guns: senate to vote on large magazine ban

Conquest351 wrote: In reply to PHeller: I notice you seem to refer to bullet proof vests quite a bit. They're not really bullet proof. They're resistant. If you get hit with a large enough caliber, it will break ribs and berkley you up. It's also just that, a vest. Your head and extremities are still vulnerable. This is because the chest/center mass/body is the largest and easiest to acquire target on a person. It's also where most of the vital organs reside. If, as was mentioned earler, you're hit multiple times with, say, a .45 then you have some major damage through your vest. If you engage a group of targets where you have multiple return engagements upon yourself, you're pretty berkleyed. It's a game of numbers. Also a game of calibers. A .308 cuts through body armor with no problem. I believe a .223 will as well, that's what the AR15 uses. The 7.62x39 that the AK47 uses makes short work of Kevlar too. Also as mentioned, the state of Texas is what's called a "Life and property state" where as I can defend myself AND my property with deadly force. That's right. If someone breaks into my house and has my property and is leaving my residence but still on my property (I've used that word a lot I know) then I can engage them lethally and legally. If someone tries to steal my car, I can defend myself and my car with deadly force. I agree that allowing citizens to defend themselves is key, all the over regulation is doing is cutting down on our ability to legally do so.

As an addendum, adding trauma plates helps spread the load of rounds taken and will increase the ability of the kevlar to stop multiple rounds of rifle fire. But even at that, enough rounds and they WILL penetrate.

Bobzilla wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: I have my Indiana LTCH, and I still have to wait 7 days at times because the federal background check cannot be completed quickly.

Fun fact: In Missouri, you can walk in, pay, and walk out with a gun in hand. No wait period. Still a background check, of course. After this law was instituted, there was no change in violent crime that could be attributed to the change.

Long arm, I'm sure that's possible. Handgun? No. The Brady Bill prohibits that.

I can even with handguns Bob......I've only had to wait more than that business day one time. And that was due to the agency being closed before I arrived at the shop. If you are there between 8am and 5pm, don't have a common name(which you do, whereas I'm the only one in the US with my name), and pass their check, you can walk in and out with a handgun in a day.

yamaha wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: I have my Indiana LTCH, and I still have to wait 7 days at times because the federal background check cannot be completed quickly.

Fun fact: In Missouri, you can walk in, pay, and walk out with a gun in hand. No wait period. Still a background check, of course. After this law was instituted, there was no change in violent crime that could be attributed to the change.

Long arm, I'm sure that's possible. Handgun? No. The Brady Bill prohibits that.

I can even with handguns Bob......I've only had to wait more than that business day one time. And that was due to the agency being closed before I arrived at the shop. If you are there between 8am and 5pm, don't have a common name(which you do, whereas I'm the only one in the US with my name), and pass their check, you can walk in and out with a handgun in a day.

You know how many crazy Robert Millers there are? A TON! No, seriously... .father and I have same first and last names, middle being different. When I was a teenager we had 4 of us on the same rural route (only my father and I, obviously, related). One was a bank president, the other had been re-committed to Central State Mental Hospital and my father and I. We liked to think we fell in the middle of that spectrum!

Ok, I'll admit I've never purchased a gun from a shop. (I've had private owner guns offered to me though)

What would you guys think about some sort of mental stability testing as part of the background check. Forgive my ignorance, but currently they just check to make sure you aren't a felon, or have been convicted of a violent crime right?

What if there was a "craziness" test that if you failed, prevented you from purchasing a gun?

I think every sane / non felon in the U.S. should be able to own a firearm if they choose. I am not in favor of insane wackjobs having the same right.

The Aurora shooter bought his firearms legally. Shouldn't there be some sort of screening test to weed out the criminally insane? It may not solve every case, but it couldn't hurt......could it?

Joe Gearin wrote: Ok, I'll admit I've never purchased a gun from a shop. (I've had private owner guns offered to me though) What would you guys think about some sort of mental stability testing as part of the background check. Forgive my ignorance, but currently they just check to make sure you aren't a felon, or have been convicted of a violent crime right? What if there was a "craziness" test that if you failed, prevented you from purchasing a gun? I think every sane / non felon in the U.S. should be able to own a firearm if they choose. I am not in favor of insane wackjobs having the same right. The Aurora shooter bought his firearms legally. Shouldn't there be some sort of screening test to weed out the criminally insane? It may not solve every case, but it couldn't hurt......could it?

While I agree with the theory, it's the practice that brings me pause. What is considered "sane"? Who determines you to be a whack-job? I know a lot of people from all walks of life, and some come across as the craziest whack-jobs the workd has seen since Charles Manson. But htey are usually the nicest, most down to earth and honest people I klnow.

Joe Gearin wrote: The Aurora shooter bought his firearms legally. Shouldn't there be some sort of screening test to weed out the criminally insane? It may not solve every case, but it couldn't hurt......could it?

The discresion to sell is the selling person's right.....plus, persons with mental illnesses are not always batE36 M3 crazy. They blend in very well, and if the person is in the "right" state of mind during purchase, a test of such could not even help......mind you there is a "Have you ever been determined mentally deficient" or something like that question on the form. People are dishonest as well....and since medical records are strictly private, what can the government do about that?

I have e-mailed my senator not to vote for a capacity limitation.

