NationStates

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

Tungsten rounds would suck for self defense and hunting, due to them not expanding as much as lead core rounds (since tungsten is a much harder metal than lead). They would also increase over-penetration, and be more capable of penetrating body armor.

How would you prevent people from melting and pouring their own lead rounds, especially when lead is in fishing weights, car wheel weights, car batteries, etc.

ban those because they are deadly weapons obv.

Bug Out wrote:

SaintB wrote:A lot of people are talking about Gun Control Ideas, I'm interested in what people's feedback on the Fix Gun Checks Acts (HR 1781 and S 436) the two bills have slight minor differences but their overall purpose is to make sure that the NICS database is always up to date so that background checks are more accurate.

I personally think that this is a good common sense measure that doesn't infringe on people's right to own weapons in any unreasonable way and with the mentioned amendment might actually prevent some people who aren't legally allowed to own weapons from purchasing them.

One of the two also has a proposed amendment in committee so that background checks would also be necessary to purchase a weapon at a gun show.

This is already the law. If you buy from a dealer, you must pass the background check. If you buy from an individual in NC, you must show them a permit. They don't have the authority to take it, but must see one with your ID. To get a permit, you must pass the background check. This is just one of many laws, especially gun laws that are duplicated instead of enforcing the laws we have. The politicians pass new laws without repealing the old just to throw the smoke screen that they have done something for this generation of voters as we don't bother to research the laws already in existence.

First off, the permit background checks are a joke at best. There's no required psychological examination, no comprehensive criminal background examination beyond a set number of years, and no annual re-certification process unlike professions where you are required to be proficient and therefore have to re-certify.

Which makes the gun show loophole for private individuals especially egregious. They're not required to do a check for anything beyond checking for a permit, which as mentioned before is already laughable. Then because they're not required to do a background check on buyers, they could very well be selling to somebody that has a permit but is under investigation for homicide or aggravated assault. And when somebody kills with a firearms that they sold to another individual, they're guilty of being an accessory to murder for not doing the right thing and making sure they weren't selling to a homicidal maniac.

The 2nd Amendment needs a re-examination and a refresher. History and technology have moved far beyond the circumstances that it was written under. I'm not saying ban all firearms from private ownership, that would be silly and unreasonable. What I am saying is let's take the firearm down from its lofty fetishist pseudo-religious plinth and treat it for what it is; a tool, a device that makes the act of killing almost effortless, and let's re-apply the law in a way that reflects the advance of history and technology.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Ok...you don't understand the word simulate. Fair enough.

I've never seen a person or animal that could be confused with a bowling pin, playing card, round steel plate arranged around a wheel, or that dynamic target.

Explain how any of those targets imitates an animal or human shape.

The pertinent word is target...not shape. You do not need the shape to simulate a hit/kill. all the target does is confirm how close you are to the bullseye...which would be in effect a kill shot.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

Tungsten rounds would suck for self defense and hunting, due to them not expanding as much as lead core rounds (since tungsten is a much harder metal than lead). They would also increase over-penetration, and be more capable of penetrating body armor.

How would you prevent people from melting and pouring their own lead rounds, especially when lead is in fishing weights, car wheel weights, car batteries, etc.

Well, shit.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
I've never seen a person or animal that could be confused with a bowling pin, playing card, round steel plate arranged around a wheel, or that dynamic target.

Explain how any of those targets imitates an animal or human shape.

The pertinent word is target...not shape. You do not need the shape to simulate a hit/kill. all the target does is confirm how close you are to the bullseye...which would be in effect a kill shot.

I'll never look at a dart board the same way again.

Daelos Tribes wrote:Because not all 62 shootings would have had civilian interference. Kind of a noticeable difference.

No, thats the point. Civilian interference helped in none of those cases (in many it out and out didn't happen), and many happened in states where concealed carry is legal. So if "moar gunz lololol" as a solution grown ups should take seriously then how come it isn't working?

Nice trying though. Maybe you'll get me next time kiddo.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
The pertinent word is target...not shape. You do not need the shape to simulate a hit/kill. all the target does is confirm how close you are to the bullseye...which would be in effect a kill shot.

I'll never look at a dart board the same way again.

Darts are now primarily used to kill things?

See? Both of us can play that game.

Choronzon wrote:

Daelos Tribes wrote:Because not all 62 shootings would have had civilian interference. Kind of a noticeable difference.

No, thats the point. Civilian interference helped in none of those cases (in many it out and out didn't happen), and many happened in states where concealed carry is legal. So if "moar gunz lololol" as a solution grown ups should take seriously then how come it isn't working?

Nice trying though. Maybe you'll get me next time kiddo.

How many of those 62 shootings took place in 'gun free zones' like the Newtown shooting?

