Support NeoGAF

[GQman2121]

This makes me fearful for Obama's safety. Some of these second amendment nuts are fucked up.

First thing I thought about when the announcement was made. The security at the inauguration is going to be insane.

 

[NullPointer]

So how does this stop a kid from going to get his moms ar 15 variant and shooting a school? Proposal is pointless to criminals and only hinders law abdiing citizens. Throwing money at a lost cause part of the problem onstead of going for the root.

We've got to movie to biometrics. Lock a gun down to use by its owner, through magnetics, thumbprints, proximity devices, whatever. Dedicated people would be able to circumvent the tech, but it could make these incidents where a gun is stolen, accidentally fired, etc less likely.

Just like a club doesn't stop car theft, it can deter it.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

introduce background checks on all gun sales; currently private sales and some sales at gun shows, constituting about 40% of the national total, are exempt

pass a ban on possession and sale of armour-piercing bullets

introduce harsher penalties for gun-traffickers, especially unlicensed dealers who buy arms for criminals

Regardless of one's position on gun bans, I feel like these are the motions that should be passed at bare minimum.

 

[RDreamer]

Yeah. Scary. Won't somebody please think of the slightly depressed and anxious gun owners?

Seriously, the word choice there is what's scary to me... I mean I could see just saying it sucks to be someone with only a temporary problem or something. But saying it's scary that someone with mental issues might not have access to guns is a little... well, nuts.

 

[alphaNoid]

Wife called me and gave me the green light to go buy the 2 guns I've been waiting to buy, thanks Biden!

note : They're pistols, not AR's or anything. And I'm in CA where we already have 10 round magazine laws, back ground checks and long waiting periods. Regardless, I'm not telling my wife that.

 

[Arde5643]

Regardless of one's position on gun bans, I feel like these are the motions that should be passed at bare minimum.

Nah, anything that will hamper the NRA's ability to sell more guns and ammo is fascist and dictatorial in nature.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

So how does this stop a kid from going to get his moms ar 15 variant and shooting a school? Proposal is pointless to criminals and only hinders law abdiing citizens. Throwing money at a lost cause part of the problem onstead of going for the root.

Which is why I'd like to see legislation focused on the mom. Why did she have an AR-15 in the first place? Why did she (presumably) keep it unlocked? Why was she not instructed on how to properly secure a loaded weapon in her house? Did she have any proper training or safety courses? Should we start making those mandatory?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

So when is Eric Holder going to jail then?

 

[GungHo]

We've got to movie to biometrics. Lock a gun down to use by its owner, through magnetics, thumbprints, proximity devices, whatever.

They've actually tried this with police firearms in order to prevent a firearm from being taken from a police officer and used against him or her. Unfortunately, the tech is very fiddly and people decided they would rather have a reliable gun rather than have yet another button to press or something else to fuck up in a high-stress situation.

 

[Canuck76]

I'm pretty disappointed. The only people this will hurt are honest gun owners. I do support all the mental health and background check stuff but the 10 round mag limit is ridiculous.

 

[NullPointer]

They've actually tried this with police firearms in order to prevent a firearm from being taken from a police officer and used against him or her. Unfortunately, the tech is very fiddly and people decided they would rather have a reliable gun rather than have yet another button to press or something else to fuck up in a high-stress situation.

I'm figuring this tech would just be used to toggle the safety, right? That doesn't seem like too much extra effort to ask. And if its something like a magnetic wristband or other proximity device you wouldn't even need additional steps.

I'm sure the tech is fiddly, but its worth further development.

 

[mernst23]

Wife called me and gave me the green light to go buy the 2 guns I've been waiting to buy, thanks Biden!

note : They're pistols, not AR's or anything. And I'm in CA where we already have 10 round magazine laws, back ground checks and long waiting periods. Regardless, I'm not telling my wife that.

Your wife sounds infromed.

 

[Arde5643]

I'm pretty disappointed. The only people this will hurt are honest gun owners. I do support all the mental health and background check stuff but the 10 round mag limit is ridiculous.

