In reply to bigdaddylee82 :
So how about we’d just ban detachable magazines. Pretty much eliminates any mass shooting problem. And it get us out of the stupid “this side dosent know anything” and that side dosent and experts are not experts because of some stupid firearms minnutia.
So no removable mags. Done
In reply to GameboyRMH :
If you've got the tools and skills you can machine anything your heart desires from scratch.
Yes technically, an AR lower receiver can be illegally modified by machining/milling, and changing out some parts. Same is true for a lot of civilian market firearms that share lineages with full auto versions.
Not something your average degenerate with a drill press and a how to video is going to successfully modify though.
At least all the Florida schools will now get "In God we trust" signs now. Super.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to bigdaddylee82 :
So how about we’d just ban detachable magazines. Pretty much eliminates any mass shooting problem. And it get us out of the stupid “this side dosent know anything” and that side dosent and experts are not experts because of some stupid firearms minnutia.
So no removable mags. Done
That would in effect "ban" countless firearms already on the market, or at least render them useless, because there'd be no way to load a fixed magazine in them with ammo. I'm not saying I'm for or against it, but California's "bullet button" kind of alleviates that issue on the AR platform, by not eliminating the removable magazine, but making it much more difficult to remove, by requiring a tool to remove the magazine.
The bullet button is fairly easily circumvented though, and if you're already planning to do something illegal, removing the bullet button shouldn't be of much concern.
I'm doing my best to not be opinionated, and just provide some info I thought was missing and pertinent to the discussion.
bigdaddylee82 said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
If you've got the tools and skills you can machine anything your heart desires from scratch.
Yes technically, an AR lower receiver can be illegally modified by machining/milling, and changing out some parts. Same is true for a lot of civilian market firearms that share lineages with full auto versions.
Not something your average degenerate with a drill press and a how to video is going to successfully modify though.
One of my former coworkers has a few rough castings of AR lower receivers in his toolbox. He's a Journeyman machinist just like me, maybe even a little better, and has access to every machine tool imaginable, so taking it from rough casting to fully machined lower receiver is not a difficult process for him. No serial numbers...
joey48442 said:The_Jed said:alfadriver said:z31maniac said:alfadriver said:z31maniac said:The_Jed said:mtn said:Obviously it is a mental health problem, but I still haven't heard a convincing argument about why machine guns (and don't tell me that these bump stops and AR-15's and whatnot are not machine guns) are legal. They sure as hell aren't good for self defense--that'd be a shotgun or a handgun.
IBTL.
I agree, in part, that it is a mental health issue. The other and much larger part is an obviously mentally disturbed individual was easily able to acquire a civilian version of a military firearm.
ARs aren't auto. The only difference is they look different than a hunting rifle that can accept a magazine.
Why is the wood one OK?What hunting rifle can shoot 30 rounds in less than a min?
AR's are very much not like a hunting rifle that can accept a magazine. Especially a hunting rifle that is set up to be used for normal hunting, not harvesting.
Again, ignoring the blunt question to try and move the goalposts.
So if I have two .223 rifles, one looks like a hunting rifle (wood stock) and one looks like something from the military (black composite stock).
How are the different? You nor pheller explained that, just "what they are associated with?"
A truck ran over how many people in Nice? Let's ban them for what they are associated with.
I'm all for more stringent gun regulation and training, but I don't hear any good ideas other than "appeals to emotion" from the other side.I'm not ignoring anything. The significant difference between a normal hunting rifle and an AR is magazine size and rate of fire. Looks don't matter.
Why is it a bad idea to reduce magazine size and fire rate? THAT is one of the key reasons there are so many deaths in mass shooting incidents.
The difference between a normal hunting rifle and an AR is pretty obvious to me.
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse but I just got home from work. The AR-15 is literally the civilian version of the M16A2 service rifle, which can fire in semi-auto or three round burst.
But the ar cannot fire 3 round burst, right?
No three-round burst without modifications. As for the wood stock vs plastic stock question, you'd have to ask the shooter why he chose the AR platform.
In reply to The_Jed :
I haven't started from a raw 0% casting or forging, but I have a Harbor Freight mini mill, and have experience with 80% lowers.
There's a really interesting Youtube video of a guy that cast his own blank from aluminum scrap and machined a functioning lower receiver.
