Your Gun Control Laws

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-07-2015, 11:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Forget about mass shootings.  They are only a very small portion of the gun violence problem.

1.  Any person who wants to own a gun must have some basic training and pass a test to get a license......I feel that if every person who owned a gun was aware of how many children died from accidental shootings, and how many family members kill each other in the heat of passion, and how many committed suicide with guns then more guns would be locked up.  Also knowing more about gun safety should eliminate other accidental shootings.

2.  Every gun has to be registered to an owner.......This would eliminate a lot of guns that are being provided by private sellers.  There are people who make a living buying guns legally and selling them to people who would not be allowed to buy them.  Also would make more people lock up their guns if they are aware of their liability for what happens with that gun.

3.  Background check for every gun owner (not when you buy the gun, but when you get your owners license).......Any history of criminal violence could prohibit a person from owning a gun.  This would require a lot of detail work because there are a lot of people who have been convicted of a simple assault in their lifetime that should still be allowed to own a gun.....Mental health restrictions are much more complicated.  We would need every psychologist and psychiatrist to maintain some sort of registry that would prohibit people from owning weapons.  This would be very tricky, but it could be done.

4.  Almost all gun violence involves handguns......Regulations regarding past criminal history would be stricter with handgun ownership.  You don't need a handgun to protect your home or go hunting.  But you do need one if you are trying to carry it in public without people knowing.

5.  Make the simple illegal possession of a firearm a serious felony.



None of these would keep any sane, law-abiding citizen from owning a gun, but they would reduce the access to guns that lead to so many problems.  Mass shootings are not the biggest problem.  Most shootings involve criminals shooting other criminals, people shooting someone they know in the heat of an argument, accidents, or suicides.

As an owner of a fair amount of firearms I have little to no issue with any of these. The first one would definitely require some tweeking.  Number three is difficult because of HIPAA and the ACLU has sued specifically to prevent background checks from being able to access mental health history.  All the same, I'd be willing to accept all of the above.  In return they should abolish the dumb as hell bullet button and lift restrictions on magazine capacity.  Neither of them do anything to prevent gun related deaths and only affect law abiding citizens.

[*PhilHos*]

(12-10-2015, 04:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As an owner of a fair amount of firearms I have little to no issue with any of these. The first one would definitely require some tweeking.  Number three is difficult because of HIPAA and the ACLU has sued specifically to prevent background checks from being able to access mental health history.  All the same, I'd be willing to accept all of the above.  In return they should abolish the dumb as hell bullet button and lift restrictions on magazine capacity.  Neither of them do anything to prevent gun related deaths and only affect law abiding citizens.

I'm also good with this. 

I would also add, end a ban on ALL weapons. I can't stand the "Who needs a bazooka?" argument. Most Americans have probably about 95% of crap in their homes that they don't "need". If you want to start banning things based on need, then you're heading down a dangerous slope.

If you can afford to purchase a bazooka or a tank, then by all means, buy one. As long as you fulfill the requirements of fred's proposal, then you should be more than allowed to purchase that F-15 you've had your eye on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

This seems like the thread to discuss this.  What exactly is an "assault weapon"?  Most of the media that uses the term have no clue about firearms in general, much less being able to adequately answer this question.  In CA the answer is particularly stupid because this;



with a compensator instead of a flash hider is not an assault weapon.

This;



is an assault weapon. 


Why is one an "assault weapon" and the other not?  An effing pistol grip, that's why.  Also, the AR is black and black guns are scarier and more assaulty.

Given the choice I'd prefer to get shot with a 5.56 than a 7.62X51 any day.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2015, 04:23 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm also good with this. 

I would also add, end a ban on ALL weapons. I can't stand the "Who needs a bazooka?" argument. Most Americans have probably about 95% of crap in their homes that they don't "need". If you want to start banning things based on need, then you're heading down a dangerous slope.

If you can afford to purchase a bazooka or a tank, then by all means, buy one. As long as you fulfill the requirements of fred's proposal, then you should be more than allowed to purchase that F-15 you've had your eye on.

