If only revolvers were banned, that never would have happened!
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals
- Thread starter Dead Man
- Start date
- Status
If only revolvers were banned, that never would have happened!
Mammoth Jones
Member
I believe pistols, shotguns and rifles in both their forms (bolt action and semi-auto) are the standard firearm choices in America and should remain so. So yes, I believe in more thourough background checks. But I do not advocate limiting the firearm choices to the nation because some don't like firearms. A better database means better to sniff out those that shouldn't own a firearm.
Right now if you lie on a background check application for a firearm and are denied you typically do not get arrested or prosecuted. That should change. If you lie it should be a mandatory prison sentence if found guilty. We would need to be careful because there's a lot of grey areas with mental health. I really wish Obama announced the end to the war on drugs an launched a war on illegal guns and violent crime.
I don't know if it's just many guys on GAF don't know any NRA members or if they just have a solidified opinion of them to the point of not giving them any credit but the overwhelming majority of NRA members don't want guns in the hands of criminals and crazies. The problem is we disagree on how far into compromising a legal gun owners rights we should go to accomplish that task.
Like I said, I just wish real gun owners could sit down and craft legislation. Not just a politician that purchased one shotgun for a photo op once then kept it in his summer home and now swears up and down he understands gun owners as he's one himself while he guts the second amendment with shitty laws.
Its factually false to say that gun laws wont affect violence/gun violence. I dont know why this crap keeps being spread around. The only thing to debate is how much it affects. Some portions like the assault weapon ban are obviously not going to change the vast majority of the gun violence but things like universal background checks, tougher laws around selling to prohibited people, lying on background checks etc will definitely have an affect on gun violence. Yes people will still get guns that shouldn't but its still going to help prevent gun violence.
I've been shooting since I was seven and I'd ban handguns tomorrow, given the power. What you really want is gun owners who share your opinion writing the laws.
I've also been the victim of an armed robbery (had something that looked a lot like a rusty Uzi pointed at my face).
Does my experience cancel yours out at least?
This seems fine though the rifle ban concerns me. While I don't care about the AR-15 because it's an ugly gun, I still want to own and go to a firing range with guns like a p90 or an aug or an fn2000.
Also all these background checks seem pointless to some degree. None of the major recent gun murders would have failed a background check because they're mentally ill who are able to obtain guns.
Guns are already really fucking expensive.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
While I believe in harsher punishment for those who commit crime with guns, and those who try to purchase guns illegally, I would really love it if the government (federal, state, local) would enforce the already existing gun laws. Close the gunshow loophole and yo got yourself a stew!
And if you had your gun out he probably would have shot you instead of merely point the gun at you.
.gif)
$300 for a handgun is pretty cheap in my opinion. Sure you can spend some serious money on a gun but you can find stuff at a low price.
No they're not. The mere fact that sales are taking off and prices have skyrocketed shows they're obviously not prohibitively expensive at all. They're actually surprisingly cheap, honestly.
handguns are one thing, I'm talking about rifles. Rifles are not cheap.
Civilian version of the P90:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=326065502
This guy is starting the bidding at $3500
people are wired differently.
I've had a gun in my mug...terrifying, but... didn't go out and buy a gun. Just steer clear of certain situations... keep aware of my surroundings... etc. Been working great ever since. (knock on particle board)
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This is statistically backed up
AstroNut325
Member
So is that guy who was threatening to start killing people if the government tried to enact any sort of legislation... out killing people?
I'm sure CEO's of all the biggest companies feel the same way about crafting corporate, trade and tax legislation. Same thought process putting those who helped to craft the crash we are still recovering from, in charge of the bailouts and getting us out of trouble. Just because the fox is familiar with being a fox doesn't mean you put the fox in charge of the hen house or setting the rules.
That's a pretty unconventional rifle. I didn't even know there was a civilian variant of that thing to be honest.
Where's the fun if you're not using it in burst mode to clear out the bunker guards before downloading the satellite coordinates onto your MI6 PDA?
And this guy is selling it one at $2000: http://www.armslist.com/posts/844885/wichita-kansas-rifles-for-sale--fn-ps90
But if it is your hobby to shoot shit at a range or hunt (much like playing videogames is a hobby) people will find a way to save the money. I still think $2000 for something like that is ridiculously cheap.
I'm going to have to disagree with that premise. I don't understand from where we derive the value of weaponry, exactly, but I can't think of a single reason it would make sense for a rifle of that nature to be cheap.
edit: I will stipulate I am quite glad Steam is my venue of hobby-product purchasing
Yeah I've spent about 2500 on steam in the past 7? years or so I've been a member as that's my primary hobby. I consider that I spend a lot of money on games, so hearing $2000 for one gun and thinking it's a lot would make sense, wouldn't it?
