The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

But it also doesn't take an expert to realize that almost every single one of these mass shooters going back to Aurora has used the AR platform as their primary weapon to perpetrate their massacres.

The ar 15 platform is popular because it’s cheap, it’s modular so you can swap every part out down to the firing pin with ease and customize it or upgrade it however you want, it mimics a military weapon so there’s a “cool” factor (whether you consider that eye roll worthy or not), it’s readily available and mass produced (every gun broker has some available in some way), and they’re fun to shoot. 
 

too boot they can fire a very lethal 5.56 round or they can fire a significantly cheaper 223 round. Making it great for it’s real purpose, but also great for target practice. 

you can expand upon the platform to change caliber and therefore change use. 300 blackout and now you’ve got a solid self defense weapon. 6.5 creedmoor and now you have a solid sniper rifle. 

it’s got a lot of appeal that makes it a very popular weapon that is high in the % owned (if not #1.)

 

this also helps explain why it’s used so much. It’s what people have. 
 

i think it’s a gross mistake to think banning the ar-15 is going to put any dent in the number of mass shootings, and I’m very skeptical of any claim it’ll have any real meaningful effect on casualties. Or maybe more to the point, I’m skeptical that having 13 children dead instead 17 moves the needle in any real way. 
 

I think people who want to do this, will do it with the guns they have access to. So, so long as they can have access, it’ll continue to happen. And someone who wants to be incredibly efficient will find a way to do so with another weapon. 
 

I’m not saying we should/shouldn’t ban things, I just think you need to be more realistic about what you’re talking about. 
 

And anything that grandfathers them in is even worse off. Because there will still be a ton of those weapons out there and available. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Interesting.

 

"It's not my type that's doing these shootings, why am I giving the government my guns for a thousand or two apiece?"  I think some rich people think the rules don't apply to them.  After all, what good is "**** you" money if you don't say "**** you?"  And the Republicans, the Bubbas, the gun nuts aren't fans of the government to begin with, you think this is going to be a good solution?  Especially if it's a guy they already despise like Joe Biden or Beto O'Rourke that's passing these laws?  I think there are a lot of people in Texas who'd really like to see Beto personally come over and try to take their guns away.   Like, that's a wet dream for some of these people.

 

I don't think you necessarily understand the mentality.  I mean, @The Almighty Buzzsaid it himself.  The harder the government pushes for him to turn over his guns, the harder he'd push back not to.  And why should he?  He's not a threat to anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you both understand the mentality and are both accurate in assessing that some old rich guy owning 10-15 guns isn't the profile we need to be worried about. I'd be curious to know how many of the killers in these recent shooters who purchased their guns legally did so within a couple weeks of committing their crimes. Because I think that would truly tell us if we need to even bother with a buy back program. I have one gun (a pistol) that I've practiced with twice and otherwise sits in a safe. But, like Buzz, I don't intend to sell it back or get rid of it unless it becomes absolutely mandatory. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

4 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I think you both understand the mentality and are both accurate in assessing that some old rich guy owning 10-15 guns isn't the profile we need to be worried about. I'd be curious to know how many of the killers in these recent shooters who purchased their guns legally did so within a couple weeks of committing their crimes. Because I think that would truly tell us if we need to even bother with a buy back program. I have one gun (a pistol) that I've practiced with twice and otherwise sits in a safe. But, like Buzz, I don't intend to sell it back or get rid of it unless it becomes absolutely mandatory. 

 

I think you bother with a buy back program because it'll pacify a lot of the people who think that type of thing will work.  And who knows?  Maybe it will.

 

[GoCommiesGo]

11 minutes ago, CobraCommander said:

Ok. Please do me a favor and post the law here so I can better understand it. I can’t find it and the person who I originally responded to doesn’t have a link.

 

VOX Article - Older but explains the difference in law 

 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Gun Page

 

Quote

In accordance with the Firearms Act, the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) oversees firearms licences and registration, maintains national firearm safety training standards, assists law enforcement agencies and aims to enhance public safety. Firearms in Canada continue to be regulated by the Firearms Act and Part III of the Criminal Code.

 

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I'm not dancing with you on this topic again

Yeah that’s fine. Just voicing how I think it’s logically dumb. 
 

i get it means you’ll get marginal increase in support from the “I got mine, **** you” types. 
 

But. I don’t see it mattering. 
 

The problem is you find “majority” support in ambiguous ideas like “universal background checks” but when you try to define what that means you lose support quickly. Lots of people think “mental health problems” should disqualify you, until they find out anyone in a household on certain medications or diagnosed with certain common disorders (adhd for example) might wind up having their right to own a firearm revoked. 
 