I don't know that I'd go that far.  I realize this opens the, where do you draw the line, argument, but I'm not comfortable with civilian ownership of high explosives.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2015, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This seems like the thread to discuss this.  What exactly is an "assault weapon"?  Most of the media that uses the term have no clue about firearms in general, much less being able to adequately answer this question.  In CA the answer is particularly stupid because this;



with a compensator instead of a flash hider is not an assault weapon.

This;



is an assault weapon. 


Why is one an "assault weapon" and the other not?  An effing pistol grip, that's why.  Also, the AR is black and black guns are scarier and more assaulty.

Given the choice I'd prefer to get shot with a 5.56 than a 7.62X51 any day.  

Yeah, the assault weapon thing to me has always been horrible. It's an arbitrary line that is difficult to really draw with any sort of accuracy. I admittedly say no semi-automatic firearms because I see no need for them in the citizenry, but I will be the first to tell you it's fun as hell to hit the range with some of them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2015, 04:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, the assault weapon thing to me has always been horrible. It's an arbitrary line that is difficult to really draw with any sort of accuracy. I admittedly say no semi-automatic firearms because I see no need for them in the citizenry, but I will be the first to tell you it's fun as hell to hit the range with some of them.

Yes, and as stated the laws are written by people who are wholly ignorant on the subject of firearms.  No semi-automatic weapons means only revolvers, lever and bolt action rifles and pump shotguns would be legal.  That's a far more strict standard than I think any gun owner would accept.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2015, 06:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, and as stated the laws are written by people who are wholly ignorant on the subject of firearms.  No semi-automatic weapons means only revolvers, lever and bolt action rifles and pump shotguns would be legal.  That's a far more strict standard than I think any gun owner would accept.

This gun owner would accept it. Of course, that's all I own. Well, a rolling block rifle and break open shotguns actually, and hopefully a long-rifle in the near future. But you get the point. As I said, I don't see a need for them. I don't ever see anything like that happening realistically, but it's just my opinion on it.

[Benton]

(12-10-2015, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This gun owner would accept it. Of course, that's all I own. Well, a rolling block rifle and break open shotguns actually, and hopefully a long-rifle in the near future. But you get the point. As I said, I don't see a need for them. I don't ever see anything like that happening realistically, but it's just my opinion on it.

Most of mine are semi-auto. And — in my opinion — that's as fast as anyone needs. I don't even have a big issue with high round magazines, provided they aren't in a full auto.

For a guy with some practice and a handful of pre-loaded clips, you can drop out a clip and have another one in and chambered in 2-4 seconds from your last round fired, depending on the firearm. So I don't think there's a difference between 1 guy with 1 gun with five 15 round magazines and 1 guy with 1 gun with one 60 round clip. You're talking 10-15 seconds of reloading time spread through the middle of a **** load of bullets.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-08-2015, 03:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd we're talking about race.

Not my intention at all. My point being saying that one group or the other will deny something that has been reported if they think it helps their cause. Instead of just saying yeah our guy said that.... He was an idiot for that.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-08-2015, 06:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ida know, maybe there would be less traffic fatalities if cars weren't able to drive twice the legal speed limit.  I'm just sayin'.

Side note, it always interested me how car commercials almost universally show the car being driven in an unsafe and/or illegal manner.  

I think once self driving cars are a little farther along they will be the only cars allowed in city limits because they will test out safer. It's only a matter of time.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-08-2015, 06:59 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Right.  But we do tell them they cannot have an F35.  Completely different uses.  If someone wants to upgrade their Remington 870 to a Wilson Combat, hell yes.  All for it.  

Just don't understand why anyone would need to own an AK47 unless they wanted to kill a LOT of people at the same time.

Lots of people own those down here. Have yet to meet one owner who wants to kill a lot of people at the same time.

To be fair I didn't see this many until I got down here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2015, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This gun owner would accept it. Of course, that's all I own. Well, a rolling block rifle and break open shotguns actually, and hopefully a long-rifle in the near future. But you get the point. As I said, I don't see a need for them. I don't ever see anything like that happening realistically, but it's just my opinion on it.

