Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Part of the problem is an unwillingness to even discuss it.
I don't really understand why this is a left vs. right issue at all. Don't we all have an interest in making the country a safer place? Why can we not have a rational talk about the best way to make that happen? People who dislike the proposals that have been offered could suggest their own ideas, just as you have done.
Unfortunately, too many people seem to get caught up in the extremes: no guns at all on one side, and no restrictions at all on the other. What's sane, reasonable, and achievable probably lies somewhere in the middle.
One of the many problems is one side obviously has knowledge on the topic, while the other doesn't. Providing facts to those that don't have knowledge fall on deaf ears.
And really, there isn't a solution for both sides. Criminals always find a way. Even if there was a complete ban on firearms, the millions that are already in circulation will find a way into criminal hands.
Full auto firearms or "assault weapons" as some call them are already highly restricted and very expensive to own....legally. That being said, full auto firearms are used almost nightly in our inner cities. That proves that the restrictions don't work. A criminal is always willing to break the law, hence being a criminal.
So really , the only way to make an impact would be a complete and all out ban, then the next 20 or so years will be spent trying to get the millions of illegal firearms out of the hands of criminals. And how successful will that end up being ?
It seems much more beneficial to address the root causes of violence in our country first. Why are people killing each other on a nightly basis in our inner cities ? Why are people making a decision to try and kill as many people at one time ?
I think the later is due to the divisiveness our country has been suffering the past 20 years. I think the media has a big part in this, as well as the PC culture. Many people just don't know how to handle being challenged on their views, or having to deal with someone that doesn't share theirs. Entitlement has become a huge issue. One side feels they can do and say whatever they want because it is expressing their feelings, yet the moment they encounter someone that doesn't share their view, vile and hatred comes out. Labels get thrown. And the wedge gets driven deeper.
To all of you asking what laws we should enact, how about..
1. For starters, DON'T make it easier to get silencers and armor-piercing bullets, like Congress is preparing to try to do.
Suppressors make firearms quieter and safer for the operator. They do nothing to increase lethality, since the change in muzzle velocity is statistically insignificant and the round fired does not change because it went though a suppressor.
Armor piercing rounds (typically copper jacket over steel core, like the M855 5.56 NATO round that is all the rage with the AR-15 crowd) are LESS EFFECTIVE against living targets than expansive rounds that have lead cores and expansion cut tips. The reason M855 is popular is for hunting smaller game in medium/dense wooded areas where a lighter (55-77 grain) round would have trouble being accurate through leaves, small twigs, grass, etc. Virtually any rifle round from 5.56/0.223 and up can penetrate kevlar vests, no matter if it is classified as AP or not. In fact, if you made all the AP rounds in 5.56 in the entire world go away tomorrow, the MOST COMMON hunting round in America, the plain jane, vanilla .308 Winchester, would still be far more deadly to living targets than what you just banned. Why? Mass * velocity = power delivered to target. The M855 5.56 round is 62gr and delivers ~600 ft/lb @ 300yds, while the 165gr non-AP cheapo .308 delivers ~2,000 ft/lb @ 300 yds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
2. National gun registry with limits on the number of firearms you procure - or at very least higher volume purchases rewuire greater scrutiny.
Changes nothing about a mass shooting. The operator is only using one weapon at a time. A decently maintained direct impingement rifle (dirtier of the two choices between DI and gas piston) can fire more than 1,000 rounds between cleanings and still be accurate.
All tracking and limiting purchases does is make it slightly harder and more intrusive on law abiding citizens to pursue a hobby. Won't change anything about someone who doesn't GAFF about the law, like your average mass murderer for instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
3. No high-capacity mags, assault rifles, and certainly maintain automatic weapons ban.
Well, automatic weapons are already banned, but even if they weren't, semi-automatic weapons are more lethal because each shot has a higher percentage chance of being even casually aimed at a target, where automatic weapons only have that aim thing for the first, maybe second round. Automatic weapons are for suppression and fields of fire that create opportunities to safely move infantry and armor near an enemy. They aren't really good for much else. They burn through ammunition way too fast, can only go full tilt for periods measured in seconds based on barrel heat/deformity, and require lugging a ton of ammunition for the purpose they are designed for.
The high capacity magazine thing is a joke because anyone who has spent time with firearms can switch magazines and be right back aimed on target in 2, maybe 3 seconds. Hell, doing my shotgun tactical back in my law enforcement days, I could fully reload the 8 shell magazine of a 12 gauge on the run in under 10 seconds...under duress. So make magazines 10 rounds, make them 5. Won't matter to a decent firearms operator, just sells more magazines since range visits would be serious reload festivals.