The bottom like is there’s little support for detailed gun control. Which is why we don’t get any. 
 

additionally areas with stepped up gun control have been getting their asses handed to them in court over the last 10ish years. 
 

it’s not like scotus is any real position to uphold any meaningful ban either. 
 

it doesn’t matter what gun control you want. It doesn’t matter what gun control I want. None of it is happening. Not any time soon. 
 

we’re all watching the same movie over and over, expecting it to end differently this time around. 
 

it won’t. 

which is why sometime in the last 2 years I got in an argument about how gun control is a loser topic for Dems. They won’t ever get anything meaningful, and they get beat over the head for never getting anything done. 
 

Not that it makes me happy, but focusing on gun control (to me) is a lost cause and a waste of time (baring something significant changing about the makeup of this country and its politicians and courts)

 

Getting buy in on anything else will be difficult but at least not impossible like gun control seems. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I think you bother with a buy back program because it'll pacify a lot of the people who think that type of thing will work.  And who knows?  Maybe it will.

 

 

I guess I don't mind the offer being out there. I'm not against it, per se. I just don't think you'll have too many folks lining up to give their guns back. And, unfortunately, you almost certainly get guns back from people who are least likely to use them in a malicious way. But, why not? 

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I think you both understand the mentality and are both accurate in assessing that some old rich guy owning 10-15 guns isn't the profile we need to be worried about. I'd be curious to know how many of the killers in these recent shooters who purchased their guns legally did so within a couple weeks of committing their crimes. Because I think that would truly tell us if we need to even bother with a buy back program. I have one gun (a pistol) that I've practiced with twice and otherwise sits in a safe. But, like Buzz, I don't intend to sell it back or get rid of it unless it becomes absolutely mandatory. 

well. Young men engaging in massacres is but one part of the gun violence issues. 
 

many guns used in crimes are stolen. Especially from homes. 
 

convincing people to give up their guns means less guns floating around. 
 

If less guns means less gun violence to you, then a buy back program makes sense. At least as part of an overall strategy. 

[CobraCommander]

12 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

 

VOX Article - Older but explains the difference in law 

 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Gun Page

 

 

Ok thanks but I can’t find verbiage at either link that states a member of your household has to sign off on you owning a gun.

 

@tshilewhats funny about my request? So far I’m the only person to provide a link that states anything close to what @skinsmarydu referenced. And it doesn’t reference a law requiring household members to sign anything. 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by CobraCommander

[tshile]

Also buy back programs often include illegal weapons, with no questions asked. 
 

And while you’d be surprised how many people own illegal weapons, you might be even more surprised how many of them will give up those guns they can’t do a damn thing with (cause they’re illegal) if they won’t get in trouble and get some money for it. 
 

They did one around here sometime shortly before covid. My recollection is they collected a lot of guns. But I can’t find an article cause the searches are polluted with pages of some version of gun buy back stuff from the last 48 hours. 

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, tshile said:

The ar 15 platform is popular because it’s cheap, it’s modular so you can swap every part out down to the firing pin with ease and customize it or upgrade it however you want, it mimics a military weapon so there’s a “cool” factor (whether you consider that eye roll worthy or not), it’s readily available and mass produced (every gun broker has some available in some way), and they’re fun to shoot. 
 

too boot they can fire a very lethal 5.56 round or they can fire a significantly cheaper 223 round. Making it great for it’s real purpose, but also great for target practice. 

you can expand upon the platform to change caliber and therefore change use. 300 blackout and now you’ve got a solid self defense weapon. 6.5 creedmoor and now you have a solid sniper rifle. 

it’s got a lot of appeal that makes it a very popular weapon that is high in the % owned (if not #1.)

 

this also helps explain why it’s used so much. It’s what people have. 
 

i think it’s a gross mistake to think banning the ar-15 is going to put any dent in the number of mass shootings, and I’m very skeptical of any claim it’ll have any real meaningful effect on casualties. Or maybe more to the point, I’m skeptical that having 13 children dead instead 17 moves the needle in any real way. 
 

I think people who want to do this, will do it with the guns they have access to. So, so long as they can have access, it’ll continue to happen. And someone who wants to be incredibly efficient will find a way to do so with another weapon. 
 

I’m not saying we should/shouldn’t ban things, I just think you need to be more realistic about what you’re talking about. 
 

And anything that grandfathers them in is even worse off. Because there will still be a ton of those weapons out there and available. 

Its also logical that a factor in ARs being used, is the articles following last month's shooting, that talk about how it outguns the cops with it's "military grade firepower". 
 

Just my opinion, but maybe banning semiauto weapons with changeable magazines might help with this kind of problem. 
 

