The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Llevron]

16 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

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.

 

Would you be cool with someone limiting the amount of rounds you can buy a month or something like that? I ask because I dont know. To me it sounds like 500 rounds would be done in like an hour or something. I have never shot a gun before for clarity on my lack of knowledge. I plan to soon though. 

 

I actually prefer @Larry's idea of after a certain threshold, your purchases can trigger the police to watch a little more closely. But I feel like people are less than excited to accept more big brother. So im wondering if there is any leway in peoples opinions on limiting rounds or types of rounds. 

 

Just asking cause I god honestly dont know. 

[Popeman38]

19 hours ago, Bang said:

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

 

Why are armor piercing rounds available for purchase for the public?

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Why are armor piercing rounds available for purchase for the public?

 

Because they aren’t in a class or weapons that’s banned or restricted and no ones made legislation against them. 

 

And there’s been very little pro-control legislation in recent decades. 

 

[Bang]

41 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Why are armor piercing rounds available for purchase for the public?

 

I don't know,, why are they?

the obvious answer is there is a lobby that makes sure we all have the ability to kill cops, neighbors, students, intruders, aanyone, really.. so i'd think maybe they have something to do with it.

 

Note, i didn't say they should be illegal,,  just should definitely raise a red flag to be investigated. If you buy it, then the possibility someone official wants to know why should exist.

 

 

~Bang

Edited March 27, 2018 by Bang

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

Why are armor piercing rounds available for purchase for the public?

 

For when the home intruders come in wearing tanks, duh.

[Popeman38]

1 hour ago, Bang said:

I don't know,, why are they?

the obvious answer is there is a lobby that makes sure we all have the ability to kill cops, neighbors, students, intruders, aanyone, really.. so i'd think maybe they have something to do with it.

 

Note, i didn't say they should be illegal,,  just should definitely raise a red flag to be investigated. If you buy it, then the possibility someone official wants to know why should exist.

~Bang

They should be illegal for anyone not in the armed services or uniformed services to purchase, without a federally issued license. No different than a fully automatic weapon.

 

 

And for all those saying no one is talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment, retired SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens openly said the 2nd Amendment should be repealed:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Would you be cool with someone limiting the amount of rounds you can buy a month or something like that? I ask because I dont know. To me it sounds like 500 rounds would be done in like an hour or something. I have never shot a gun before for clarity on my lack of knowledge. I plan to soon though. 

 

I actually prefer @Larry's idea of after a certain threshold, your purchases can trigger the police to watch a little more closely. But I feel like people are less than excited to accept more big brother. So im wondering if there is any leway in peoples opinions on limiting rounds or types of rounds. 

 

Just asking cause I god honestly dont know. 

Id have to sleep on it but I would probably be mad.  Mostly because when there is a good sale, I like to stock up.  But if some of my other ideas were put in place, bulk ammo purchase woyldnt be as alarming.

[visionary]

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not,  (If it has, I haven’t noticed it while catching up).  Do gun ranges and such provide any ammo for people or does everyone bring their own?

[Popeman38]

9 minutes ago, visionary said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not,  (If it has, I haven’t noticed it while catching up).  Do gun ranges and such provide any ammo for people or does everyone bring their own?

You can bring your own, or purchase on site (usually for a ridiculously high price).  There are limits, like no tracer or armor piercing rounds.  And if you rent a firearm, they will make you buy from them (again, WAY overpriced).

[Bang]

16 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

They should be illegal for anyone not in the armed services or uniformed services to purchase, without a federally issued license. No different than a fully automatic weapon.

 

 

And for all those saying no one is talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment, retired SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens openly said the 2nd Amendment should be repealed:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

I can't disagree at all about the bullets. Seems to make total sense.

 

 

~Bang

[visionary]

6 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

You can bring your own, or purchase on site (usually for a ridiculously high price).  There are limits, like no tracer or armor piercing rounds.  And if you rent a firearm, they will make you buy from them (again, WAY overpriced).

Thanks.  Do gun ranges tend to have discounts for frequent customers or membership benefits or something like that?

I wonder if there would be a way to limit ammo at home and offset it somehow by providing more benefits to people buying ammo at ranges, or maybe allowing people to buy it elsewhere and then having it sent to a favorite range to store for them.

 

Just thinking through some things, no idea if it's feasible. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by visionary

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

Thanks.  Do gun ranges tend to have discounts for frequent customers or membership benefits or something like that?