Joe Gearin wrote: Ok, I'll admit I've never purchased a gun from a shop. (I've had private owner guns offered to me though) What would you guys think about some sort of mental stability testing as part of the background check. Forgive my ignorance, but currently they just check to make sure you aren't a felon, or have been convicted of a violent crime right? What if there was a "craziness" test that if you failed, prevented you from purchasing a gun? I think every sane / non felon in the U.S. should be able to own a firearm if they choose. I am not in favor of insane wackjobs having the same right. The Aurora shooter bought his firearms legally. Shouldn't there be some sort of screening test to weed out the criminally insane? It may not solve every case, but it couldn't hurt......could it?

I don't really have a problem with that. As long as it wasn't just to create a revenue stream.

I mean, you do have to take an eye test for a driver's licence, which is the most important to driving. I think not being crazy is the most important part of owning a weapon, not what size magazines you can buy.

In reply to Joe Gearin:

I am no expert in craziness (even if I own a Yugo) but wouldn't you need someone trained to diagnose if someone is crazy?

The problem with crazy tests is that a complete breakdown is usually the first sign of a psychosis. Aurora shooter probably would have passed any tests up until the day he did it.

In reply to Javelin:

Good point, there is that "snap" that could happen later.

Javelin wrote: The problem with crazy tests is that a complete breakdown is usually the *first* sign of a psychosis. Aurora shooter probably would have passed any tests up until the day he did it.

The rumor is schizophrenia, which when in the normal phase, will pass any check given. Every person does have a breaking point for their sanity, it just depends if and what triggers it.

Joe Gearin wrote: What if there was a "craziness" test that if you failed, prevented you from purchasing a gun?

What if there was a "literacy test" to make sure that you understood what you were about to vote on?

Oh, wait. We tried that. It was used to deny rights.

All great points guys. Everyone could be completely sane and in their right mental capacities until that one moment where you snap, and there's no way to prevent that.

I'm not saying it would cure all problems, but it may stop a couple of wackos.

I'm envisioning a written test that would be screened by mental health professionals---- not a test analyzed by the gun seller. Folks shouldn't have a problem waiting a few days for a gun.....right?

Homer Simpson---"3 day waiting period?! But I'm angry NOW!"

I also don't think the Aurora shooter's plan was a "snap" reaction. Granted his mind may have snapped, but this wasn't a crime of passion. He clearly planned this attack, boobytrapped his apartment etc. A lot of thought went into this attack. I also think that he isn't done. If he is as smart as reported, he knew what the media reaction would be.....he's planned it up to this point. I think he may be looking to make a spectacle of the trial, or sneak out on a mistrial, or technicality. He is trying to emulate a supervillian....no?

It would be problematic, but I'd love to see more of a mental check for folks wanting to deal with deadly force.

Joe Gearin wrote: I also don't think the Aurora shooter's plan was a "snap" reaction. Granted his mind may have snapped, but this wasn't a crime of passion. He clearly planned this attack, boobytrapped his apartment etc. A lot of thought went into this attack. I also think that he isn't done. If he is as smart as reported, he knew what the media reaction would be.....he's planned it up to this point. I think he may be looking to make a spectacle of the trial, or sneak out on a mistrial, or technicality. He is trying to emulate a supervillian....no?

an angle I really hadnt considered [shudder]. Part of me believes wholeheartedly that if this guy ever steps foot on free soil again, it will likely be his last...Im sure theres enough pent up ...emotion from the families of those he injured/murdered that one of them will most certainly "snap" on him...with large caliber and or high muzzle speed

In reply to Joe Gearin:

My main worry with that is it could be very easy to make a test in such a way as to prevent sane people from owning a gun.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

touche

Once upon a time in this country there were no gun laws, except that it was legal to have them. People went everywhere with the arms out in the open, yet crime was surprisingly light. Why? Because they strung up people caught in the act in the town square on the same afternoon.

Just saying...

PHeller wrote: I don't like guns because the make the playing field uneven. A guy comes after me with a knife, I'll grab a chair, or throw something at him, or outrun him. Guns require technology to defeat, technology that 99% of the population doesnt have.

Great. We get the point. You're fit enough to fight or flee. Good for you. What about the unfit, or the aged? How about he 89 year old grandmother who had to fight off a home invasion by two fit men - ages 31 and 42 - this week?
http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=779529#.UBMOrqCs88z
Guess what happened? She pulled a pistol, they saw it and ran.

Guns are a democratizing force that allow ANYONE to have the same capability. It didn't matter that she was a frail little old lady. She was still a force to be reckoned with.

Javelin wrote: People went everywhere with the arms out in the open, yet crime was surprisingly light. Why?

It may have also had something to do with the fact there were a LOT less people around back then.

stuart in mn wrote:

Javelin wrote: People went everywhere with the arms out in the open, yet crime was surprisingly light. Why?

It may have also had something to do with the fact there were a LOT less people around back then.

Actually some states are allowing open carry again.

stuart in mn wrote:

Javelin wrote: People went everywhere with the arms out in the open, yet crime was surprisingly light. Why?

It may have also had something to do with the fact there were a LOT less people around back then.

Per capita, percentage, whatever. Still less crime when a speedy trial was a day or two and punishment was on the bitter end of a dangling rope.

Javelin wrote: ..Why? Because they strung up people caught in the act in the town square on the same afternoon. Just saying...

Vigilantism and frontier justice.... what could possibly be wrong with that....

spitfirebill wrote:

stuart in mn wrote:

Javelin wrote: People went everywhere with the arms out in the open, yet crime was surprisingly light. Why?

It may have also had something to do with the fact there were a LOT less people around back then.

Actually some states are allowing open carry again.

Many states never stopped it.