Oh gawd, don't you guys know anything about negotiations?
You never start negotiations at moderate stage - always aim for the highest possible thing so you can cut fluff things (like AWB and mag limit) to get the actual things that's really helpful.

 

[mclem]

So we should take away rights to own stuff in the hopes that it might stop something bad from happening?

Maybe, just maybe, owning a device that is capable of killing someone at range with a very simple action should in fact be a privilege, not a right?

 

[BeerSnob]

But I posted the exact language that stipulates what is considered an armor-piercing bullet. That sentence you just typed is an adequate paraphrase but the law is already more specific. To be more clear, it already allows for exceptions that fit the description you just offered. S

So you're saying some new legislation could alter the existing definition to make it more restrictive, to include certain types of rounds that weren't banned before. While I agree of course that's possible, I don't understand how any value judgement can be exercised before seeing the actual provisions.

A spokesperson for the Violence Policy Group in that article says: "There is no rationale that would justify allowing the sale of any handgun ammunition that can pierce body armor and endanger first responders," she told Sunlight.

I'm inclined to agree, at least theoretically. Where am I going wrong?

I just realized I've talked myself into being upset about a possible law that may or may not even pass. I will say that I agree with the current law, fully, and only hope this new mess isn't used as leverage to ban all FMJ or high velocity rounds. You're right we don't have the final wording of the new law and it would be pointless for me argue against something I only pessimistically assume to exist.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I'm pretty disappointed. The only people this will hurt are honest gun owners. I do support all the mental health and background check stuff but the 10 round mag limit is ridiculous.

The mag limit doesn't stand a chance of passing, so don't worry.

 

[Hawkian]

The best application of biometrics is probably in locking whatever container the weapons are safely stored in.

Sean Hannity does it. Follow Hannity's example America.

Spoiler

don't really though. just this one thing

 

[- J - D -]

First thing I thought about when the announcement was made. The security at the inauguration is going to be insane.

Obama being gunned down will only bolster his proposals and strengthen the need for gun control. America loves a martyr.

 

[Future PhaZe]

Thats... scary?

Kind of scary to see this sort of ignorance on GAF. There are different levels of mental disorders. A person who witnesses a traumatic incident, ends up going through counceling and gets on anxiety meds for a few weeks and completely gets over it shouldn't have their second amendment rights taken away. Nor should someone who takes anxiety medications for panic attacks for fear of flying.

 

[Dude Abides]

who's gonna be the one to jump on that 3-5 second reload window? nobody.

In prior shootings people have.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...arrying-jack-o-lantern-as-he-opened-fire.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting

Jared Loughner was stopped when he dropped his clip as he was trying to reload.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm pretty disappointed. The only people this will hurt are honest gun owners. I do support all the mental health and background check stuff but the 10 round mag limit is ridiculous.

Yep. Down to 7 here in NY. It'll be 5 next year.

 

[alphaNoid]

Your wife sounds infromed.

My wife doesn't need to be, because I am. I've had my eye on 2 guns for the last 2 years nearly. Handled, researched, shot and everything needed, accept for the wife approval to spend the money.

I'll take it anyway I can, trust me lol

Yep. Down to 7 here in NY. It'll be 5 next year.

And I thought 10 was terrible here in CA. Cross NY off the list of states to ever live in.

 

[Hitokage]

Oh gawd, don't you guys know anything about negotiations?
You never start negotiations at moderate stage - always aim for the highest possible thing so you can cut fluff things (like AWB and mag limit) to get the actual things that's really helpful.

Don't you know anything about Obama? He produces the moderate position on his own then puts it forward, so that people coming from a more extreme view like yourself can pull it away from the moderate position.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Yep. Down to 7 here in NY. It'll be 5 next year.

That'd be tragic.

 

[Arde5643]

Kind of scary to see this sort of ignorance on GAF. There are different levels of mental disorders. A person who witnesses a traumatic incident, ends up going through counceling and gets on anxiety meds for a few weeks and completely gets over it shouldn't have their second amendment rights taken away. Nor should someone who takes anxiety medications for panic attacks for fear of flying.

