The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

They are basically trying to do with federal gun laws what Sanctuary states/cities try to do.

 

the gun laws remain, but the people at state level will not be allowed to enforce them.

 

add

 

From the article:

Quote

Here’s where things get interesting. The Missouri bill also includes criminal charges for any federal agent who violates SB367. As per the new law, state and local (municipal & county) law enforcement officers would be given “discretionary power” to determine if they will press criminal charges against federal agents who break the law by enforcing the now nullified federal gun control measures.

That is where it gets questionable to me.  I do agree that your sanctuary city comparison is good as for local officials enforcing federal laws.

[twa]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

From the article:

That is where it gets questionable to me.  I do agree that your sanctuary city comparison is good as for local officials enforcing federal laws.

 

They can always charge the feds ,but the courts will have a problem with nullification.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

They can always charge the feds ,but the courts will have a problem with nullification.

What if they arrested the feds on site?

[twa]

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

What if they arrested the feds on site?

 

they still go to court .....unless the feds bust em out.

 

Quote

 

In practice, unfortunately, if a state were to arrest a federal agent going about their duty, the federal government would immediately challenge the arrest.  The case would be immediately remanded to federal court. The state court system would immediately comply and turn the case over to the federal court.  And once in federal court, a federal agent enforcing a federal act would likely be released, with the arresting state officers likely to face federal charges.

Not that we are actively wanting to hang on every word the federal courts say, but as long as the states comply with court orders in this way, this is the reality in which we have to work.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/11/07/local-police-can-arrest-federal-agents-it-just-happened-in-salt-lake-city/

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[Springfield]

We won’t get this kind of thing in America just like we won’t get national health care.  Not that the two are tied to each other, it’s just that one side doesn’t want you to be able to afford to treat your gunshot wounds assuming that you survive.

[Springfield]

 

 

Ok a question for the gun nuts of the thread.  A serious one.  Ok, mainly for @TheGreatBuzz or even @tshile cause you two are reasonable...

 

In your opinion, if the AWB hadn’t expired in 2004, would Newtown (the one where the first graders got shot up) have happened?  Further, do you think that ANY of these mass murders in the US, such as Las Vegas, could have been prevented or mitigated?

[TheGreatBuzz]

55 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

 

Ok a question for the gun nuts of the thread.  A serious one.  Ok, mainly for @TheGreatBuzz or even @tshile cause you two are reasonable...

 

In your opinion, if the AWB hadn’t expired in 2004, would Newtown (the one where the first graders got shot up) have happened?  Further, do you think that ANY of these mass murders in the US, such as Las Vegas, could have been prevented or mitigated?

First, I'd like to say how sad it is that we need a description to remind us of WHICH mass shooting we are referring to.

 

That said, my answer would be yes, they still would have happened.  In my opinion, the AWB that we had was much more a "scary looking gun" ban.  Things like a forward vertical grip was easly replaced with a potato grip that served the same function (and better depending on your preference).  Someone asked a while ago (i think it was you) what I would use.  I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of what is better and why.  I will just say that the Springfield M1A Socom is a gun that I like and would not have been affected by the AWB.  It is even available with a nice walnut stock that can make it look less scary.

 

Do I think any of these mass murders would have been prevented or mitigated?  Possibly but it is also impossible to really say.  I mentioned a while ago about the certain "feel" that some people get holding firearms (or any other number of items) that have a more tactical look.  Did that make some of the shooters cross the line to be emboldened enough to shoot where they wouldn't have with a normal semi-automatic hunting rifle?  Possibly.  But remember what, in my opinion, started us down this road of mass shootings.  Columbine.  And look at the guns/weapons they used.  And this was during the time of the AWB.

 

Soving this problem does not have an either/or answer.  I've advocated for certain increases in gun laws, though where I think they should be differs greatly from the majority here.  The mental side of it also comes into play.  That also needs to be addressed more.  But remember, when a person is that intent on killing, they will find a way.  Be it a fertilizer bomb in a Penske truck, driving a vehicle down a crowded sidewalk, a pressure cooker bomb, etc.  People who think increased gun laws will solve our problems need to open their eyes.  As do the people that think our laws are fine the way they are now.   

