This one just seems stupid.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think someone was trying to push business into one company vs another or into all of them by forcing them to design and sell another type of magazine now, but I don't think any of the people pushing it have any interests in that area. I am stumped.

In reply to tuna55:

Its not just that.....its more posturing and the appearance of doing something. That said, wouldn't current so-called AW's be exempt from NFA registration due to FOPA?

I guarentee my M1 wouldn't end up in any registry though....

yamaha wrote:

tuna55 wrote: On a completely serious note (and back on topic), if someone is intent on killing many many people, what real difference does it make if they are armed with a semiautomatic pistol with 10x 13 round magazines instead of 13x 10 round magazines? Magazines are cheap enough, and certainly anyone intending to do harm is going to have a bunch at their disposal. Changing magazines, even for someone like me who's ejected a magazine from a pistol maybe two dozen times, takes like 2 seconds. Please, from someone on this thread who thinks that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is a good idea. Why is it a good idea? My gun has 13 standard. It doesn't stick up out of the bottom of the gun. It comes with the gun. Why is 13 bad but 10 (or 7 in NY) is okay?

Flawed logic......they think of anything more than a revolver(although I've owned a 7 and 8 shot 357mag) as being "High Capacity".....they need to learn weapons were designed for a certain capacity, and therefore in most cases, have a standard capacity. I don't even think my .45 colt lever action would be legal in NY......ZOMG, it holds 8rds.... BTW, if anyone is looking for a good deal on a lever action, they're pretty cheap right now.....

I know.... I wish someone offered a .45ACP lever action. I would be all over that like a fat kid on cake.

<-- can say that because he was the fat kid on the cake.

Just wrote this to my state level representatives:

I'd like to update my request. In the few days since I have contacted you, the list of state's passing legislation to eliminate the federal government's control of firearms has grown. I don't think our S85 or S224 go far enough. I truly hope that SC can pass a law very similar to any of these. See the list below:

Wyoming HB104

Missouri HB170

Texas HB553

Tennessee HB0042

North Dakota HB1183

New Mexico HB114

Arizona HB2291 and SB1112

Alaska HB69

Florida 2ND Amendment Preservation Act

Nebraska LB451

Oklahoma SB548

Virginia HB2340

Pennsylvania HB357

Thank you for your time,

feinstein's bill is out, LIVE video: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/

I am not a military style gun proponent. I feel that the way military style guns are sensationalized in video games has a negative effect on the way our youth views war, violence, and the tool to accomplish such.

However, the following post swayed my opinion on whether banning the modern sporting rifle makes sense.

I try my best to be informed and understand both sides of the argument. I believe in finding this discussion on Firearmstalk, I have informed myself, and challenge my own belief.

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f20/moving-away-ar-msr-76567/index3.html

KG7IL said: THIS IS ONLY SAMPLE / EXAMPLE, NO FACT CHECKING HAS BEEN DONE The Modern Sporting Rifle has been developed to reflect changing technologies and manufacturing. The MSR typically is milled by CNC machines to facilitate manufacturing. Modern Materials are utilized that reduce the dependence of hardwoods. The semi automatic reflects modernization we see in every area of our lives. The MSR is the largest selling catagory of rifles in the world today. Although some MSR share cosmetics similar to Military weapons, these civilian rifles are not fully automatic. The similarities only allow manufactures to reduce cost both to the miliary and civilians. The safety features or benefits of the MSR are: Removeable Magazine allows user to safely remove ammuniton from the MSR. Cycling the action, ejects loaded round similarly on all MSR's Semi-Automatic MSR's mimimize potentially unsafe manipulations Large Surface area allows MSR controls to be clearly labeled. Pistol Grip features and forearms are enhanced to ensure safe handling. Threaded Barrels allow for sound suppression to alleviate noise pollution.

In reply to Bobzilla:

ACP would be rubbish in a lever action.......however, I like the round in carbine rifles. So bob, my recommendation is a Marlin Camp .45 to you...... They are nice rifles and accept your 1911 magazines....

I have to be honest a few years ago I didn't understand why people where so against an "assault weapon" ban but then I started doing my own research and saw that fewer then 400 a year were killed with "assault rifles" and it started to make sense. If they pass an assault weapon ban, it will have basically no effect on the murder rate. Well then the next logical thing to do is ban handguns and then shotguns cause those are both used in a lot more murders.

yamaha wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: ACP would be rubbish in a lever action.......however, I like the round in carbine rifles. So bob, my recommendation is a Marlin Camp .45 to you...... They are nice rifles and accept your 1911 magazines....

Yeah.... I've looked at those too.

tuna55 wrote: Florida 2ND Amendment Preservation Act

Thank you. I need to get on this ASAP.

93EXCivic wrote: I have to be honest a few years ago I didn't understand why people where so against an "assault weapon" ban but then I started doing my own research and saw that fewer then 400 a year were killed with "assault rifles" and it started to make sense. If they pass an assault weapon ban, it will have basically no effect on the murder rate. Well then the next logical thing to do is ban handguns and then shotguns cause those are both used in a lot more murders.

And there it is. Go for the low hanging fruit. When people are not longer shocked, you grab a little higher and then a little higher etc. Repeat until objective is achieved.