I wonder if there would be a way to limit ammo at home and offset it somehow by providing more benefits to people buying ammo at ranges, or maybe allowing people to buy it elsewhere and then having it sent to a favorite range to store for them.

 

Just thinking through some things, no idea if it's feasible. 

 

I like where you are going with this.

[clskinsfan]

35 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

They should be illegal for anyone not in the armed services or uniformed services to purchase, without a federally issued license. No different than a fully automatic weapon.

 

 

And for all those saying no one is talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment, retired SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens openly said the 2nd Amendment should be repealed:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

 

Was just going to come in here and post this. The anti gunners arent even concerned about trying to hide what their real agenda is anymore. The protests over the weekend have emboldened them in that regard for sure. Although Stevens referring to a repeal as "easy" is laughable. You need support from 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, PLUS the ratification of the repeal by 38 state legislatures. The only time in history it has happened was to repeal the 21st Amendment banning alcohol. And that is only because the government realized how much tax money it was losing from organized crime importing it into the country illegally. And I think just about everyone likes a cold beverage every now and then.

34 minutes ago, visionary said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not,  (If it has, I haven’t noticed it while catching up).  Do gun ranges and such provide any ammo for people or does everyone bring their own?

 

I buy my ammo at Walmart. Gun ranges gouge the crap out of you.

Edited March 27, 2018 by clskinsfan

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, visionary said:

Thanks.  Do gun ranges tend to have discounts for frequent customers or membership benefits or something like that?

I wonder if there would be a way to limit ammo at home and offset it somehow by providing more benefits to people buying ammo at ranges, or maybe allowing people to buy it elsewhere and then having it sent to a favorite range to store for them.

 

Just thinking through some things, no idea if it's feasible. 

 

You could do that but when he said the prices are ridiculously high he means it. A range down the road 10 minute from me doesn’t let you bring your own. So I drive 35 minutes.  It’s marked up 2x what it should be. 

 

If you could fix that then I’d be intrigued by your idea. 

 

There are a lot of people who don’t shoot at ranges. They shoot on their own property. They’re probably the biggest ammo consumers because it’s just easier to shoot more often plus no range fees. So you’d have to deal with them. 

 

I prefer doing it on private property. No lines, no fees, and no rules. Safety rules sure, but no limitations on what kind of weapon or allo you can shoot plus you can do paper targets or skeet or trap

Oh and @visionary the only discounts I’ve seen are in range fees, and many times it requires you sign up to be an nra member  

 

everywheres different, that’s just what I’ve seen

[visionary]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

There are a lot of people who don’t shoot at ranges. They shoot on their own property. They’re probably the biggest ammo consumers because it’s just easier to shoot more often plus no range fees. So you’d have to deal with them. 

 

I prefer doing it on private property. No lines, no fees, and no rules. Safety rules sure, but no limitations on what kind of weapon or allo you can shoot plus you can do paper targets or skeet or trap

Makes sense.  I guess if my idea were put into practice it would somehow take into account ammo used for home defense, hunting, and private use, though there would be a limit determined by gun-owners.  And then ranges would be encouraged, incentivised, or maybe even required to reduce prices or let people store ammo there that they get elsewhere in return for increased business and other benefits.

 

This is obviously just a rough idea, and I'm not certain it would help, but maybe it's something to think about.... 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by visionary

[visionary]

I think one issue with gun control is that in some ways it's viewed as being about punishing gun owners. 

There's a lot of focus on taking things away and anger at the current situation (which is understandable)

But gun control shouldn't be about punishing gun owners, it should be a discussion in which gun owners are included and encouraged to have a major role.

Of course not everyone will be happy with the outcome, no matter what it is. 

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to come to an understanding on how to make Americans safer, without beating each other up. 

And without making gun owners feel like they're bad people for wanting to enjoy a hobby or protect their family.  

 

 

(This isn't necessarily directed at anyone on here, just a general thought on the issue)

[Llevron]

13 minutes ago, visionary said:

(This isn't necessarily directed at anyone on here, just a general thought on the issue)

 

I think, generally speaking, thats the problem with our political discourse on multiple issues in this country. I was having a conversation on this site about trusting the police and i noticed people getting defensive immediately and once that happened I couldn't communicate no matter how I worded it. Same thing with this. People get defensive (and not for no reason) about it and we stop thinking about finding a solution and start looking to defend ourselves. 

 

People like me make it worse cause I go from trying to help to **** it and **** you in about fifteen and a half seconds. Im working on that. I have apologized for it more on this site in the last 6 months than I probably have in my entire life. 