Bigdaddylee - yes the AR platform is an excellent varmint and predator killing rifle. Its also an excellent people killing rifle, and that’s the rub. Put them on the NFA list, without a manufacturing cutoff, and they’re still legal for varmint and predator hunters but they’re harder to get for kids like Nic Cruz. And yes, increase funding for the part of the ATF that handles the checks and registration so it doesn’t take a year.
As far as background checks and enforcement goes, what's the general consensus on taking guns from otherwise law abiding citizens who make violent threats?
Furthermore, what about situations where a 15yr old kid makes a threat about school shooting, police arrive at his house to find his parents own an arsnel. Do his parents lose rights to their guns due to the misbehavior of their child?
This would certainly fall back on the onus of being a good parent, and part of that is recognizing your kid is a wackjob and you probably shouldn't have guns in the house.
Here is my thought and I would like some feedback. The way I understand it the way the law currently is if you have a felony you can't have a gun. This kid had no felonies so he could have guns. But we find out there had been something like 30 calls to law enforcement telling them he was dangerous. He had social media posts about what he planned on doing. It should have been obvious he had no business having guns. What I propose is this; what if law enforcement could get a gun seizure warrant from a judge in a similar way that they get a search warrant. They go in and take all the guns out of the house, if the person lives with their parents the parents guns get taken away too. Flag the person in a way that they can't go out and buy a new one of the shelf. Of course this doesn't make it impossible for the person to still get one, nothing will, but it makes it more difficult. Maybe that difficulty causes a delay that gives the person time to think and realize they don't want to do it anymore. The police don't seem to have any issue with seizing cash, or cars, or anything else so why not?
In reply to pheller :
Looks like you and I were thinking the same thing at the same time.
Edit; here's the thing, I know this guy, he has a kid that's like 15. The kid called in a bomb threat to the school. While he was kicked out of school for that he robbed the local grocery school with a pistol. Hes not in jail for some reason. Guess what school the kid got kicked out of? The same school my kids go to. Did i mention the dad has a gun fetish? He does. I dont want his kid to have access to guns.
In reply to gearheadmb :
all of those things are already supposed to be done. In the gun community we have the saying about illegal owners "see something, say something." That was done, 30 times. He was reported to the FBI. Nothing that could have been done was. LEO dropped the ball on this one. This is one of the problems that we need to fix. If you report an issue, it shouldn't be ignored.
But... with that said, it can't be like the no-fly list where there is no oversight and no legal way to get off the list.
Bob the REAL oil guy. said:In reply to gearheadmb :
But... with that said, it can't be like the no-fly list where there is no oversight and no legal way to get off the list.
I agree with this completely.
Bottom line is education. Not going down the road about why kids/people are doing this and/or why they think it is a necessary course of action. Applies to both the offenders and the argument. Like a lot of people, I grew up around weapons/guns and am retired military. Been around guns my whole life. Was even not selected for jury duty once because of my gun background (going for accidental shooting plea). Dad's gun case was in my bedroom growing up and it didn't have a door, was open. I could handle them all I wanted. Bullets were kept someplace else though. I have a case with a glass door with bullets kept someplace else. I never even thought about using them improperly. I taught my kids the same as my dad taught me. Even though I don't own an AR-15 and really don't want one doesn't mean I don't appreciate their capabilities. Do agree that they are easy to use improperly though. Education thing again. I do own semi-autos, 2 of which are both versions of the M1 (Garrand & Carbine). Why anyone would want a claim to fame as a mass murderer is beyond me.
gearheadmb said:Bob the REAL oil guy. said:In reply to gearheadmb :
But... with that said, it can't be like the no-fly list where there is no oversight and no legal way to get off the list.
I agree with this completely.
This was the #1 issue with everyone I know that was against the no-fly-list being added to the NICS list. It's not that we don't want "common sense reform" its we WANT common sense with the reform. You can't go willy nilly and pulling peoples rights without any legal recourse.
In reply to gearheadmb :
The problem seems to be that the Broward County schools and Broward County law enforcement reached an agreement to not prosecute teenagers with crimes because it was making their numbers look bad and it was impacting state and federal grant money. They made the choice to let teens get away with misdemeanors and even felonies scot-free without even being charged with a crime or being arrested.
