Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Grinning Dragon]

"A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm."

God that's fucking stupid lol

LOL, that is pretty stupid. Just about as bad as the guy on CNN at the shooting range saying "full semi-auto mode" when he was demonstrating an AR.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Hokay, crazy thought here - bear with me, then I gotta dash and run some errands for a bit.

Here's my overall layout for change:

There's tools in place, but we aren't utilizing them properly. We start locally, and go up for maintaining a database for gun registration and safety checks. Feds would not have oversight, states could work together across lines to keep things going smoothly, but otherwise maintain and operate their own systems. We probably ought to have all the states get together and agree on some levels of rules and such, to keep things neat and tidy. Why? To make sure weapons aren't being sold to people who probably shouldn't have them.

Who would that be? Felons, people who haven't passed a gun safety course (yes, think they're a good idea), anyone operating under the influence of medications that can mess with your personality, judgement, etc (No, do not support invasion of privacy, would require a simple flag in the system without notation of 'this is because this person is on strong anti-depressants), mentally incapable folks - those who lack the reasoning/understanding of the responsibility of gun ownership, those with psychological issues that could interfere with responsible gun ownership and operation. Once again, a simple flag in the system ought to suffice, keep people's privacy intact, have the appropriate flags sent in via docs/psychs/etc.

The problem isn't necessarily just guns. More the point that certain guns can do much more harm in a shorter amount of time than other weapons, aside from explosives which are already a huge no-no that no one seems to be against strong regulation thereof. Thus, examining the types of weapons, their relative usefulness to the public, the arguments of hunting, self defense, sport shooting, and collecting all coming under review. Should there be models out there that a mixed group decides are probably not the best idea to have floating about in anyone's hands, perhaps we ought to ban those models, or if not ban, have a much higher grade of checks one would have to pass in order to purchase/own one. Think of it as a security clearance review or the like - only the most responsible, with a clean history and no potential troubling concerns would be able to purchase that grade of weapon. Perhaps there ought to be a whole chart with grade levels, what one has to do to qualify, and what weapons are in each tier. Dunno. Tis a thought at least.

Why would I support something like that rather than an all-out ban? Welp, happen to think that we're capable of ample control and responsibility as individuals, and that when it all comes down to it, its the individuals we're having problems with. And that if we really want to sort this out, we're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than toss money at, toss bans at, toss rhetoric at, and toss hopes and prayers at to accomplish any real or lasting change.

Bullying, social pressures, home life, depression, a lack of accountability and responsibility for choices and actions, a lack of compassion and empathy on both societal and personal levels, greed, divisiveness and hate being encouraged from the top tiers on down, selfishness, poor support for mental health and accompanying issues, poverty, homelessness, the inability to provide for one's family, lack of proper education, lack of proper health care, and so forth - these all contribute to the overarching problem, and the pressures or attitudes that lead to someone thinking shooting others is a thing to be done, or someone snapping and not thinking things through in favor of reacting in one of the worst ways possible.

We've got a whole lot of work to do, and improving on the tools we have in place currently is just a small part of it all. The harder, more deeply-impacting issues are the ones more easily swept under the rug due to a lack of attention-grabbing headlines, or political platform strength. They're also the ones we need most addressed, imho. The sooner we can cut the media circus bs, and actually start doing something meaningful to do so, the sooner we'll see an upswing in positive results, across the board.

[Sovaal]

And not everyone who owns an AR is preparing for a second ruby ridge (or at least have it as a primary concern). Still doesn’t make fearing some guns over others based on looks any less, well, idiotic? No. Unreasonable? Yah, unreasonable.

Why is the assumption that the problem is with how guns look? Sounds more like a way to paint the other side as childish.

Because the majority of the time its fucking features that people get up in arms about. You can still get an Ares SCR or Mini 14 across the country, but the moment you put a tucking pos grip on it it’s fucking the end of the world because people freak the fuck out. And if it’s childish to call them out on it then goddam Im going to be fucking childish.