Edited March 21, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz
spelling

[redskinss]

8 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Be it a fertilizer bomb in a Penske truck, driving a vehicle down a crowded sidewalk, a pressure cooker bomb, etc.

There will always be killing no doubt but most of the things you listed take far more skill to pull off than an attack with a gun and very strict gun laws would at minimum reduce the violence in my opinion. 

 

To the vehicle on the sidewalk point, I'm curious what are the statistics of that happening in countries that have either weapons bans or incredibly strict laws, I'm asking because I honestly don't know?

 

I'm not anti gun, as a Matter of fact I've gone to friends houses target practicing many times, it's not really my thing per se but I can see why people get pleasure from it and I also understand why people feel they should have a constitutional right to bear arms to protect themselves. 

 

 

I think you can make a good argument that the lives lost annually to gun violence are the price we as Americans pay for our right to bear arms but I don't see a logical argument that an outright gun ban or extremely strict federal gun restrictions wouldn't greatly reduce the problem. 

 

Why are there so many mass shootings in this country and not one has been performed with a fully automatic weapon?

 

[Springfield]

37 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

First, I'd like to say how sad it is that we need a description to remind us of WHICH mass shooting we are referring to.

 

That said, my answer would be yes, they still would have happened.  In my opinion, the AWB that we had was much more a "scary looking gun" ban.  Things like a forward vertical grip was easly replaced with a potato grip that served the same function (and better depending on your preference).  Someone asked a while ago (i think it was you) what I would use.  I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of what is better and why.  I will just say that the Springfield M1A Socom is a gun that I like and would not have been affected by the AWB.  It is even available with a nice walnut stock that can make it look less scary.

 

Do I think any of these mass murders would have been prevented or mitigated?  Possibly but it is also impossible to really say.  I mentioned a while ago about the certain "feel" that some people get holding firearms (or any other number of items) that have a more tactical look.  Did that make some of the shooters cross the line to be emboldened enough to shoot where they wouldn't have with a normal semi-automatic hunting rifle?  Possibly.  But remember what, in my opinion, started us down this road of mass shootings.  Columbine.  And look at the guns/weapons they used.  And this was during the time of the AWB.

 

Soving this problem does not have an either/or answer.  I've advocated for certain increases in gun laws, though where I think they should be differs greatly from the majority here.  The mental side of it also comes into play.  That also needs to be addressed more.  But remember, when a person is that intent on killing, they will find a way.  Be it a fertilizer bomb in a Penske truck, driving a vehicle down a crowded sidewalk, a pressure cooker bomb, etc.  People who think increased gun laws will solve our problems need to open their eyes.  As do the people that think our laws are fine the way they are now.   

 

Thanks for the concise and well thought out response.  When typing the question, I specifically thought about Columbine because it happened while I was in high school.  That was the tipping point, you’re right, and it did happen during the AWB.

 

I feel, cause I’m too lazy to look up the facts, that mass murders have increased since the AWB ended in 2004 though.

 And I don’t think it was an immediate thing, I feel like it took a good 5-10 years for the murders to really get rolling.

 

(yes, feelings do not take the place of facts)

[LD0506]

I always find it interesting how rare it is to hear pro-gunners speak about what WOULD work instead of what wouldn't. TGB is an exception, he has tried valiantly to state his positions while still essentially standing against stemming the flood of weapons. Not snark, that's a toughie, I respect tough.

 

I am actually torn on this issue, I am one good lottery ticket away from a basement full of claymores, but even I have admit that it is tough to get around school children being repeatedly slaughtered in their classrooms and the blood lobby jumping up to scream "This is not the time to talk about gun laws! Don't politicize it!". 

 

The resistance to any and all changes in the way we tolerate our national gun fetish is going to result in a backlash that ends up with an Australian-type change here and the gun nutty demographic will have to just STFU and get over it.

[TheGreatBuzz]

45 minutes ago, redskinss said:

To the vehicle on the sidewalk point, I'm curious what are the statistics of that happening in countries that have either weapons bans or incredibly strict laws, I'm asking because I honestly don't know?

I don't know either.  I only mentioned it because I remember that happening in Europe somewhere (France I think).  