I'm not going to explore hypotheticals on whether the victims being armed would help, but we'll never know when these shootings keep happening in places where nobody has the option of defending themselves.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
To be honest, the only idea I can agree with is making ammo more expensive. I can't really support making home manufacturing of ammo illegal, the yearly gun checks, the restriction to single shot weapons, or the like. There's a reason to encourage the public to train with the same styles of small arms the military uses. HOWEVER, after writing down and discussing out loud the notion that there should be limits on what kind of firearms can be CARRIED for personal defense, I'm starting to get behind the idea. I just don't see very many plausible self-defense scenarios where one needs 15 or more rapidly fired rounds as opposed to to 6 to 10 from a revolver or lower capacity pistol. But I don't think it's appropriate to ban ownership of semi-automatic pistols and rifles entirely. It's against the intent of the Second Amendment.

But nothing in the Second Amendment protects ammo. I don't think you can regulate the manufacture of ammo at home without infringing on a person's rights. But here's something to consider: Mandate that all ammo slugs must be made of tungsten instead of lead. That would increase the price of ammunition both pre-made and home made.

Tungsten rounds would suck for self defense and hunting, due to them not expanding as much as lead core rounds (since tungsten is a much harder metal than lead). They would also increase over-penetration, and be more capable of penetrating body armor.

How would you prevent people from melting and pouring their own lead rounds, especially when lead is in fishing weights, car wheel weights, car batteries, etc.

Fair enough...so then just raise the sales tax on ammunition and make it illegal to make your own.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:

Choronzon wrote:No, thats the point. Civilian interference helped in none of those cases (in many it out and out didn't happen), and many happened in states where concealed carry is legal. So if "moar gunz lololol" as a solution grown ups should take seriously then how come it isn't working?

Nice trying though. Maybe you'll get me next time kiddo.

How many of those 62 shootings took place in 'gun free zones' like the Newtown shooting?

Some. But not all. Not even most.

So, even if we limit it strictly to places where concealed carry was allowed and it didn't take place in a "gun free zone" then we still can say civilian interference either didn't happen or didn't help.

So, I'll ask again. If the gun lobby's totally asinine and short sighted go to solution of "Fight gun crime with MOAR GUNZ!!!11!" worked...why isn't it working?

Choronzon wrote:

Daelos Tribes wrote:Because not all 62 shootings would have had civilian interference. Kind of a noticeable difference.

No, thats the point. Civilian interference helped in none of those cases (in many it out and out didn't happen), and many happened in states where concealed carry is legal. So if "moar gunz lololol" as a solution grown ups should take seriously then how come it isn't working?

Nice trying though. Maybe you'll get me next time kiddo.

Heh. See, though, that isn't actually at all a counter to the idea that "If a civilian intervened, particularly with a gun, it would help things" Precisely because in some of those cases, civilians didn't intervene.

So to act like your study proves that civilian interference should be discouraged is plain old obtuse.

Choronzon wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
How many of those 62 shootings took place in 'gun free zones' like the Newtown shooting?

Some. But not all. Not even most.

So, even if we limit it strictly to places where concealed carry was allowed and it didn't take place in a "gun free zone" then we still can say civilian interference either didn't happen or didn't help.

So, I'll ask again. If the gun lobby's totally asinine and short sighted go to solution of "Fight gun crime with MOAR GUNZ!!!11!" worked...why isn't it working?

When it does, it doesn't get the same level of sensationalism. Here's a news story from yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dsV6TCwd0o

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
I've never seen a person or animal that could be confused with a bowling pin, playing card, round steel plate arranged around a wheel, or that dynamic target.

Explain how any of those targets imitates an animal or human shape.

The pertinent word is target...not shape. You do not need the shape to simulate a hit/kill. all the target does is confirm how close you are to the bullseye...which would be in effect a kill shot.

Actually, you would need the shape of an animal or human. People survive bullet wounds all the time because of poor shot placement. Many of the targets out there, you can score points in a variety of places. Here's one.

http://www.galatiinternational.com/mm5/ ... TPOKER.jpg

Plenty of ways to win on that target, that wouldn't be considered a kill shot on an animal or human.

Daelos Tribes wrote:Heh. See, though, that isn't actually at all a counter to the idea that "If a civilian intervened, particularly with a gun, it would help things"

Except in some cases they did intervene, and it didn't help.

Precisely because in some of those cases, civilians didn't intervene.

Right. Meaning "lol moar gunz!" doesn't work.

Concealed carry isn't preventing massacres. The "good guys" aren't preventing massacres.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:When it does, it doesn't get the same level of sensationalism. Here's a news story from yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dsV6TCwd0o

I'll ask again.

If "Moar gunz!" worked, why doesn't it help prevent massacres in the 61 mass shooting studied? That was a completion of all mass shootings.

Your anecdotes prove nothing.

If guns prevent gun violence, how come their is a direct correlation between the number of guns in an area and the number of gun deaths?

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Tungsten rounds would suck for self defense and hunting, due to them not expanding as much as lead core rounds (since tungsten is a much harder metal than lead). They would also increase over-penetration, and be more capable of penetrating body armor.

How would you prevent people from melting and pouring their own lead rounds, especially when lead is in fishing weights, car wheel weights, car batteries, etc.

Fair enough...so then just raise the sales tax on ammunition and make it illegal to make your own.

