The Greatest Gun Bill Ever

[Gun Manufacturers]

To bad any 17-18 year old can't walk into a gun store and buy a full auto. First I believe you have to be 18, second full autos require the signature of the head of BATFE and the local law enforcement/sheriff to transfer, all gun purchases in a store require a back ground check, and thats just for starters.

Yep, and why should a person buy something that is MADE TO KILL PEOPLE without any backgrounds checks or training?

Any person buying a firearm from an FFL (aka gun store) is going to have a background check run on them. It's federal law.

[Paddy O Fernature]

So, why are you opposed to this training be offered as an elective in high schools again?

And military service was pushed on us at a young age in my school, paddy. Recruiters were at the high school almost every week. I believe that is your getting at, correct?

No, that's not what I was getting at.

As pointed out earlier by another user, what is being proposed here is that an optional elective class be offered to students that teaches what amounts to as basic hunters safety.

[Fullmetal Alchemy]

You guys are talking shit, but maybe we should give it a trial run.
If it works out and crime goes down, then we could look into expanding this bill.

The bill in Georgia worked out even though the anti-gun crowd said it'd be like the Wild West.

It's best not to laugh at an idea lest you be proven wrong when it works.
Not that it will, but it could.

I'd be fine with expanding this law to cover all areas other than cities with a population of 500,000/750,000 or more.

But...but... Koch brothers?

[Alien Space Bats]

In any case, the states are similar enough to compare, as the main provision of this law seems to be the open-carry of handguns allowance. It was addressed to such issue, and those states allow open carry without a license of firearms (Michigan and Texas I believe are the only ones with the long-arm handgun distinction at the moment, though that might be incorrect). In any case, it tends to make one skeptical of the OPs claim that carry without a license results in mass anarchy and the firearmocalypse.

Generally, yes; but the Texas law goes a little further than Michigan's does (if we can stick to comparing those two alone, and keep it confined to pistols): Michigan still requires a permit to purchase a pistol (or "handgun", if you prefer), albeit on a "shall issue" basis, and without any real chance of local preemption — meaning that such things as felony convictions, restraining orders, court-declared incompetence, and a short list of other things can interfere with your right to buy a weapon that you can open carry (see how Michigan's leniency w/re to long gun purchases dovetails with is stronger restrictions on such weapons, while its tougher rules on handguns form a close fit with is open carry rules in that category?), and where you live is not a factor in whether or not you can get a gun; in contrast, it appears as though the proposed Texas bill clears away both sets of hurdles in one sweep of the (figurative) arm.

Now, this is not to say that I'm prepared to predict that the passage of this law will produce "Firearmaggedon" (a MUCH better word than "Firearmocalypse"; I recommend we switch to this catchier word instead, reserve "-ocalypse" for phrases like John Stewart's "Democalypse"). Crime rates and gun control don't seem especially linked to one another, and (as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread) if they ARE correlated, there's an equally (if not even more) plausible explanation for any correlation we might see running in the opposite direction (i.e., more frequent and notorious gun crime inspires tighter gun laws, rather than tighter gun laws creating the conditions for more frequent and notorious gun crimes).

No, I'm simply questioning whether letting anybody have anything they want and carry it anywhere they want is a good idea, that's all.

The problem here is that we have the wrong idea about gun crime, much as we have the wrong idea about rape. Just as we think of rape as something strangers do to random victims chosen more or less on the spur of the moment, we think of gun crime as an adjunct to street crime (especially robbery); but actual crime statistics tell us that, just as most rapes involve people already known to one another (eg., date rape, marital rape, etc.), most gun crimes also involve people who know each other (eg., domestic disputes, arguments among friends or acquaintances, workplace shootings, school shootings, church shootings, etc.). Given this fact, it's not hard to see why gun control laws don't do a lot to end gun crime, or why repealing them would do so, either.