 

46 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I don't see a logical argument that an outright gun ban or extremely strict federal gun restrictions wouldn't greatly reduce the problem. 

It probably would.  Just to be clear, i was talking more about the mass shootings than gun violence overall.

 

46 minutes ago, redskinss said:

Why are there so many mass shootings in this country and not one has been performed with a fully automatic weapon?

I would say probably in large part because of the laws against them and the difficulty to get approved to own one (though it is possible).  I big difference though that I think is worth noting is the technology and production cost level at the time they were banned compared to trying to ban something like AR-15s now.

 

34 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I feel, cause I’m too lazy to look up the facts, that mass murders have increased since the AWB ended in 2004 though.

 And I don’t think it was an immediate thing, I feel like it took a good 5-10 years for the murders to really get rolling.

 

(yes, feelings do not take the place of facts

I also am too lazy to look but I would bet this is right.  What has caused it?  I would assume ending the AWB contributed to SOME of it.  I also think the spread of the internet/smart phones, ect making every person that does something a "star" for a couple days.  Personally, and I know this isn't a popular opinion here, but I think some of it is kids are brought up too soft.  The everyone gets a trophy mindset robs the children of learning how to deal with defeat and failure and such.  If only we could give money to an agency to study all of this.

 

36 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

I am one good lottery ticket away from a basement full of claymores,

I have probably gone back to more conservative in my view of gun laws because I really think the way society is now, it is going to continue to get worse before it gets better.  I know that makes me sound like a tinfoil wearing hat, consperacy nut job but I think it is just more than possible.  Not saying we will have a second civil war.  But I'm worried enough to want to be well equiped, and in a legal manner.

[redskinss]

29 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I would say probably in large part because of the laws against them and the difficulty to get approved to own one (though it is possible).  I big difference though that I think is worth noting is the technology and production cost level at the time they were banned compared to trying to ban something like AR-15s now.

It was more rhetorical than literal, I agree that there's so many assault style weapons already in the hands of the public that even if we did ban them all it would take an extremely long time to have a noticeable effect.

 

[Warhead36]

New Zealand has a more competent govt. than America.

 

New freaking Zealand.

[crabbypatty]

11 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

New Zealand has a more competent govt. than America.

 

New freaking Zealand.

New freaking Zealand doesn't have a 2nd amendment though.

They see gun ownership as a "privilege" not a right.

This is the same New Zealand that is threatening prison sentences of up to 14 years for sharing that video, and has the thought police who can charge you with a crime for being unkind on the internet, under their harmful digital communications act.

Model country to look up to, no doubt.

[LD0506]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I have probably gone back to more conservative in my view of gun laws because I really think the way society is now, it is going to continue to get worse before it gets better.  I know that makes me sound like a tinfoil wearing hat, consperacy nut job but I think it is just more than possible.  Not saying we will have a second civil war.  But I'm worried enough to want to be well equiped, and in a legal manner.

 

You know what the worst part is for me? I can't argue your point

[crabbypatty]

3 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

 

Ok a question for the gun nuts of the thread.  A serious one.  Ok, mainly for @TheGreatBuzz or even @tshile cause you two are reasonable...

 

In your opinion, if the AWB hadn’t expired in 2004, would Newtown (the one where the first graders got shot up) have happened?  Further, do you think that ANY of these mass murders in the US, such as Las Vegas, could have been prevented or mitigated?

 

I'll take a stab at this one.

Are you aware of the provisions of the 94 awb? It was unenforceable drivel and a piece of feel good legislation that was more of an inconvenience to gun owners than anything. It sent prices for "preban" magazines through the roof though. It basically banned high capacity magazines (but not already existing ones) post ban lowers were converted to "pre-ban" weapons, i.e. I don't know Mr. ATF man, I had this rifle built years ago. I bought it in 1994, etc.

Nobody was ever charged or went to jail for offenses during that ban though, that I am aware of. Gun shows had tons of magazines with LEO/MIL only stamps. There were ways around the ban which led to guns like the m4gery, xm15, etc. Exactly the same functionally but complied with the ridiculous law.

Really the ban just banned scary looking features. High cap mags, threaded barrels, bayonet lugs (REALLY?? bayonet lugs??) collapsible stocks. However to my recollection, nothing was ever confiscated outright, no ATF raiding parties in the middle of the night, etc.

