The Gun Control Debate Thread

[visionary]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Also, in case the hollow point comes up for debate with the armor piercing bullets, I believe it's actually better for you pro-gun control people that people use hollow points over other style of bullets (better meaning if you have to accept that people will have bullets at all.)

 

I believe that while the hollow points are designed to enlarge on impact to cause maximum damage, they have the neat side effect of being less likely to pass through people or other objects and cause harm to unintended targets behind the intended target.

 

Anyone who owns guns for self defense and takes self defense seriously has to consider that. What's around and behind your target is as important, if not more so, than the target itself.

You bring up an interesting point, although I'm now also imagining kids getting shot (by accident or on purpose) with hollow point.

[Bang]

A purchase of armor piercing bullets should be one of those items that triggers a red flag, and more investigation into the purchaser should be taken.

Sounds bad, but figure the Aurora movie theater lunatic. He quit his job and bought all of his armaments within a few weeks..  if red flags go up on behavior that should trigger it, maybe he's stopped.

Not everything should trigger a red flag.. but armor piercing bullets seem to me to have a single purpose, which is to pierce armor  Deer don't wear armor,, paper targets aren't draped in it... and if you need to protect your home from people wearing it, chances are you're doing something maybe you shouldn't be anyway. Your usual housebreaker isn't coming in sporting the kevlar. Cops do, though. Security personnel, military personnel, they do. Buying it SHOULD lead to a reasonable assumption of their potential purpose, and trigger further investigation.

I don't see why that would be considered unreasonable, especially given the current problems. If you DO have a legit reason for buying them, (even if it is so you can waste your money shooting them at a paper target), then there won't be a problem. But if that red flag and subsequent investigating leads to several purchases of drum mags, high powered weaponry, and body armor for yourself.. and you recently quit your job,, well.. ?

 

I guess the next step is to figure out what to do. Just going and seizing everything because of his buying habits isn't going to be constitutional, To me, this part is a pickle in the 'police the current laws" demand. How far can we go, and how far should we be allowed to go? This isn't "Minority Report",, we don't have psychic cops predicting murders. Policing current laws seems to base itself on preventing the purchase in the first place. All well and good.. but what if the buys have already begun, as in the case of the Aurora guy? Unless I miss my guess, he hasn't committed a crime til he takes them to the theater. and by then it's too late. Putting unlimited surveillance tails on potential crazies based on buying red flags isn't ever going to be feasible.

 

So what to do about the 'red flags' that can't stop a purchase, but can cause concern especially if viewed as a whole rather than individual instances?

 

~Bang

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Bang

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

You bring up an interesting point, although I'm now also imagining kids getting shot (by accident or on purpose) with hollow point.

 

The type of bullet is rarely covered in these events, unless it's "armor piercing" because that tends to get people more riled up.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they were using those bullets in any, many, or all of these situations and it was just never reported.

 

They're also more expensive so that could easily play into it. They're really only used by people who have a gun to shoot other people (self defense, or a LEO, or security guard) and many of those people don't even practice entirely with the HP's because they're more expensive. 

[NoCalMike]

I have a question about the "laws on the books" stuff.  Regardless if you are for more, less, or current gun control laws, it seems everyone agrees that in a lot of cases the laws on the books are not being followed some of the time. The question is, what are the penalties for not following the law? 

For example, if a gun shop owner sells a gun and doesn't file paperwork for a background check, is there some kind of punishment?  Or lets say the store owner does everything right, but whoever the paperwork goes to, doesn't do their part of the job correctly...etc etc etc......are there ever stories of some kind of retribution when the system is failing due to people not doing what they are supposed to do?

 

It seems like I hear "if they would just follow the laws on the books already" an awful lot, but I never hear about what's happening to the people who aren't doing that and/or what it is they are failing to do.

[tshile]

@Bang i agree with your sentiment, but that's such a tricky thing to do... especially when you're talking about rights (and for the sake of our conversation i'm going assume the right is what the current SCOTUS interpretation seems to be, because that's what matters)

 

the guy that shot up the night club in Florida was investigated by the FBI after receiving what anyone would consider credible tips; especially in hindsight.

 

it's not just what to do to the person - it's how long to keep the investigation open and to what depts the FBI/ATF can go.

 

Do they get to intercept phone and text messages? What about spy on your email? Video surveillance? For how long, 6 months? 10 years?

 

For what it's worth - I'm entirely for doing it all piecemeal and fixing the ones that don't work or are too aggressive as evidence pops up to support that it doesn't work or is too aggressive. I'm not trying to be inflexible here. 