(12-10-2015, 06:52 PM)Benton Wrote: Most of mine are semi-auto. And — in my opinion — that's as fast as anyone needs. I don't even have a big issue with high round magazines, provided they aren't in a full auto.

For a guy with some practice and a handful of pre-loaded clips, you can drop out a clip and have another one in and chambered in 2-4 seconds from your last round fired, depending on the firearm. So I don't think there's a difference between 1 guy with 1 gun with five 15 round magazines and 1 guy with 1 gun with one 60 round clip. You're talking 10-15 seconds of reloading time spread through the middle of a **** load of bullets.

I own three revolvers and one pump gun, an 870.  Everything else is semi-auto.  I sure as shit am never giving them up either, my nephews will get them when I die.  I know I'm ruffling some 2A enthusiasts when I say I agree with you Benton, I don't really like the idea of anyone outside the military owning a fully automatic firearm, aside from a collectors piece.  Full auto really has one purpose, suppression, the days of trench warfare and mowing people down en masse with a machine gun are long gone.  No need for suppression in the civilian world, law enforcement included.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2015, 09:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I own three revolvers and one pump gun, an 870.  Everything else is semi-auto.  I sure as shit am never giving them up either, my nephews will get them when I die.  I know I'm ruffling some 2A enthusiasts when I say I agree with you Benton, I don't really like the idea of anyone outside the military owning a fully automatic firearm, aside from a collectors piece.  Full auto really has one purpose, suppression, the days of trench warfare and mowing people down en masse with a machine gun are long gone.  No need for suppression in the civilian world, law enforcement included.

I have a Winchester 1894, a Remington 788 and an 870, Ruger No. 1, Super Blackhawk, and an LCR. Then I have couple of SxS shotguns that I don't even know their makes. One is a 16ga and the other a 12. I used to have more firearms, but between selling and trading with family I have gotten to this point which I am quite happy with.

[Rotobeast]

(12-10-2015, 09:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I own three revolvers and one pump gun, an 870.  Everything else is semi-auto.  I sure as shit am never giving them up either, my nephews will get them when I die.  I know I'm ruffling some 2A enthusiasts when I say I agree with you Benton, I don't really like the idea of anyone outside the military owning a fully automatic firearm, aside from a collectors piece.  Full auto really has one purpose, suppression, the days of trench warfare and mowing people down en masse with a machine gun are long gone.  No need for suppression in the civilian world, law enforcement included.

I absolutely agree !
Full-auto does give one a giggle, but has no practical use anymore.
It wastes ammo and the rise causes a lack of control (in most cases).
Besides, there are sanctioned events where one can fire full-auto in a controlled environment.

[Rotobeast]

Side question for you all......

How many firearms are "too many" ?

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2015, 09:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Side question for you all......

How many firearms are "too many" ?

...what is this "too many" of which you speak?

If I could afford it and had the space my collection would be too much for my apartment to handle.

[Rotobeast]

(12-10-2015, 09:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: ...what is this "too many" of which you speak?

If I could afford it and had the space my collection would be too much for my apartment to handle.

You know....
I have always liked you.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2015, 10:06 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: You know....
I have always liked you.

My upcoming acquisition will be a long rifle. Colonial era flintlock style. A local artisan is making it for me. I have functional firearms of course, but I love the ones that are pieces of art as well.

[*bfine32*]

(12-10-2015, 09:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Side question for you all......

How many firearms are "too many" ?

I've fired every bullet from 5.56mm to 152mm; yet, I've never been a big POW guy. I have 2 firearms at the house. A .40 cal S&W Pistol for the wife and concealed carry and a Mossberg 500 SP.   

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2015, 09:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: ...what is this "too many" of which you speak?

If I could afford it and had the space my collection would be too much for my apartment to handle.

I'm sure I am way past, "too many", in the opinion of most.  One of these days we'll have to do a, "Post yo gunz" thread.