 

as for the 2nd part of your question, Even if the ban were still in place, it was a toothless inconvenience. Preban magazines were still available, hell even post ban LEO ones, they just cost more. The XM15 was no less functional than a preban ar15, you could still buy them new during the ban, they just looked goofier.

So, no. It probably would not have changed a thing, since essentially the same guns and magazines were still available. Just more costly.

 

What has happened since that ban expired is an absolute explosion in manufacturing capability. There are TONS of companies out there now that make lowers, uppers, barrels, parts kits, hand guards, optics, etc.

You can build a barebones ar15 for $350-400 these days, which was unheard of back then.

ammo prices are starting to come down from the obama panic days as well, so it's a buyers market now.

 

It's my opinion that that awb sunsetting coupled with 8 years of the obama presidency are responsible for the explosion in manufacturing, and have put more guns in the hands of gun owners than any NRA backed push could ever have done.

There was money to be made when obama got elected because of fears of another ban, and companies ramped up the manufacturing on basically everything, magazines, lowers, uppers, etc.

The whole market is so awash in literally everything it has dropped prices down to rock bottom levels we (gun owners) never thought we'd see.

So my wallet says thanks Bill and Barry!

[TheGreatBuzz]

23 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

So my wallet says thanks Bill and Barry!

Not mine.  Trying to sell an AR right now and no biters.  Whether or not the concern was real, Trump has driven the prices down now because people are less worried about the government coming to take their guns.

 

How old are you?  I'm only asking because I want to see aged based opinions on the AWB.  I'm 37 so I was just really starting to learn about guns right when it came into effect.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

3 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

 

Ok a question for the gun nuts of the thread.  A serious one.  Ok, mainly for @TheGreatBuzz or even @tshile cause you two are reasonable...

 

In your opinion, if the AWB hadn’t expired in 2004, would Newtown (the one where the first graders got shot up) have happened?  Further, do you think that ANY of these mass murders in the US, such as Las Vegas, could have been prevented or mitigated?

 

 

I believe that it would have continued to keep overall gun deaths down which is definitely a good thing.  One of the studies/articles about it's effectiveness compared mass shootings the decade before the ban, the decade during the ban.  It stated that the decade before the ban, there were 19 mass shootings and only two involved civilian versions of military rifles.  There were three more that involved pistols that were in the ban (Uzi and Tech-9).  

 

During the ban, there were 12 mass shootings, three total used assault weapons.  This is one of the reasons why a lot of guns rights advocates (especially far right) claim that a ban on assault rifles didn't work before and won't work in the future.   I'm not 100% opposed to another ban, but as stated before, I'd prefer to be grandfathered in on any weapons included in that ban or at minimum compensated for my purchase.  The latter would be nearly impossible (probably as close to a 0% chance as it gets), just due to the the total number of assault rifles in circulation (legally owned) and the average cost of those firearms.

 

Something to look at, if they did implement another ban, the only way it would work (and by work, we are talking over an extended period of time - 10+, 15+ years?) would be a complete ban, no grandfathering or reimbursement and forcing current owners to turn them over to law enforcement and making it a felony to possess one after the deadline to turn them in. 

 

I read that the NRA estimates there are 8.5-15 million assault rifles in circulation based on manufacturer data.  Now real way to know how many total people own one (or 2 or 20, etc.).  I also don't know how many of those are owned legally, even if it's on the low end, that's a **** ton of guns.  Me personally, I'd turn mine over because I'm a law abiding citizen and not going to go to prison.  But I'm sure a pretty high percentage of owners (that obtained legally) might try to wait the ban out, etc.  How would this impact mass shootings?  Short term, probably not a lot and in the land of politics where the landscape is constantly changing.  Would a new ban be in effect long enough to see positive results where it could stand long term?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crabbypatty]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Not mine.  Trying to sell an AR right now and no biters.  Whether or not the concern was real, Trump has driven the prices down now because people are less worried about the government coming to take their guns.

 

How old are you?  I'm only asking because I want to see aged based opinions on the AWB.  I'm 37 so I was just really starting to learn about guns right when it came into effect.