I don't think this is a broad term of mental disorders - I think they're talking more of people who have psychopathic tendencies like most of the mass shooters.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

who's gonna be the one to jump on that 3-5 second reload window? nobody.

If it takes you 3 seconds to reload a magazine-fed rifle or pistol, you are doing it wrong, or you are retaining your mags. I don't think many suicidal maniacs are worried about magazine retention. Even a pretty sloppy Chinese AK can be reloaded without retention in about 2 seconds, if you practice an hour. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to tape two mags together jungle-style, either.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

I'm pretty disappointed. The only people this will hurt are honest gun owners. I do support all the mental health and background check stuff but the 10 round mag limit is ridiculous.

Serious question, what pressing reason do you have to personally own more than 10 round mags? Not talking about controlled use at a gun range, but personally owning?

 

[Freshmaker]

Obama being gunned down will only bolster his proposals and strengthen the need for gun control. America loves a martyr.

Do the law abiding citizens who feel we need to have a revolution every five minutes know this?

 

[Hawkian]

I just realized I've talked myself into being upset about a possible law that may or may not even pass. I will say that I agree with the current law, fully, and only hope this new mess isn't used as leverage to ban all FMJ or high velocity rounds. You're right we don't have the final wording of the new law and it would be pointless for me argue against something I only pessimistically assume to exist.

I just want to take a minute to thank you for approaching this rationally and not locking yourself into a worst-case-scenario mindset. It's weird because I just had the exact same experience with someone else, another issue on another thread earlier today. I really appreciate it, far too often debates go the other way.

 

[Hitokage]

who's gonna be the one to jump on that 3-5 second reload window? nobody.

The point of suppression fire is to keep firing so other people don't get a chance to advance or retaliate. A couple seconds may not be much but they're a vital window for a response.

 

[GungHo]

I'm figuring this tech would just be used to toggle the safety, right? That doesn't seem like too much extra effort to ask.

They tried a few different "toggles"... from a fingerprint scanner in the grip, to a ring/bracelet with an RFID, and even to voice activation. All had their issues and compromised the reliability of the firearm, which was a risk no police department (nor their officers) were willing to take.

In theory, if everything worked right, I don't disagree that it wouldn't seem like too much to ask. But, I can tell you as a former soldier that I'd have lost my shit if my bosses asked me to go into combat with a weapon that may or may not fire if I needed it to fire. There's enough shit to deal with. I realize that comparing being a soldier to being a civilian LEO or just a person trying to defend themselves is a big stretch as far as the number of things that could go wrong, but it does help me understand the bigger picture that reliabilty plays in an officer's confidence in their personal safety.

The best application of biometrics is probably in locking whatever container the weapons are safely stored in.

There are a lot of departments looking into this sort of thing for things like locking down the shotguns/rifles they keep in the car (to keep someone from just walking by and taking it) and the laptops that sit in the cruisers.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

Yep. Down to 7 here in NY. It'll be 5 next year.

I'm honestly curious as to why, for honest gun owners, this is a problem. Is it just the annoyance of having to reload more? Do you feel less safe with 3 fewer bullets? If you don't feel like it will do anything to curb violence ("reloading is easy and fast"), then why would it affect your shooting?

 

[CyclopsRock]

What most people fail to realise is, for example, that in Europe (Austria in my example) it is actually nearly as easy to get a gun as in America. But you have to register and perform a psychological evaluation every 5 years. Also you need to prove that you can store the weapons in a secure place and that there is no police file on you. Wait for 30 days and the weapon is your's.

What I am trying to show is, even though it's easy to get a gun if you really want one, for most people it's simply too much hassle and petty criminals don't dare to register a gun that could somehow be traced back to them. So in the end, the circulation of guns reduces significantly simply because people are lazy.

I think a national register would help tremendously as well as background / psychological evalutions that are performed in certain intervalls. For all the gun owners that actually don't really care about guns, this will become too much of a hassle to care. That's my view on these matters.

Sure, and I think that's a good idea. But my point was that quite a lot of the shootings in the US occur using weapons that were legally purchased, only not by the person committing the crime. The recent school shooting is an example of what I mean. So such a process would mean that, most likely, less guns would get sold in the first place, but in a country like the US I'm not sure how much that'd really limit sales in reality.