This is how they can visit the shooter's home 39 times and do nothing. They have operated under a system where teens can essentially do what they want since 2013. The school system was happy and got the money they were after, but this is, in a way, an unintended consequence of making those choices.
This shooting has nothing to do with the type of gun or the size of the magazines it could hold. I understand the feeling of "we have to do something" but the something if it does not address the root causes does nothing to prevent something like this from happening again.
Bob the REAL oil guy. said:I agree with this teacher, my wife has said many of the same things over the last 5 years
Cool rant and all, but this kid's (adoptive) parents are/were dead. Kid's don't chose not to grow up with two parents at home and a white picket fence.
Quick question - for most people (clean background check, older than 17, living in a state with average laws - not IL, CA, NY - etc) is it easier to buy two boxes of Sudafed or one handgun?
I don't buy much of either, so I'm not really sure, honestly.
In reply to Robbie:
I don't buy sudafed, so I don't know. I heard there are limits on how many one person can buy though and have heard complaints from parents with sick kids dealing with hassel. I know I can go to the gun store and bring as many handguns home as I can afford in one trip though.
Another idea:
School is optional, but if you don't have a h.s. degree/equivalent you don't vote. Maybe you also get much less in government support like wellfare.
A few problems with poverty cycle and state controlled schools controlling the vote, but I have long felt that if you don't have the respect to take the expensive education that the citizens pay for then the citizens shouldn't need to respect your opinion.
In reply to Robbie :
sudafed. Ive been rejected a sale of a handgun when the NICS system wouldn't work. Never been told I couldn't have cold medicine
I haven't seen any discussion about bullets. Perhaps a reduction of production and some stricter controls on the dissemination of bullets could reduce the use of guns as weapons against other people over time. Sure, it's a long range type of thing. Similar to the use of Halon for fire safety systems, "Sorry, no more production of Halon but you can keep your system, no need to turn it in and it won't be confiscated.
As with most problems there's no instant solution that is satisfactory to everyone.
Regardless of the gun issues. The individual "on a mission" will still find some method of wreaking havoc other than what we currently consider weapons no matter what rules, laws, bans, etc. are put in place. However, perhaps over a couple decades the excess (cheap) ammunition supply would dry up escalating the cost. As the cost rises so would the average intelligence of the people who could afford and are willing to pay thereby reducing the overall number of injuries and fatalities.
School related: I live on a street with a high school in S. FL and have seen at least 30 high school age males and two females in groups of 2-6 wandering by during the last hour with backpacks so I assume they're students since I don't recognize them and they came by walking away from the school and are now returning to the school. The school has 8' fences /walls and locked gates on this side. So apparently it's still pretty easy to get out and in during the school day even with the precautions and
Edit: Just walked out to fetch my garbage can and there's a few high schooler's hiding behind my neighbors bushes waiting for the gates to open for the buses so they can get back on school grounds easy to get on their bus without climbing or whatever they usually do to get back in.
pheller said:As far as background checks and enforcement goes, what's the general consensus on taking guns from otherwise law abiding citizens who make violent threats?
It depends on how credible the violent threat is. Some sort of stupid drunken argument that never gets past shouting? Probably not. Saying something like "Open the door, or you're a dead man" with a rifle strapped across your back? Take that guy's gun away.
Robbie said:Quick question - for most people (clean background check, older than 17, living in a state with average laws - not IL, CA, NY - etc) is it easier to buy two boxes of Sudafed or one handgun?
I don't buy much of either, so I'm not really sure, honestly.
As somebody with allegies and guns, I'd say Sudafed, definitely. To get the handgun, you either need a three day waiting period or need to go through the process of applying for and receiving a concealed carry permit first, which lets you bypass the waiting period. There's generally some testing to get the permit; exactly what will depend on the state.
For a rifle or shotgun, it's usually almost equally easy for both, but there's a big asterisk for the guns. With Sudafed, they ask for an ID, but I don't believe they actually do anything normally other than record it. For a gun, they would send the ID information to a background check. Usually that comes through in a minute or so, but it can theoretically be tied up for days. That hasn't happened to me though.
In reply to Robbie :
Sudafed is much easier to buy. I have a CCP and have purchased both in the past year. The sudafed is annoying but really just limited to volume. The pistol required significant paperwork and checks even though I have been signed off on by the FBI, state police, and ATF as "an ok guy".
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