7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I have a question about the "laws on the books" stuff.  Regardless if you are for more, less, or current gun control laws, it seems everyone agrees that in a lot of cases the laws on the books are not being followed some of the time. The question is, what are the penalties for not following the law? 

For example, if a gun shop owner sells a gun and doesn't file paperwork for a background check, is there some kind of punishment?  Or lets say the store owner does everything right, but whoever the paperwork goes to, doesn't do their part of the job correctly...etc etc etc......are there ever stories of some kind of retribution when the system is failing due to people not doing what they are supposed to do?

 

It seems like I hear "if they would just follow the laws on the books already" an awful lot, but I never hear about what's happening to the people who aren't doing that and/or what it is they are failing to do.

 

The first would be a violation of federal law.

 

The state police in Virginia handle the checks so... they'd be responsible for the screw up. Not sure how other states work.

 

The biggest issue is that getting the evidence to prosecute gun stores is very hard because they are so well protected. Minimal data is required to be kept by them and there are limits to how often they can be inventoried. I can't remember the limit, i believe it's once every three years? I might be wrong there, probably am. I just know there are limits.

 

If you want to catch them you probably need to have a thorough trail after a heinous crime to even get a prosecutor to go after them. Otherwise you're left with setup buys done by the ATF and I don't even know if they're allowed to do that...

 

Which is why the "enforce the existing laws" people are so disingenuous and infuriating. Their entire stance on the issue is complete and utter bull****.

Edited March 26, 2018 by tshile

[Llevron]

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Well regular people can buy body armor.

 

Good point, actually. (why is this so hard for you @Kosher Ham??) 

 

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

And if you believe the 2nd amendment is there to allow us to protect ourselves from and out of control government, then armor piercing bullets might fall into that.

 

Honestly, I always forget thats what this is about to some people. I never add that into my decision making when I discuss this stuff with yall. 

 

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I'm not so much trying to claim we should be allowed to have it, just throwing some basic ideas out there to mull on.

 

I know we like to LOL at the whole out of control government thing, but I'd like to point at the guy currently in charge who decided he doesn't need a chief of staff and has publicly praised the tactics of some of the more ruthless and uncivilized dictators and suggested they have the right idea.

 

Also, we like to LOL at the dude with the ar-15 standing on his crushed cans of budweiser with his duck dynasty beard talking about protecting our country from our government being out of control, but the middle east has shown it to be quite an effective tactic. (using the word effective a little loosely)

 

 

 

You make some good points. Makes me think of alot of other ones. Like, if the point is to prevent an out of control government or defend themselves from one, then why arnt these people doing anything about our out of control government? Thats a whole other topic though. 

 

16 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

Was your initial question serious ? 

I'm serious. 

I should be able to buy and have those things... if our country has them. 

Trolling ? Send me the links. I have no problem at all addressing any accusations about my posts. 

 

 

I dont know what your problem is. I was asking a very basic question. Chill. 

[Bang]

Right @tshile  i track with you completely. without actual crime it's impossible, (Correctly and rightfully so.)  and you can't just watch people indefinitely because they 'might'.

 

Very tricky questions, I wonder if drug laws can be used as a guide? i can have all sorts of plants in my possession,, but a few of them will get me arrested..

 

~Bang

Edited March 26, 2018 by Bang

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Bang said:

Very tricky questions, I wonder if drug laws can be used as a guide? i can have all sorts of plants in my possession,, but a few of them will get me arrested..

 

I currently operate under the idea that our drug laws and drug war are a failure that has resulted in certain groups of people (poor, minority) being unfairly rounded up for private prison profit. not to mention the money spent vs the prevalence of drugs in our society over the last 40 years.

 

so, in my opinion, **** no they shouldn't be used as guide.

 

 

[Llevron]

Well, here is another thought from a guy that doesn't know any better. 

 

Should the legislation be to limit the ammunition and not the gun itself? Would be even be ok with that or is it the same thing? Would it even ****ing matter? I dont know, im asking not insinuating KOSHER - jesus. 

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Honestly, I always forget thats what this is about to some people. I never add that into my decision making when I discuss this stuff with yall. 

 

You make some good points. Makes me think of alot of other ones. Like, if the point is to prevent an out of control government or defend themselves from one, then why arnt these people doing anything about our out of control government? Thats a whole other topic though.

 

I used to hear the "protect us from the gov't" stuff and recall all the history channel stuff on military weapons and LOL

 

but i've watched us fight a never ending war in the middle east for almost half of my lifetime and i've come to realize our whole fight for independence centuries ago isn't a thing of the past. it's a legitimate tactic. it works. it still works.