 

[U n i o n 0015]

We've got to movie to biometrics. Lock a gun down to use by its owner, through magnetics, thumbprints, proximity devices, whatever. Dedicated people would be able to circumvent the tech, but it could make these incidents where a gun is stolen, accidentally fired, etc less likely.

Just like a club doesn't stop car theft, it can deter it.

Wouldn't you say that the people who want to commit a mass shooting are pretty dedicated?

 

[Yoritomo]

Serious question, what pressing reason do you have to personally own more than 10 round mags? Not talking about controlled use at a gun range, but personally owning?

Because it's pointless regulation. Mass killings would still happen even if only revolvers were legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting

The only reason a 10 rd limit would be a win is if people considered it a first step in banning all guns. But as a single step it has no merit and doesn't even reduce the number of guns in circulation.

 

[Hawkian]

They tried a few different "toggles"... from a fingerprint scanner in the grip, to a ring/bracelet with an RFID, and even to voice activation. All had their issues and compromised the reliability of the firearm, which was a risk no police department (nor their officers) were willing to take.

In theory, if everything worked right, I don't disagree that it wouldn't seem like too much to ask. But, I can tell you as a former soldier that I'd have lost my shit if my bosses asked me to go into combat with a weapon that may or may not fire if I needed it to fire. There's enough shit to deal with. I realize that comparing being a soldier to being a civilian LEO or just a person trying to defend themselves is a big stretch as far as the number of things that could go wrong, but it does help me understand the bigger picture that reliabilty plays in an officer's confidence in their personal safety.

This is a very reasonable and pragmatic position. I think I like you quite a bit, GungHo.

You might have missed my note about where biometrics might well be applied in a worthwhile capacity- gun storage. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[NullPointer]

They tried a few different "toggles"... from a fingerprint scanner in the grip, to a ring/bracelet with an RFID, and even to voice activation. All had their issues and compromised the reliability of the firearm, which was a risk no police department (nor their officers) were willing to take.

In theory, if everything worked right, I don't disagree that it wouldn't seem like too much to ask. But, I can tell you as a former soldier that I'd have lost my shit if my bosses asked me to go into combat with a weapon that may or may not fire if I needed it to fire. There's enough shit to deal with. I realize that comparing being a soldier to being a civilian LEO or just a person trying to defend themselves is a big stretch as far as the number of things that could go wrong, but it does help me understand the bigger picture that reliabilty plays in an officer's confidence in their personal safety.

All the more reason to keep development going ;P

Soldiers and police forces could have different versions of this technology, or different parameters set for its fail-safe use. Biometrics being a component used to lock the weapon down rather than to enable it's use. I'm not really sure though.

I just think the gains here would be tremendous, and as opposed to most of what is otherwise being proposed, biometrics could have actually kept some of these shootings from occurring in the first place.

 

[Freshmaker]

Wouldn't you say that the people who want to commit a mass shooting are pretty dedicated?

Is there any actual evidence that they're dedicated? Seems like most grabbed whatever was handy. They weren't jumping in with full auto weapons etc.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Is there any actual evidence that they're dedicated? Seems like most grabbed whatever was handy. They weren't jumping in with full auto weapons etc.

Probably because fully automatic weapons are a tad bit harder to come by.

 

[Garryk]

I suppose I might be able to be convinced that such an exemption is worthwhile. What is a handgun containing rifle-caliber ammunition used for that a hunting rifle would not be better-suited for?

The only practical examples I can think of are lever guns that are chambered for magnum rounds like .357 and .44. These guns wouldn't be on the list anyway, but definitely could be used for hunting.

 

[Heysoos]

They all seem completely sensible that I'm surprised they're not already in place.

 

[jgkspsx]

Sounds sensible. Actually, sounds like the laws that were in place until about ten years ago. Fancy that.

 

[Hawkian]

You know, in case 11 government officials break your door down and force you to bow to king obama.

As Hannity put it on his show yesterday, "this woman in her attic needed to fire 5 times; what if she had needed to fire 5 more?"