Indeed, it's at the intersection of these two misconceptions that we can see the absurdity of our thinking at its fullest bloom. The NRA likes to suggest that women should carry firearms more often than they do, and that this would help deal with the rape epidemic in this country. If I can channel John Stewart for a moment, my sarcastic response would be to ask if open carry dating really sends the right message.

The real question we should be asking is if there are situations where gun control CAN help, and if such measures would be overly restrictive or not. One common restriction, for example, is to limit gun rights when and where a person is operating under a restraining order; to be sure, some people rail about this ("My soon-to-be-ex went and got a restraining order against me, and so now I can't buy a gun. THIS SUCKS!!!"), but I remain unconvinced that the imposition is unjustified given the fact that questions have been raised about another person's safety.

From there, we can recognize that most shootings result, not from robberies, muggings, home invasions, or such, but from fights between friends and family members; from there, we can then ask if anything can be done to reduce the likelihood that someone will pick up a firearm and end the squabble in attempted murder. Now THAT would be useful public policy; and — unless the NRA is made up of complete and total asshats — one would think that such efforts would be (at worst) met with constructive criticism, rather than rabid rejection as "woolly-headed liberal pantywaist gun-grabbing."

But then, I've been sadly disappointed before...

[The Lone Alliance]

So does that mean I can go on a trip with my RPG's? Awesomesauce.

Are you going fishing?

[Cascadeland]

unless the NRA is made up of complete and total asshats — one would think that such efforts would be (at worst) met with constructive criticism, rather than rabid rejection as "woolly-headed liberal pantywaist gun-grabbing

The reason for this is because the pro-gun control crowd has not given gun owners an incentive to consider their proposals, after the nonsense following the AWB and numerous state laws in NY and CA. This is coming from somebody that agrees with background checks (in addition to allowing civilians to use a public NCIS database to conduct their own background checks for private sales), barring the violent and mentally adjudicated, and actually enforcing laws (which we aren't doing. Not even close).

People are quick to blame the NRA for their reactionary stance against any gun legislation, although they only need to point their finger at the outspoken anti-gun advocates, who, in many instances, have called for outright civilian disarmament. That is bad company to keep. Some of us refuse to tango with the devil.

http://radishsaltant.blogspot.com/2014/ ... appen.html

[Warpspace]

I don't see the problem here.

Open Carry does nothing but prove you're an asshole by publicly wielding a firearm and potentially intimidating people. I'd only see a problem with this if it was concealed carry.

Which is legal with a permit now, and will no longer require a permit if constitutional carry is implemented (which I believe is what HB 195 does).

Edit: and it is more about deterring criminals and being able to defend oneself (and others) against them, NOT intimidating the innocent.

Which doesn't make any damn sense considering it simply puts you at risk of somebody lifting your weapon off you. Thieves need firearms- not to mention in a dangerous situation they'll simply shoot you first should they see the weapon.

Concealed carry is where it's at. Nobody suspects you to suddenly whip a glock or M1911 out of your jacket when you previously appeared to just be an everyday normal dude.

[Imperializt Russia]

You do realize that guns kill about as many people in the US as cars? and that two thirds of gun deaths in the US are suicides? And that cars injure about 2 million people while guns only injure about 80,000 people?

I'm far more worried about being killed by a car than by a gun.

And that is why guns owners should be trained and licensed. and that does not change the fact that guns are made to kill.

Certain firearms are.

Funny, I have a safe FULL of firearms that were not made to kill people and never will kill anything for that matter. Unless of course, you entertain the asinine notion that putting holes in various junk targets is somehow violent.

I don't think that I am speaking about you. You were in the military, you received training, therefore you, Paddy, are qualified to own a gun.

Your reasoning is pretty shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... d_shooting

So, why are you opposed to this training be offered as an elective in high schools again?

Because I think if someone wants to teach their minor how to use a gun, it should be their parents, family member or by private classes until they reach the age of majority.

And military service was pushed on us at a young age in my school, paddy. Recruiters were at the high school almost every week. I believe that is your getting at, correct?