But banning just one model?  Seems stupid to even suggest. 

[tshile]

Also I recall reading at least one study showing that support for these gun control ideas peaks in the aftermath of a big mass shooting (meaning one that captures national attention, cause many don’t anymore) but that the support fades in polls as you get weeks and months out from the incident (barring another incident taking place, of course)

 

so I’d be wary of subscribing to polls about support for gun control that are conducted in the aftermath of a big mass shooting. 
 

it doesn’t tend to last. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

Its also logical that a factor in ARs being used, is the articles following last month's shooting, that talk about how it outguns the cops with it's "military grade firepower". 
 

Just my opinion, but maybe banning semiauto weapons with changeable magazines might help with this kind of problem. 
 

But banning just one model?  Seems stupid to even suggest. 

Well this is the problem with most gun control ideas. 
 

they appear to be put together by people that don’t seem to know much about guns. 
 

and you’re always going to struggle to get support from a knowledgeable gun owner, on banning guns, when their immediate thought is “uh, someone who doesn’t know anything about guns put this together”

 

not saying it’s right. It’s just what I’ve observed over the years. 
 

if you want buy in from people up to their neck in gun culture, you’re going to have to meet them on their level. And even then it’s a big hill to climb. It just is. 

[GoCommiesGo]

8 minutes ago, CobraCommander said:

Ok thanks but I can’t find verbiage at either link that states a member of your household has to sign off on you owning a gun.

 

It's on the form RCMP GRC 5592e (Link)

 

Section E & F box 18 & 19. 

 

Quote

The signatures of your current or former conjugal partners are not legally required. However, if their signatures are not provided, the Chief Firearms Officer has a duty to notify them of your application for a firearms licence.

 

Effectively, if your partner won't sign off they will reach out to them and determine whether or not you meet the standards for receiving the right of ownership. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by GoCommiesGo

[CobraCommander]

7 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

 

It's on the form RCMP GRC 5592e (Link)

 

Section E & F box 18 & 19. 

 

 

Effectively, if your partner won't sign off they will reach out to them and determine whether or not you meet the standards for receiving the right of ownership. 

Thank you sir.
 

*edit But it doesn’t sound like it can stop you from purchasing one either way. Just that they will be notified you are purchasing one?

Edited May 26, 2022 by CobraCommander

[TheGreatBuzz]

42 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 Tons of people like them because they seem cool and are easy to use and are highly dangerous and they like to cosplay as soldiers or revolutionaries and fantasize about taking on the government or starting back up the Civil War or whatever ****ing dumb fetish they harbor, and it makes them feel strong and safe to have a weapon that they could murder dozens of unarmed innocents with.  Suffice to say there's not a good reason for their legality, there never was, and the real reason they were made legal to own is because some of the most evil ****ing corporations and lobbyists in the world--entities drenched in the blood of children--rigged our government to make billions of dollars off of those delusions and fantasies.

 

 

 

Oh look, some else painting with an overly broad brush when they don't even know what they are talking about.  What you stated is an opinion and we know what those are like.

 

20 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 But, like Buzz, I don't intend to sell it back or get rid of it unless it becomes absolutely mandatory. 

 

Honestly, the more "mandatory" they made it, the less likely I would comply.

 

1 minute ago, Larry said:

Its also logical that a factor in ARs being used, is the articles following last month's shooting, that talk about how it outguns the cops with it's "military grade firepower". 
 

Just my opinion, but maybe banning semiauto weapons with changeable magazines might help with this kind of problem. 
 

But banning just one model?  Seems stupid to even suggest. 

 

This is another example of the people wanting change not even understanding the topic.  What is "military grade firepwer"?  They garbage ammo they usually shoot?  Hell, I use much better ammo then the military does.  And in bigger calibers than they usually use.  Is it just what the gun looks like?  Another scary weapon idea?  Look at the two guns below and which one do most people want to ban?  Because I could do a lot more damage with the wood one than the black one.

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well this is the problem with most gun control ideas. 
 

they appear to be put together by people that don’t seem to know much about guns. 
 

and you’re always going to struggle to get support from a knowledgeable gun owner, on banning guns, when their immediate thought is “uh, someone who doesn’t know anything about guns put this together”

 

not saying it’s right. It’s just what I’ve observed over the years. 
 

if you want buy in from people up to their neck in gun culture, you’re going to have to meet them on their level. And even then it’s a big hill to climb. It just is. 

 

Louder for those in the back.

 

[GoCommiesGo]

After reading the Canadian requirements I think that would be a good starting point. The majority of it wouldn't fly in the US, but some sections could be taken. 