 

as for why not now? most of them voted for the dude in office

also this is not the out of control government i think of when i think of people taking up arms against it.

[Kosher Ham]

There are over 200 pages to read. Jesus was just a man. 

Read them and stop trying to play coy. 

Cute does not work for you sir. 

 

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

There are over 200 pages to read. Jesus was just a man. 

Read them and stop trying to play coy. 

Cute does not work for you sir. 

 

 

You are as useful as ever aint ya?

[tshile]

i've talked to both of you about the gun control stuff

 

you guys should realize you're on the same side of the actual issue here.

[Llevron]

14 minutes ago, tshile said:

i've talked to both of you about the gun control stuff

 

you guys should realize you're on the same side of the actual issue here.

 

The reality is I think we are all (all, not just the people in this thread) on the same side. No one wants these kids to die. No one wants their freedoms taken away. 

 

But I asked a simple ****ing question and you were able to answer it and enlighten me. This other jack wagon wanted to be a dick about it. You know I like to play with....wait. Nvm. 

 

Anyway, you are right. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

But I asked a simple ****ing question and you were able to answer it and enlighten me. This other jack wagon wanted to be a dick about it. You know I like to play with....wait. Nvm. 

 

I think everyone has a subset of knowledge they're operating from, and forget it's not the same subset everyone else is operating from. So we assume certain things are jokes, trolls, shots at us, etc when they're not.

 

To some people the idea of protecting our country from a corrupt government is the #1 reason we have and should protect the second amendment.

 

To others it's just personal self defense.

 

To others it's the core problem to the various statistics they know about likelihood of being shot.

 

Some people have experience in school lock down drills and view them in an entirely different light than the rest of us. One person in the thread recounted his and basically said he felt completely helpless to protect the people he was supposedly in charge of protecting.

 

There are plenty of people who think hollow points shouldn't be had, but some of us now they actually help protect innocent people around a shooting incident. 

 

Anyways, this isn't directed at you, you're just the one that responded to me. For the most part we're all on the same side. 

 

The shots and jabs at each other plays into the NRA's hands.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

6 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Well, here is another thought from a guy that doesn't know any better. 

 

Should the legislation be to limit the ammunition and not the gun itself? Would be even be ok with that or is it the same thing? Would it even ****ing matter? I dont know, im asking not insinuating KOSHER - jesus. 

 

The debate will be what would the limit be?  What practical quantity of ammunition would they decide on and length of time between purchases?  I have stated before in here, that if they can track my allergy meds and scan my drivers license and limit me to a certain quantity of pills per 30 day period, they can track the sale of all guns and ammunition purchases.  

 

Would this work?  Possibly.  Let's say they just track it and don't have quantity limits.  Someone goes to the gun shop and purchases say 400 rounds.  Then they go to another gun shop and purchase another 400 rounds.  This would allow the authorities (if they were monitoring) or at minimum that gun shops to see a red flag. That this person just bought 400 rounds and was obviously buying more at a different shop to not look suspicious.  They could then be required to notify local authorities.  

 

Slapping on a quantity restriction might delay the inevitable, how much?  Who knows.  I mean they would still be able to stock pile what they feel they need over time.  During that time, would the person get found out?  Could it prevent something bad from happening?  Possibly, and possibly not.  Then you have to take into account, people can go through a lot of rounds just target shooting at a gun range, typically lanes rent for 30 min or 1 hour increments.  

 

 @Kosher Ham what is the average number of rounds you go through at the gun range?  Just curious.

 

I think ammunition should be tracked along with the purchase of all guns, but I honestly think that putting a quantity limit on ammunition sales would not be as beneficial as limiting magazine capacity.  If the clip can only hold say 10 rounds as opposed to 30 rounds, that allows more time for the victims between reloads, time is crucial.  

 

 

[tshile]

I don't know that ammo quantity restrictions will:

a - do anything

b - pass scotus

 

i don't know that there's any correlation between amount of ammo purchased and likelihood of committing one of these heinous acts, or any other gun crime.

 

maybe if it just set off a flag for investigation that would help? maybe that would pass scotus?

 

it won't do anything for the kid that just takes his dad's gun to school, the kid didn't purchase anything.

 

not trying to squash the conversation, just adding something i think is worth considering,

 

by the way i can go through 150 rounds on a basic handgun in about 30-45 minutes at the range. We could argue that maybe at that rate there's less practicing going on and more just shooting a gun for fun going on, but it can and has been done.