No.
He's getting at NRA shooting classes which used to be delivered at schools some decades ago.

[Apparatchikstan]

You guys are talking shit, but maybe we should give it a trial run.
If it works out and crime goes down, then we could look into expanding this bill.

The bill in Georgia worked out even though the anti-gun crowd said it'd be like the Wild West.

It's best not to laugh at an idea lest you be proven wrong when it works.
Not that it will, but it could.

I'd be fine with expanding this law to cover all areas other than cities with a population of 500,000/750,000 or more.

But...but... Koch brothers?

Heckler & Koch?

[Autonomous Titoists]

My god, open carry without a license! This will just repeat the disasters that are Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine!

The wealth of evidence provided on the topic that proves its dangers and the lack of assumption by the OP that poor people automatically become criminals when armed has convinced me. <sarcasm>

What the hell are you talking about there isn't open carry in any of the Southern states you mentioned, Alaska isn't a disaster guns are necessary for people to survive day in and day out. Oregon and Washington have never had open carry, neither the Dakotas, most of the northern states mentioned are full of anti gun nut jobs that are anti freedom. Rattling off names of states is not evidence, do some research open carry doesn't exist practically anywhere unless you're a uniformed officer. You literally have no evidence just names and wrong opinions.

[Spreewerke]

My god, open carry without a license! This will just repeat the disasters that are Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine!

The wealth of evidence provided on the topic that proves its dangers and the lack of assumption by the OP that poor people automatically become criminals when armed has convinced me. <sarcasm>

What the hell are you talking about there isn't open carry in any of the Southern states you mentioned, Alaska isn't a disaster guns are necessary for people to survive day in and day out. Oregon and Washington have never had open carry, neither the Dakotas, most of the northern states mentioned are full of anti gun nut jobs that are anti freedom. Rattling off names of states is not evidence, do some research open carry doesn't exist practically anywhere unless you're a uniformed officer. You literally have no evidence just names and wrong opinions.

Am from Missouri. Have open-carried in front of federal, state, and municipal officers while at the age of 18, 19, 20, etc. Have discussed it with district attorney. I am not POST certified. It's k.

You are incorrect.

[United Dependencies]

From there, we can recognize that most shootings result, not from robberies, muggings, home invasions, or such, but from fights between friends and family members; from there, we can then ask if anything can be done to reduce the likelihood that someone will pick up a firearm and end the squabble in attempted murder. Now THAT would be useful public policy; and — unless the NRA is made up of complete and total asshats — one would think that such efforts would be (at worst) met with constructive criticism, rather than rabid rejection as "woolly-headed liberal pantywaist gun-grabbing."

But then, I've been sadly disappointed before...

Like a waiting period?

[Imperializt Russia]

From there, we can recognize that most shootings result, not from robberies, muggings, home invasions, or such, but from fights between friends and family members; from there, we can then ask if anything can be done to reduce the likelihood that someone will pick up a firearm and end the squabble in attempted murder. Now THAT would be useful public policy; and — unless the NRA is made up of complete and total asshats — one would think that such efforts would be (at worst) met with constructive criticism, rather than rabid rejection as "woolly-headed liberal pantywaist gun-grabbing."

But then, I've been sadly disappointed before...

Like a waiting period?

It had an effect. A significant effect.
Not significant enough, IMO.

[Spirit of Hope]

Like a waiting period?

It had an effect. A significant effect.
Not significant enough, IMO.

Any data on that? I haven't seen any studies that show waiting periods effecting anything but suicide rates.

[Imperializt Russia]

It had an effect. A significant effect.
Not significant enough, IMO.

Any data on that? I haven't seen any studies that show waiting periods effecting anything but suicide rates.

I may have confused the two.

[Warpspace]

Yep, and why should a person buy something that is MADE TO KILL PEOPLE without any backgrounds checks or training?

Any person buying a firearm from an FFL (aka gun store) is going to have a background check run on them. It's federal law.