No, because crazy people can't get guns, therefore he cannot possibly have a gun.
All that indicates to me is that videogames make for a much more cost-conscious hobby than collecting unusual firearms.
Even with the combined might of my entire Steam collection I can't kill even one person, so I really have no avenue by which to compare the goods rendered.
I don't think anyone has proposed bans on commonly used defense or plinking ammo. The last round under scrutiny was the black talon, but then they just renamed them Ranger T.
You could throw your computer at someone's head.
My computer cost ~$1300. I think we're maybe starting to figure this out.
I hate it when pro gun control people act like calling out the AWB or bans on hi-cap mags ineffective and unworkable means we are instantly completely unwilling to compromise gun nuts.
It's fairly simple to show how the AWB was one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever be passed, all you have to do is think of a gun owner that owns 2 AR15s. One preban, and one post ban without all the scary 'military' features. One day he takes both of these guns apart and puts them back together. One problem though. He accidentally switched the receivers, so now the post ban weapon is now illegally modified and the poor guy is a fucking felon for mixing up 2 identical parts and ending up with the same exact weapons in the end. If the receiver on his Pre ban weapon broke and he swapped in his post ban receiver? Felon.
Some gun owner wears out the barrel on his gun ad accidentally buys one with a flash suppressor on it, thereby putting him over the AWB limit? Instantly a felon for no reason at all.
Can anyone possibly defend that law as a just law? It is completely capricious and arbitrary and makes criminals out of people who have no intention of breaking the law, they just have no clue that they weren't legally allowed to put this part on that weapon even though the parts are perfectly legal to buy and completely uncontrolled.
The 10 round mags thing won't work because it instantly bans basically every semiautomatic handgun that isn't either a compact or a 1911. This is aside from the fact that there are probably hundreds of millions hi cap mags already existing, and since they basically last forever and at least the ARs haven't changed mag compatibility(and won't anytime soon because it's a NATO standard), it is impossible to police that law.
No gun owner is going to disagree with harsh punishments for people who commit crimes with guns, or dealers who sell to criminals or straw purchasers, and many won't complain about stronger background check laws, though for me that last piece would depend on the actual language of the law, I don't support a law that would ban all private transfers like gifts or inheritances. The AWB and hi-cap mags laws would have serious detrimental effects on actual law abiding citizens while having a completely minimal effect on gun crime(as rifles and high capacity mags are used in a very very small minority of crime). So there are your first potential compromises.
If you want more compromise, here's my proposal, which I posted before:
First is nationwide shall issue CCW and mandatory CLEO signoff for Title II NFA weapons for law abiding citizens. In exchange, all semiautomatic rifles which accept high cap magazines are added to the NFA Title II status with a tax stamp of $25. Finally a repeal of the 1986 machine gun ban (the only times NFA title II weapons have been used in crimes have been by cops IIRC) in exchange for an increase of the transfer tax stamp to $500.
IMO this both substantially increase the rights of law abiding gunowners while also keeping the scary guns out of the hands of criminals. I know gun control people will object to repealing the 1986 ban, but again, NFA regulated weapons are effectively never used in crime because buying one is basically inviting the FBI and the ATF to crawl up your rectum for months to make sure you're safe. Plus paying a nice sized tax.
It's fairly simple to show how the AWB was one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever be passed, all you have to do is think of a gun owner that owns 2 AR15s. One preban, and one post ban without all the scary 'military' features. One day he takes both of these guns apart and puts them back together. One problem though. He accidentally switched the receivers, so now the post ban weapon is now illegally modified and the poor guy is a fucking felon for mixing up 2 identical parts and ending up with the same exact weapons in the end. If the receiver on his Pre ban weapon broke and he swapped in his post ban receiver? Felon.
Some gun owner wears out the barrel on his gun ad accidentally buys one with a flash suppressor on it, thereby putting him over the AWB limit? Instantly a felon for no reason at all.
Can anyone possibly defend that law as a just law? It is completely capricious and arbitrary and makes criminals out of people who have no intention of breaking the law, they just have no clue that they weren't legally allowed to put this part on that weapon even though the parts are perfectly legal to buy and completely uncontrolled.
The 10 round mags thing won't work because it instantly bans basically every semiautomatic handgun that isn't either a compact or a 1911. This is aside from the fact that there are probably hundreds of millions hi cap mags already existing, and since they basically last forever and at least the ARs haven't changed mag compatibility(and won't anytime soon because it's a NATO standard), it is impossible to police that law.