 

I'm always reluctant to use amount of ammo as an indicator of anything. years ago we were all buying everything we could find because it might not be there when you want it. i bought like 500 rounds of shotgun target practice ammo, i've taken the thing shooting twice. but hell, the ammo might not be findable when I decided to use it next. we weren't nuts, we weren't likely to commit mass murder, we just simply wanted to be able to shoot our gun when we wanted and at the time ammo was scarce (and there's lots of argument to be had over why that was...) so if they happened to have what you needed, when you were in the store, you bought the max the store would sell you.

 

and when you got to your car, if your wife was with you she turned around and went in and got the max they would sell her.

 

i'm also reluctant to use number of guns as an indicator for anything. the truth is the guns are designed to be superior for certain things. shotguns for things in the air (minus slugs of course), and different riffle calibers for different sized animals. then we have handguns for various protection purposes. then you've got all sorts of levels of competitive shooting sports that have everything from cowboy style revolvers (appropriate hat, boots, belt required. not kidding), to semi-auto carbines. having  multiple guns does not mean you're likely to be a nut that commits mass murder, or any murder. you could simply just hunt lots of different animals and/or be into different competitive shooting sports, or maybe you served in the military so you have various types of guns you've used throughout your career because that's your thing.

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by tshile

[LadySkinsFan]

48 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

 

 @Kosher Ham

I think ammunition should be tracked along with the purchase of all guns, but I honestly think that putting a quantity limit on ammunition sales would not be as beneficial as limiting magazine capacity.  If the clip can only hold say 10 rounds as opposed to 30 rounds, that allows more time for the victims between reloads, time is crucial.  

 

 

 

If they track how many Sudafed you buy, they can track how much ammunition, powder, and casings you buy.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

16 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

If they track how many Sudafed you buy, they can track how much ammunition, powder, and casings you buy.

 

Agreed.  I go through more trouble buying my allergy meds (Mucinex D) than I do ammunition.  Tracking it, absolutely.  Limiting quantities that can be purchased in a 30 day period like they do with allergy meds that contain pseudoephedrine, not sure that will be as effective as just limiting magazine capacities.

[tshile]

I don’t think technology and capability is going to be the issue you run into in tracking it. 

 

The courts and infringement of rights is going to be the issue. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I know no one asked me but just to share, I would guess I go through 200-500 rounds per trip to the range.  Sometimes even more (wouldnt be surprised if I had 1000 round outings) but doubt ever less.

[Larry]

3 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

I should be able to buy and have those things... if our country has them. 

 

 

Our country has nuclear ICBMs and weaponized biological weapons.  

 

[tshile]

completely misunderstood the conversation sorry

Edited March 26, 2018 by tshile

[Larry]

3 hours ago, Llevron said:

Well, here is another thought from a guy that doesn't know any better. 

 

Should the legislation be to limit the ammunition and not the gun itself? Would be even be ok with that or is it the same thing? Would it even ****ing matter? I dont know, im asking not insinuating KOSHER - jesus. 

 

Me?  If I could pick one thing, it would be to mandate the tracking of the ownership of every firearm.  

 

I don't want it to be onerous.  Make the registration as easy as possible, as long as it's accurate.  (I'm not sure I want transferring a weapon to be an online thing, because I'm not sure that's secure enough.  But I could be convinced.)  

 

The mission isn't to make ownership difficult, or make to impose some kind of "poll tax" to suppress people.  

 

But, when the cops recover a gun at a crime scene, answering the question "who's gun is this?" should take as long as running a license plate or a driver's license.  

 

And I think that the resulting data can certainly be used to inform our decisions on any other, proposed, safety measures.  Find out just how many guns used in crimes are stolen.  (And how many are "stolen".  Things like "well, I sold it to him, but I don't want to be held responsible, so I'll just say it disappeared".)  

 

This is information which we ought to have at our disposal, when we discuss this issue.  

 

3 hours ago, tshile said:

To some people the idea of protecting our country from a corrupt government is the #1 reason we have and should protect the second amendment.

 

And many of them should absolutely not be permitted to own firearms.   

 

(Or to vote, for that matter.)  

 

BTW, I agree with your point about ammo that doesn't penetrate walls and things.  I remember decades ago, some radio talk show host saying that that was why he claims that, if you want a home defense weapon, you want a shotgun.  Not penetrating walls was one of the reasons why he said that.  (Another one of his arguments was that the sound of the action might well be enough to cause a home invader to reconsider his plans.)  

Edited March 26, 2018 by Larry

[Kosher Ham]

15 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Our country has nuclear ICBMs and weaponized biological weapons.  

 

 

Why would it be illegal?... should be the question. Let's start there. 

 

@Dont Taze Me Bro , typically around 300 rounds. I don't spend a whole day there.