Problem though. Under Californian law, my Grandfather can just hand me rifle or shotgun he bought as a gift to me, and it's completely legal and no background check is made for me.

[Ripoll]

This is ridiculous, how many more mass shootings will it take for us to finally understand that the answer isn't more guns, as we can see that there have been very few cases that someone has intervened to stop a shooting from happening and you are more likely to get shot by your own gun than you are to shoot someone else with it.

I'm not advocating for general gun bans, but we sure as hell need to close all the loopholes and impose strict regulations.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

This is ridiculous, how many more mass shootings will it take for us to finally understand that the answer isn't more guns, as we can see that there have been very few cases that someone has intervened to stop a shooting from happening and you are more likely to get shot by your own gun than you are to shoot someone else with it.

I'm not advocating for general gun bans, but we sure as hell need to close all the loopholes and impose strict regulations.

You know what will stop mass shootings? Targets that fire back.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Any person buying a firearm from an FFL (aka gun store) is going to have a background check run on them. It's federal law.

Problem though. Under Californian law, my Grandfather can just hand me rifle or shotgun he bought as a gift to me, and it's completely legal and no background check is made for me.

Unless you're a person prohibited from owning firearms and he's aware of it, then he's committing a felony.

[Gauthier]

This is ridiculous, how many more mass shootings will it take for us to finally understand that the answer isn't more guns, as we can see that there have been very few cases that someone has intervened to stop a shooting from happening and you are more likely to get shot by your own gun than you are to shoot someone else with it.

I'm not advocating for general gun bans, but we sure as hell need to close all the loopholes and impose strict regulations.

You know what will stop mass shootings? Targets that fire back.

Like how Jared Loughner was shot down before he killed too many people... oh wait.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

You know what will stop mass shootings? Targets that fire back.

Like how Jared Loughner was shot down before he killed too many people... oh wait.

I had not heard of the armed citizens who fired back. I knew of the citizens who physically subdued him, but I had no idea there were armed good Samaritans. Please, regale me with the details.

[Anonymous Proxy]

I've shot a gun before and while I'm certainly no enthusiast, I do support the basic right to bear arms for sport and self-defense. Sometimes it's even a necessity for example if you live in a place with a lot of bears. That being said, I do support bans on full automatics as there really is no legitimate reason to own one, and relaxing gun laws to the point where violent criminals, young children, and people with certain mental disorders can buy them is just insane. To get a handgun license you basically just have to be an adult and take a training course if I'm not mistaken, and I don't really see how anyone can be against this.

[Ripoll]

This is ridiculous, how many more mass shootings will it take for us to finally understand that the answer isn't more guns, as we can see that there have been very few cases that someone has intervened to stop a shooting from happening and you are more likely to get shot by your own gun than you are to shoot someone else with it.

I'm not advocating for general gun bans, but we sure as hell need to close all the loopholes and impose strict regulations.

You know what will stop mass shootings? Targets that fire back.

Which is funny, considering 1.6% of all mass shootings were solved by civilian interventionism with the past 30 years.

That means once

in 2 other cases civilians subdued the murderer after the shooting had already happened.....which is murder and led to that man never having a trial.

So no, arming everyone wont solve a damn thing.

[The Conez Imperium]

You know what will stop mass shootings? Targets that fire back.

Which is funny, considering 1.6% of all mass shootings were solved by civilian interventionism with the past 30 years.

That means once

in 2 other cases civilians subdued the murderer after the shooting had already happened.....which is murder and led to that man never having a trial.

So no, arming everyone wont solve a damn thing.

We could arm them with automatic rifles? More ROF = More change to kill the target/anyone who happens to be around him?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

You know what will stop mass shootings? Targets that fire back.

Which is funny, considering 1.6% of all mass shootings were solved by civilian interventionism with the past 30 years.

That means once

in 2 other cases civilians subdued the murderer after the shooting had already happened.....which is murder and led to that man never having a trial.

So no, arming everyone wont solve a damn thing.

How many of those shootings actually involved armed citizens?