Of course, he left out the aspects of that story that don't help his point, such as: the weapon was a revolver, meaning that there wouldn't be much help in this scenario except a really tragic reloading sequence, and that the 5 shots didn't kill the guy, but her threat that she would kill him if he moved was still effective (he didn't move) even though she didn't have any more bullets.

The only practical examples I can think of are lever guns that are chambered for magnum rounds like .357 and .44. These guns wouldn't be on the list anyway, but definitely could be used for hunting.

Sorry, by lever guns you mean bolt-action, right?

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Serious question, what pressing reason do you have to personally own more than 10 round mags? Not talking about controlled use at a gun range, but personally owning?

Economy is one very basic reason. Buying two 30-round magazines instead of buying six ten-round magazines. After about 60 rounds, you are likely to have to take a break, change out targets, wait for the prairie dogs/rats/other varmints to pop back up out of their holes ect, and you can go through the tedious operation of reloading the magazines at that time.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Because it's pointless regulation. Mass killings would still happen even if only revolvers were legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting

The only reason a 10 rd limit would be a win is if people considered it a first step in banning all guns.

You don't believe it would curb at least the number of incidents/number of deaths? Not even a little? No reasonable person expects it to end all gun violence entirely, but that's not the point here. Besides, you've only provided an argument AGAINST the round limit. Give me ONE good argument that SUPPORTS the perceived need for mags with more than 10 rounds.

Economy is one very basic reason. Buying two 30-round magazines instead of buying six ten-round magazines. After about 60 rounds, you are likely to have to take a break, change out targets, wait for the prairie dogs/rats/other varmints to pop back up out of their holes ect, and you can go through the tedious operation of reloading the magazines at that time.

If I'm understanding you correctly, this is a matter of inconvenience while hunting? If so, I'm sorry but I find that to be an extraordinarily weak argument considering the alternative.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I'm honestly curious as to why, for honest gun owners, this is a problem. Is it just the annoyance of having to reload more? Do you feel less safe with 3 fewer bullets? If you don't feel like it will do anything to curb violence ("reloading is easy and fast"), then why would it affect your shooting?

Have you ever been to a range?

Semi-automatics don't always work like videogames. Home invasion for example--the combination of fear, darkness, many points of cover, etc may present a situation where a persons accuracy and mindset is not what it usually would be, and supression may be used out of pure fear.

You are not calmly at the range. You go for a magazine (assuming you bothered to grab an extra out of fear), you release your magazine, slap it in, you are trying to do a brass check but you can't see, or it has not properly been loaded into the chamber and you need to push it down, or maybe something is not right..

Simply put, in an intense situation reloading is not something anyone wants to have to do.

 

[Yoritomo]

The only practical examples I can think of are lever guns that are chambered for magnum rounds like .357 and .44. These guns wouldn't be on the list anyway, but definitely could be used for hunting.

I think it might be referring to weapons like the Taurus Judge that can shoot 410 or 45 colt ammo.

Which is a crossover for a "rat gun". Some people carry them as a side arm to shoot snakes when they're hunting. I think they're being targeted because of marketing by Taurus and the name more than practical reasons.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

You know, in case 11 government officials break your door down and force you to bow to king obama.

Like no-knock warrants.

 

[Kinyou]

I'm surprised that armor piercing bullets weren't outlawed already.

 

[Darias]

I'm honestly curious as to why, for honest gun owners, this is a problem. Is it just the annoyance of having to reload more? Do you feel less safe with 3 fewer bullets? If you don't feel like it will do anything to curb violence ("reloading is easy and fast"), then why would it affect your shooting?

Because all the people that follow this stipulation will be the people that pose absolutely no threat to anyone else's safety and security. The legislation has no provisions for confiscation, surrendering, or replacing existing ten round pistol magazines. The legislation only requires that you only place seven cartridges into each ten round magazine instead of ten. The fear becomes that in a situation where I have cause to point a pistol my pistol at another human being, (and I hope very much that I never have to do this) I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will have loaded ten cartridges into each of their magazines.

The ONLY thing this requirement does is lower the survivability chances of someone who is committed to following the law.