There's already an 11% federal excise tax on ammo, beyond the sales tax.

How would you regulate/prevent people from making their own ammo, while still staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
The pertinent word is target...not shape. You do not need the shape to simulate a hit/kill. all the target does is confirm how close you are to the bullseye...which would be in effect a kill shot.

Actually, you would need the shape of an animal or human. People survive bullet wounds all the time because of poor shot placement. Many of the targets out there, you can score points in a variety of places. Here's one.

http://www.galatiinternational.com/mm5/ ... TPOKER.jpg

Plenty of ways to win on that target, that wouldn't be considered a kill shot on an animal or human.

Your example is to increase proficiency in accuracy. Being able to hit as close as possible to that point. Sure the "game" might be to score points and as I said previously...I have no issue with target shooting...but lets not kid ourselves that there is a serious and underlying reason why target shooting exists.

As I said at the start of our little discussion - that target practice is primarily to increase proficiency..the primary purpose being to kill. I just wish people were more honest about that.

The media is already gearing up to blame video games it seems.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Fair enough...so then just raise the sales tax on ammunition and make it illegal to make your own.

There's already an 11% federal excise tax on ammo, beyond the sales tax.

How would you regulate/prevent people from making their own ammo, while still staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

Are people allowed to make meth or counterfeit currency?

Choronzon wrote:

Daelos Tribes wrote:Heh. See, though, that isn't actually at all a counter to the idea that "If a civilian intervened, particularly with a gun, it would help things"

Except in some cases they did intervene, and it didn't help.

Precisely because in some of those cases, civilians didn't intervene.

Right. Meaning "lol moar gunz!" doesn't work.

Concealed carry isn't preventing massacres. The "good guys" aren't preventing massacres.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:When it does, it doesn't get the same level of sensationalism. Here's a news story from yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dsV6TCwd0o

I'll ask again.

If "Moar gunz!" worked, why doesn't it help prevent massacres in the 61 mass shooting studied? That was a completion of all mass shootings.

Your anecdotes prove nothing.

Guns can't stop large scale massacres when they tend to occur at schools, colleges, theaters and other places where guns aren't allowed. As far as statistics:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/f ... index.html

About 100,000 uses of guns in self-defense per year. Some people dispute the number, claiming it's inflated as much as 30 or 40 percent. That would still mean that uses of guns in self-defense outnumber gun-induced homicides by at least threefold.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Actually, you would need the shape of an animal or human. People survive bullet wounds all the time because of poor shot placement. Many of the targets out there, you can score points in a variety of places. Here's one.

http://www.galatiinternational.com/mm5/ ... TPOKER.jpg

Plenty of ways to win on that target, that wouldn't be considered a kill shot on an animal or human.

Your example is to increase proficiency in accuracy. Being able to hit as close as possible to that point. Sure the "game" might be to score points and as I said previously...I have no issue with target shooting...but lets not kid ourselves that there is a serious and underlying reason why target shooting exists.

As I said at the start of our little discussion - that target practice is primarily to increase proficiency..the primary purpose being to kill. I just wish people were more honest about that.

I don't know about you, but all the pure target shooters I've talked to do it for fun, not so they're more proficient in their ability to kill (I don't know any professional target shooters, who do it for the money).

RIP and no to guns

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
There's already an 11% federal excise tax on ammo, beyond the sales tax.

How would you regulate/prevent people from making their own ammo, while still staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

Are people allowed to make meth or counterfeit currency?

Where does it say in the Constitution, even remotely, about being able to hold some form of meth or currency?

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
Fair enough...so then just raise the sales tax on ammunition and make it illegal to make your own.

There's already an 11% federal excise tax on ammo, beyond the sales tax.

How would you regulate/prevent people from making their own ammo, while still staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

What's the point?

The aim of regulating guns more effectively isn't to prevent every single crazy person from getting guns and shooting people, but preventing some people from doing so. The harder you make it to get a thing, and the more barriers you put to getting that thing, the fewer people get it. That's all there is to the argument. It doesn't require people to ban the means that the most crazed and determined people might use.

If 100 people want a product and could snap their fingers and have it, 100 people would get it. If we make it a little harder to get a product, say, you have to wait a couple days before you can get it for paper work to fill out, fewer people will get it. If we license people to get it, and make them subject to some physical examinations, a written test, and testing out the use of the product, even fewer people will get the product. (I'm talking about cars, of course.)

The point is: the people who do these things are certainly pretty crazy, but they're functional crazy. That is, they're not so crazy that they haven't been committed to an institution or been thrown in jail for another crime. So that means these people are generally lucid enough to function. If you put in mechanisms that cause delays and make it harder for people to get guns, then you have a lower likelihood that these generally functional disturbed people will be able to get them quickly, or without normal people seeing what's happening.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
There's already an 11% federal excise tax on ammo, beyond the sales tax.

How would you regulate/prevent people from making their own ammo, while still staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

Are people allowed to make meth or counterfeit currency?

You not allowed to, but that doesn't mean you can't.