 

Some way of tracking, limiting and vetting individuals prior to ownership. Also, requiring some form of formal training and a mandatory 28 day waiting period for any type of firearm.

 

Imagine if the kid had to wait 28 days, go through safety training and a background check. Somewhere along the lines a flag would pop based on his past behavior. Simple straightforward requirements. 

[mistertim]

12 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Oh look, some else painting with an overly broad brush when they don't even know what they are talking about.  What you stated is an opinion and we know what those are like.

 

 

Honestly, the more "mandatory" they made it, the less likely I would comply.

 

 

This is another example of the people wanting change not even understanding the topic.  What is "military grade firepwer"?  They garbage ammo they usually shoot?  Hell, I use much better ammo then the military does.  And in bigger calibers than they usually use.  Is it just what the gun looks like?  Another scary weapon idea?  Look at the two guns below and which one do most people want to ban?  Because I could do a lot more damage with the wood one than the black one.

 

Louder for those in the back.

 

 

As a gun owner, I don't really disagree with much of this, but I have to say I'm very dubious about your last statement of being able to do more damage with the wood than the AR, unless you're talking about the damage a single round can do. But if you're talking about the number of people you could harm, there's no way you could go through rounds in the wood like you would in the AR with a 30 round mag (hell, you can buy 100 round drums too).

 

IMO semi-auto with high capacity magazines is one big part of the problem. It drastically increases the carnage one person can do vs something like bolt action.

Edited May 26, 2022 by mistertim

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

Look at the two guns below and which one do most people want to ban?  Because I could do a lot more damage with the wood one than the black one.

I recall being told that the first war in which a rifle had a faster rate of fire, and longer range, and more accuracy than a bow and arrow, was WW2. 
 

The reason why the armies of Napoleon and George Washington and US Grant used firearms, was because a city boy with two week's training was more deadly with a firearm than with a bow. 
 

Which of those weapons do you figure is more deadly, in the hands of an 18 year old who bought the gun yesterday?  
 

And if you want to talk about experience, let's also factor in that our country has a lot of people who our government gave experience with one of them. 

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, mistertim said:

As a gun owner, I don't really disagree with much of this, but I have to say I'm very dubious about your last statement of being able to do more damage with the wood than the AR, unless you're talking about the damage a single round can do. But if you're talking about the number of people you could harm, there's no way you could go through rounds in the wood like you would in the AR with a 30 round mag (hell, you can buy 100 round drums too).

i believe the point he is making is that those guns are functionally similar, but completely different looking. 
 

And he’s gone through this before but the idea is the one that looks less dangerous, is actually more dangerous. 
 

I’ll leave it at that and obviously it’s up to him if he cares to elaborate as to why, but he’s made this point repeatedly. And, assuming the man has not misrepresented who he is over all these years, i know better than to argue with him on it. 
 

i don’t believe I did very well last time I argued with him on a gun related topic…

[visionary]

 

 

[mistertim]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

i believe the point he is making is that those guns are functionally similar, but completely different looking. 
 

And he’s gone through this before but the idea is the one that looks less dangerous, is actually more dangerous. 
 

I’ll leave it at that and obviously it’s up to him if he cares to elaborate as to why, but he’s made this point repeatedly. And, assuming the man has not misrepresented who he is over all these years, i know better than to argue with him on it. 
 

i don’t believe I did very well last time I argued with him on a gun related topic…

 

It's possible that I'm not seeing that wood correctly (the picture is much smaller than the AR).

 

I thought it was a bolt action as opposed to semi, but maybe it's not. If it's not then that's absolutely true...there's no functional difference between the two.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

, I’m skeptical that having 13 children dead instead 17 moves the needle in any real way. 
 

 

 

“I should be able to keep my assault riffle because in the end banning it might only save 4 life’s per shooting, like, max”

 

 

Ok, yikes.

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

And this is why the ducking democrats piss me off so so so much. **** you holiday weekend! What the ****. 
 

 

Past that….does anyone else get the feeling that the responsible gun owner who refuses to cooperate thing is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy? By that I mean, if the people making the laws don’t understand what the guns do, and the people who understand what the guns do refuse to be a part of the conversation…..then how are we going to get effective laws? 
 

I know that’s not this boards problem but seriously. Dems propose bad law. Repubs don’t take it seriously and don’t come to the table to help. Who then is advocating for the responsible gun owner at the table? 

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

“I should be able to keep my assault riffle because in the end banning it might only save 4 life’s per shooting, like, max”

 

 

Ok, yikes.

“Moves the needle” is an expression that generally means makes any meaningful difference in support for/against something. 
 

no. I don’t think it makes much of a difference in the general support for the idea.