I'm 43. I was just getting out of high school when the ban took effect. 2 years removed from the high school mass shooting I was in the middle of in 1992. it was like the pre columbine, columbine.

I didn't get interested into digging into it more though until around 1996 or so.

[tshile]

4 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

 

Ok a question for the gun nuts of the thread.  A serious one.  Ok, mainly for @TheGreatBuzz or even @tshile cause you two are reasonable...

 

In your opinion, if the AWB hadn’t expired in 2004, would Newtown (the one where the first graders got shot up) have happened?  Further, do you think that ANY of these mass murders in the US, such as Las Vegas, could have been prevented or mitigated?

 

I don't like being called a gun nut. Mostly because I don't think I am one. But anyways.

 

Remember that the big issue iwth the AR-15 is that it's available at an incredibly cheap price. You can get one for less than 1k. I've seen them as low as 600 brand new. A reasonable semi automatic pistol is going to run you 400ish. When you think about the power of all the weapons out there, I don't think there's a better bang-for-the-buck than the AR-15. 

 

Don't get me wrong those cheap ones are garbage. A good one is going to run you over 1k, and the makes with top reputation start around 2k. But you can get a cheap one... 

 

So do these happen if the AWB stayed in place? Well, I think the AR-15 is still available under the AWB, just certain accessories aren't. Folding stock, forward grip, certain size/style magazine, etc. But I believe the gun itself would have still been legal.

 

There's a reason it's dubbed the scary looking weapon ban... because it doesn't really do anything to ban the functionality of an 'assault weapon', it bans dumb attachments that mean little in regards to walking through a school and shooting people...

 

The reduction in attachments available may have made it less popular. Which would have made it more expensive. Which may have led to the households that had these that were used in shootings (most of these school shootings involve an under age kid using a relatives rifle, I believe?) not having them around. 

 

Would the shooters have just used a different gun? I would think so, I doubt people who own AR-15's only own AR-15's, I think it's reasonable to presume they would have just used a different gun. But I certainly can't say for sure. I also can't say the outcome would have been the same (though, given the weapons available, I usually argue that you can accomplish the same thing with a different weapon, so... I would think the outcome would, roughly, be the same.)

 

Maybe the AWB would have made the AR-15 less... fun. Less popular. And maybe that would have curtailed the gun culture from getting out of control (I attribute a big part of where we are now to the rise of the AR-15 business)

 

Basically, I think it's a stretch to say the AWB would have done much. But I obviously can't be sure.

 

If the best the control nuts got was a reinstituting the AWB, it would not quell my fears at all for my children spending the next 12 years in the public school system.

 

Not one bit.

 

[tshile]

Now that i think about it, i don't believe the AWB banned the manufacturing, sale, or possession of those attachments. It banned you from having a gun that had them attached.

 

An AR-15 takes all of about an hour to assemble from scratch. I watched a buddy build two of them - he's not a handy person and he doesn't know anything about guns (all he knows is what he learned through building these.) The only thing that requires specialty is torquing the barrel down, which you can pay any armorer like $50 to do. I don't even know if it costs that much. You can also do it yourself with the proper torque wrench.

 

All of those attachments could be removed or installed in 2-5 minutes. That's actually the appeal of the AR-15... it's incredibly modular and you can customize it all you want.

 

So, in addition to not really thinking a forward grip or folding stock of banana clip was a catalyst to send someone into a mass murder/suicide rage, if it did they could have easily acquired one and installed it themselves.

 

You wouldn't see them at the range, and you certainly wouldn't want to get caught with one, but people would still own them. I'm sure it hurt production and caused prices to go much higher, but I don't see that as much of a barrier to the two man problems we have (mass shootings, general gun violence)

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by tshile

[Springfield]

Sorry for calling you a gun nut tshile, I did want to hear your opinion on the subject though cause I think I agree with a fair amount of your politics.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

Sorry for calling you a gun nut tshile, I did want to hear your opinion on the subject though cause I think I agree with a fair amount of your politics.

Hah, no worries.

 

[twa]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

New Zealand has a more competent govt. than America.

 

New freaking Zealand.

 

They have less people than my county though, kinda easier to get a consensus