No gun owner is going to disagree with harsh punishments for people who commit crimes with guns, or dealers who sell to criminals or straw purchasers, and many won't complain about stronger background check laws, though for me that last piece would depend on the actual language of the law, I don't support a law that would ban all private transfers like gifts or inheritances. The AWB and hi-cap mags laws would have serious detrimental effects on actual law abiding citizens while having a completely minimal effect on gun crime(as rifles and high capacity mags are used in a very very small minority of crime). So there are your first potential compromises.
If you want more compromise, here's my proposal, which I posted before:
First is nationwide shall issue CCW and mandatory CLEO signoff for Title II NFA weapons for law abiding citizens. In exchange, all semiautomatic rifles which accept high cap magazines are added to the NFA Title II status with a tax stamp of $25. Finally a repeal of the 1986 machine gun ban (the only times NFA title II weapons have been used in crimes have been by cops IIRC) in exchange for an increase of the transfer tax stamp to $500.
IMO this both substantially increase the rights of law abiding gunowners while also keeping the scary guns out of the hands of criminals. I know gun control people will object to repealing the 1986 ban, but again, NFA regulated weapons are effectively never used in crime because buying one is basically inviting the FBI and the ATF to crawl up your rectum for months to make sure you're safe. Plus paying a nice sized tax.
Mammoth Jones
Member
No. Your opinion is absolutely valid and we need everyone chiming in. Not just the anti-gun circile jerk or "the tyranny is here pack your back and start workin' out!" circle jerk.
I gotta agree with this. Not that I think they should be prohibitively expensive. But guns are affordable. Especially for a basic shotgun.
The Assault Weapons Ban was pathetic legislation and no one being intellectually honest in this discussion would describe it in other terms. It's roughly equivalent to trying to stop people from using gasoline by banning certain colors from being displayed at gas stations. At worst it's easily circumventable and at best it will have a coincidental minimal impact. I agree with its intentions philosophically but "fan-service" is sort of the best way I'd heard it described in terms reddit would enjoy.
There's no need to get into the ship of theseus to make that point. By the way, in that anecdote, I don't think your hypothetical gun owner was actually in any danger of legal prosecution.
There's no need to get into the ship of theseus to make that point. By the way, in that anecdote, I don't think your hypothetical gun owner was actually in any danger of legal prosecution.
^^ Also as I said above, the worst part about it is that it makes it way too easy to become an accidental felon.
Mammoth Jones
Member
7 rounds in my 10 round magazine. If I slip in an 8th I'm a criminal scumbag that should go to jail.
I really don't think that's the worst part.
I think it's maybe the funniest part, but I wonder exactly how you think law-abiding gun owners would find that law being enforced upon them for accidentally putting a gun back together incorrectly. Would a police officer be over for dinner and happen to notice the modified rifle on the coffee table?
I think it's maybe the funniest part, but I wonder exactly how you think law-abiding gun owners would find that law being enforced upon them for accidentally putting a gun back together incorrectly. Would a police officer be over for dinner and happen to notice the modified rifle on the coffee table?
Why nationwide CCW? Localities that don't like guns can make an argument that they need nationwide gun control because borders are porous. But I don't see why localities that do like guns have an interest in other localities not having certain gun control measures. If a city votes and the majority of people living there say that they're not comfortable with allowing CCW, then CCW shouldn't be allowed there. Right?
Yeah, I didn't really like that either, but at least it's novel.
Ironically enough I'd consider that a pretty extensive overreach of the federal government, even if it were ratified. That's a lot of power to decide we're going to start distributing federally. Obama's proposals for more funding to allow communities to decide seem downright tame in comparison.
Ironically enough I'd consider that a pretty extensive overreach of the federal government, even if it were ratified. That's a lot of power to decide we're going to start distributing federally. Obama's proposals for more funding to allow communities to decide seem downright tame in comparison.
Because I was trying to give something to both sides. That's what a compromise is. You need to give both sides a win.
The mandatory CLEO signoff on approved NFA transfers is the more important bit(as in that case it is not a democratic process stopping it, but usually some dickhead anti gun sheriff who just doesn't want to sign the paperwork), but I don't see what harm nationwide CCW would cause. CCW is in plenty of states and hasn't been shown to cause any major problems. Could make the standards for the nationwide CCW higher than the state CCWs if you want, hell make them equivalent to the NFA transfers.
What do you propose as an alternative?