As far as "assault" rifles are concerned, I am assuming you mean semi-automatic sporting rifles in .223/5.56 (AR-15 types), 7.62x39 (AK types) and .308/7.62x51 (AR-10 types), not actual assault rifles, which are defined as short/intermediate length barrel rifles that have selective fire (can be semi-automatic or fully automatic) and are banned under the 1986 automatic weapons ban. So I am assuming you want to ban semi-automatic sporting rifles. I'd ask why, but I am assuming you buy into the "uniquely lethal, designed only to kill large numbers of humans, blah blah" nonsense. The thing is, a longer barrel bolt action rifle in .300Mag, .308Win or .338Lapua is MORE LETHAL and from much farther ranges. That's why hunters all over the world use those rifles in those calibers. If someone is hell bent to kill people from long range, they are better off NOT USING a semi-automatic sporting rifle and going with a normal 5 round box mag bolt action hunting rifle, slower rate of fire, but far more accurate at longer ranges, more energy delivered on target, and likely a more precision build in the barrel, weighting, balance, etc.
And the ban wouldn't make the existing millions of semi-automatic weapons simply vanish. It would make law abiding citizens either surrender them or hide them. Won't change anything for the aerage mass murderer, who,already doesn't care about laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
You can do all this and still own a variety of long guns and handguns under the Second Amendment.
Will this prevent ALL gun shootings and violence? No! Will it make a big difference if properly enforced? Yes, as just about every other first-world nation on Earth has demonstrated!
It won't make difference because there are already more LEGAL firearms in the US than there are people. Those weapons will not simply vanish into thin air. It will simply limit the natural individual right to self-defense via keeping/bearing arms for law abiding citizens, which is a transfer of power from the people to the government.
Most gun laws exist to do one thing - make tyranny easier and safer. They are designed to keep government safe from unruly citizens, and the 2nd Amendment was written to make sure government always has the tangible treat of an armed citizenry opposing it. That amendment was not added to the Bill of Rights because the colonists feared deer and small game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
But we all know there is zero chance of any of this ever happening. In fact, if anything, it won't surprise me if Trump and GOP work together to further weaken any currently remaining regulation. We have long ago made the choice to just accept the kinds of events we saw yesterday.
There are more than 20,000 firearm laws in the US right now between all levels of government and agencies. And all of them put together did exactly nothing to prevent a sociopath with some planning and determination from doing considerable evil. Even if you ban firearms and ammunition, and find some magical way to make them all disappear from existence entirely, various events have proven that a crowd of people can be a target rich environment with a vehicle, chemicals, fire, etc. A decent plan, maybe $100 at a hardware store and 5 gallons of gasoline can kills thousands...just need a crowd in an enclosed space and a sociopath with bad intent.
Until you cure evil and mental illness completely, the risk of mass killings exists wherever crowds do. Banning a specific tool won't matter.
how often have you had to shoot an Intruder? Also if you were in the same situation as last vegas how would you being armed have helped?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
There's many standard ball ammo loads that will run through a body like chit through a goose. You actually want frangible and hollow point ammo removed? Guess you've never fired a 30-30 at a junk car at 50 to 100 yards and seen first hand the standard target load cut through the drivers door and passengers door. And that's not an "assault weapon" load. That's grandpa's winchester or Henry lever action.
Military loads are designed to wound per Hague Convention. Hollow points, expansive rounds, are not allowed on the battle field. Anywhere.
Standard ball ammo will not suffice in hunting. And is less lethal than frangible or hollow point. However will zip clean through soft tissue up to certain ranges.
Now that that's cleared up. No not budging on magazine capacity. Makes no difference if that weapon has 10 in the mag or 20 or 30 or 90.
Continuity of fire can be maintained with just about any weapons platform with practice so you aren't solving anything. You're doing just like Cuomo did in NY turn everyone in possession of them into felons/criminals over night for mere possession.
To steal my weapons you'd have to get one heck of a torch to cut through the safe. As for losing it/them, kinda hard to do when you know exactly where they are at all times.
Who is John Wick?
OK you seen reasonable enough and responsible however can you vouge for a neighbor or a guy from another state being as responsible as you? How often do we hear of weapons being stored improperly or a son or daughter taking the parents keys and opening a gun safe?
I own an AR, but the thought of ever using against the US government aka Law Enforcement and US military is simply ridiculous.
The people who claim they own guns to defend against 'tyrannical government' don't have a clue what they are talking about.
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
-Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers No. 29)
Far as ammo goes. You want to subsidize the cost of my training and range trips fine no "armor piercing" rounds. Otherwise open the access to mil surp so those of us who aren't mentally demented can enjoy our sports and hobbies.
If your "sports and hobbies" require lethal military gear, then I question who is mentally demented here.
What do you suggest? More guns perhaps? Whichever way you look at it the fact is the amount of people in the US shooting each other to death is astronomical! You have to do something about this (not easy I know) but you can't just keep going along doing nothing. If changing the law in some way resulted in just ONE life saved it would be worth it no?
You can hide behind your technical gun talk and false reductive reasoning, but we have 5% of the world's population and 31% of mass killings. You're tough with your guns, but reality is that you're moral cowards.
You guys can hide behind your technical gun talk and false reductive reasoning, but we have 5% of the world's population and 31% of mass killings. You're tough with your guns, but reality is that you're moral cowards.
So, you say technical talk, that you obviously don't understand, then you call it false reasoning....
Keep up the great job for your side....amazing I tell ya!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