 

Making people feel like they are being attacked and feeling like we are being attacked is the hard part of any conversation, I think. Its hard, but important we try not to do it if we want to actually fix something. This is why I like you guys here. 

[clskinsfan]

17 minutes ago, visionary said:

I think one issue with gun control is that in some ways it's viewed as being about punishing gun owners. 

There's a lot of focus on taking things away and anger at the current situation (which is understandable)

But gun control shouldn't be about punishing gun owners, it should be a discussion in which gun owners are included and encouraged to have a major role.

Of course not everyone will be happy with the outcome, no matter what it is. 

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to come to an understanding on how to make Americans safer, without beating each other up. 

And without making gun owners feel like they're bad people for wanting to enjoy a hobby or protect their family.  

 

 

(This isn't necessarily directed at anyone on here, just a general thought on the issue)

 

Great post! I think the majority of us that are shooters/Gun owners are fine with regulation. The problem that a lot of gun owners have is once something is banned what stops the anti gun people from moving on to the next gun to ban? And of course a lot of us dont think making something illegal will make a difference to criminals. I mean you can take something as simple as weed. According to polls roughly 60% of the population has smoked it. Yet it is ILLEGAL. People speed in cars every day. ILLEGAL. Under age drinking. ILLEGAL. Gambling at home. ILLEGAL....You get my point. People tend to ignore laws until they start to pay a price for breaking them.  Passing any legislation does not ensure that people follow it. The only people you will disarm is those of us  that choose to follow the law.

 

We ALL agree that something needs to be done about gun violence. Hence my stance to stiffen sentences for gun law offenders. Will it work? Who knows. But giving felons that illegally own guns 25 years to life would probably make other felons think twice about sticking that handgun in their pocket when they walk out of the house every day.

[visionary]

 

[bearrock]

6 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

Why are armor piercing rounds available for purchase for the public?

Armor piercing rounds for handguns are illegal.  They are not for rifles and shotguns.  The explanation I read was that rifles and shotgun rounds will pierce any soft armor, so ban will be an effective ban of those weapons.  I have no idea whether that's true or not, but supposedly was the reason.

[TheGreatBuzz]

The definition of "armor piercing" is vague so it would need to cleared up before you tried to ban it.  

 

Edit: this isn't a snarky dodge.  There really is no legal definition of armor piercing that I know of.  It is like buying a "sport model" of something.  It means whatever the seller wants it to mean.  

 

Edit#2:  unless you are referring to green tip ammo (google it) which is pretty much illegal.  But I dont believe there is a legal definition such as "can penetrate X layers a material Y from Z distance."

Edited March 27, 2018 by TheGreatBuzz

[clskinsfan]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

Armor piercing rounds for handguns are illegal.  They are not for rifles and shotguns.  The explanation I read was that rifles and shotgun rounds will pierce any soft armor, so ban will be an effective ban of those weapons.  I have no idea whether that's true or not, but supposedly was the reason.

 

You can buy hard plate inserts for body armor that will stop just about anything that isnt armor piercing. So I am surprised by this law actually. There is no reason for a civilian to have armor piercing ammo. 

42 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The definition of "armor piercing" is vague so it would need to cleared up before you tried to ban it.  

 

Edit: this isn't a snarky dodge.  There really is no legal definition of armor piercing that I know of.  It is like buying a "sport model" of something.  It means whatever the seller wants it to mean.  

 

Edit#2:  unless you are referring to green tip ammo (google it) which is pretty much illegal.  But I dont believe there is a legal definition such as "can penetrate X layers a material Y from Z distance."

 

There is a legal definition for armor piercing ammo. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

 

 

[bearrock]

48 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The definition of "armor piercing" is vague so it would need to cleared up before you tried to ban it.  

 

Edit: this isn't a snarky dodge.  There really is no legal definition of armor piercing that I know of.  It is like buying a "sport model" of something.  It means whatever the seller wants it to mean.  

 

Edit#2:  unless you are referring to green tip ammo (google it) which is pretty much illegal.  But I dont believe there is a legal definition such as "can penetrate X layers a material Y from Z distance."

 

This is what the federal code says.  Again, no idea whether it is an appropriate definition:

 

18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B)

 

A projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
 

A full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

 

* Looks like Clskinsfan beat me to it, lol

Edited March 27, 2018 by bearrock

[TheGreatBuzz]

So it looks like that specifically refers to handgun ammo.  I thought we were talking rifle ammo.  My mistake.  I am not aware of any rifle ammo "armor piercing" rules except for the green tips i mentioned above.

[visionary]