I don't think this is that kind of negotiation at all. The existing laws on both state and nationwide levels strike me as incredibly lax. I could get into a whole thing about armslist.com but generally, this isn't a budget negotiation between the Democratic Senate and Republican House, we need to pass something imposing more, and more practical regulation. I can't advocate handing out party favors just because one "side" in this argument is going to be unhappy with the result.
makingmusic476
Member
Daaaaamn. My best friend has one. I wonder if he wants to make a quick couple of grand.
Edit:
To clarify, he only paid around $1300.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
lol, Canada got rid of its own and destroyed all the data (only Quebec managed to salvage the data for itself, and had to do a lot of pressure and get the supreme court to prevent the conservatives from destroying the data before handing it over).
So the US will have its own registry now? Haha, oh Canada.
Again I must ask why people think gun owners are the ones who refuse to compromise if all they get to decide is how bad they want to get fucked?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Background checks are good, 10rnd mag limits are eh, but if by expired bans on "military style" "assault" weapons, they actually mean shit like "your gun should not be black", "your gun should not have a pistol grip", "your gun should not have a barrel shroud" then it's just the carnival of stupid all over again.
The legislation is better than nothing but I wish the stupid didn't have to come bundled along with the good.
The legislation is better than nothing but I wish the stupid didn't have to come bundled along with the good.
I just don't really see who's compromising. Blue cities/states are unlikely to want CCW if they don't have it already. Red cities/states don't have any legitimate reason to care if blue cities/states don't have CCW. This seems like a textbook example of where federalism works, because everyone gets what they want.
Now, I do have a conservative friend who wants nationwide CCW. But he admits that he's for it basically in order to spite liberals. I don't think liberals should have to abase themselves as part of a compromise to get reasonable gun control. I'd also be against gun control at the cost of massive pork for red states. If there's a change to gun law that isn't just about pissing off liberals, I'd be happy to listen.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Mamm, I'm not sure if you mean it should or if you mean it is, but federal law does state if you fail a background check, wether by intention or otherwise, you are to be prosecuted and receive a punishment of a felony conviction a 5 years in prison. However, this law is never enforced. I think I heard that in 2009 70,000 people failed a background check but only 8 were prosecuted.
This doesn't make sense. Most gun owners want stricter gun control than we have. It's the NRA and politicians they own that refuse to compromise, in that they refuse to endorse or even allow reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
I don't know enough about this. Can you link me to something to read up on it?
I don't think it would do "harm" in the sense that I have found every CCW license holder I've met to have a good head on his or her fine shoulders. I think the harm it would do would be legal. Theoretically it doesn't do instantaneous harm to the separation of powers, but I think this would mean Congress signing off on giving the federal government a new level of authority on for starters, licensing operations nationwide. I'd think drivers licenses at the very least would be up for consideration.
I'm... philosophically, I would conceivably support as much regulation as possible without outright banning guns for private ownership. This isn't a very popular position, and I don't consider it pragmatic anyway. You want to talk to Mammoth Jones, who favors some very realistic measures that could actually have a specific impact with regard to spontaneous manslaughter and the sort of mass shootings like Sandy Hook.
One of them would be mandated storage in the home in a locked container of some kind. I think this is the simplest thing that it could be argued might have had an impact in the Lanza family. The assailant was apparently denied a weapon he tried to seek himself, an example of the system working ideally- but it seems as though he had free and open access to the weaponry in his home, which he did not buy. As far as enforcement, I don't think any kind of "check" to see if you were doing this would be practical- but it would be an easy thing to prove for a one-time license arrangement, which you could produce upon buying a gun or ammo.
If the NRA were to support such a proposal, I think it would be a deep act of good faith on their part in acknowledging the volume of these incidents which are carried out with legally purchased firearms.
I don't really give a shit about pissing off the liberals, IMO it's more of a way to strengthen the rights of citizens while also simplifying the nightmarish patchwork of CCW laws we currently have. So you don't have to have know all the states who have reciprocity and any municipalities which ban CCW, etc.
makingmusic476
Member
Is the new AWB going to work like the old one?
I'd hope they'd re-work it so that it doesn't go after weapons for primarily superficial reasons.
Edit:
I really hope Obama doesn't ruffle a bunch of feathers and waste time and political capital fighting for an ineffective piece of legislation. 2014 is going to be hard enough.
But... it's easy. Just don't take your gun with you when you travel. When you go to the UK you don't demand that they let you drive on the right side of the street.
Where do rights come into it? There's no right to a concealed weapon.
Mammoth Jones
Member
When I say we should enforce the laws we already have, I mean stuff like that. Yea I know it's already a crime. And it's never enforced. 70,000 people that we *know* shouldn't have a gun tried to get one.
I read reports that the Sandy Hook Douche tried to purchase a firearm from a store but was denied. Was that confirmed?
- Status