[Sovaal]

And not everyone who owns an AR is preparing for a second ruby ridge (or at least have it as a primary concern). Still doesn’t make fearing some guns over others based on looks any less, well, idiotic? No. Unreasonable? Yah, unreasonable.

not really a small arm but yesterday I learned from my mom that there were M1 Abrams at Waco, I thought their wasn't because of the rule saying only Congress and the President could authorize the use of US military troops and equipment within the borders of the US.

Governors can mobilize their National Guards.

[Telconi]

Hokay, crazy thought here - bear with me, then I gotta dash and run some errands for a bit.

Here's my overall layout for change:

There's tools in place, but we aren't utilizing them properly. We start locally, and go up for maintaining a database for gun registration and safety checks. Feds would not have oversight, states could work together across lines to keep things going smoothly, but otherwise maintain and operate their own systems. We probably ought to have all the states get together and agree on some levels of rules and such, to keep things neat and tidy. Why? To make sure weapons aren't being sold to people who probably shouldn't have them.

Who would that be? Felons, people who haven't passed a gun safety course (yes, think they're a good idea), anyone operating under the influence of medications that can mess with your personality, judgement, etc (No, do not support invasion of privacy, would require a simple flag in the system without notation of 'this is because this person is on strong anti-depressants), mentally incapable folks - those who lack the reasoning/understanding of the responsibility of gun ownership, those with psychological issues that could interfere with responsible gun ownership and operation. Once again, a simple flag in the system ought to suffice, keep people's privacy intact, have the appropriate flags sent in via docs/psychs/etc.

The problem isn't necessarily just guns. More the point that certain guns can do much more harm in a shorter amount of time than other weapons, aside from explosives which are already a huge no-no that no one seems to be against strong regulation thereof. Thus, examining the types of weapons, their relative usefulness to the public, the arguments of hunting, self defense, sport shooting, and collecting all coming under review. Should there be models out there that a mixed group decides are probably not the best idea to have floating about in anyone's hands, perhaps we ought to ban those models, or if not ban, have a much higher grade of checks one would have to pass in order to purchase/own one. Think of it as a security clearance review or the like - only the most responsible, with a clean history and no potential troubling concerns would be able to purchase that grade of weapon. Perhaps there ought to be a whole chart with grade levels, what one has to do to qualify, and what weapons are in each tier. Dunno. Tis a thought at least.

Why would I support something like that rather than an all-out ban? Welp, happen to think that we're capable of ample control and responsibility as individuals, and that when it all comes down to it, its the individuals we're having problems with. And that if we really want to sort this out, we're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than toss money at, toss bans at, toss rhetoric at, and toss hopes and prayers at to accomplish any real or lasting change.

Bullying, social pressures, home life, depression, a lack of accountability and responsibility for choices and actions, a lack of compassion and empathy on both societal and personal levels, greed, divisiveness and hate being encouraged from the top tiers on down, selfishness, poor support for mental health and accompanying issues, poverty, homelessness, the inability to provide for one's family, lack of proper education, lack of proper health care, and so forth - these all contribute to the overarching problem, and the pressures or attitudes that lead to someone thinking shooting others is a thing to be done, or someone snapping and not thinking things through in favor of reacting in one of the worst ways possible.

We've got a whole lot of work to do, and improving on the tools we have in place currently is just a small part of it all. The harder, more deeply-impacting issues are the ones more easily swept under the rug due to a lack of attention-grabbing headlines, or political platform strength. They're also the ones we need most addressed, imho. The sooner we can cut the media circus bs, and actually start doing something meaningful to do so, the sooner we'll see an upswing in positive results, across the board.

You lost me at "Registration"

[Sovaal]

"A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm."

God that's fucking stupid lol

Hey man, my AR 15 is a weapon of war and needs o be banned but the M1 series of rifles are harmless sporter models.

[Telconi]

Why is the assumption that the problem is with how guns look? Sounds more like a way to paint the other side as childish.

Because the majority of the time its fucking features that people get up in arms about. You can still get an Ares SCR or Mini 14 across the country, but the moment you put a tucking pos grip on it it’s fucking the end of the world because people freak the fuck out. And if it’s childish to call them out on it then goddam Im going to be fucking childish.

It's childish to pass it...

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

You lost me at "Registration"

Because $Deity forbid we have any controls in place whatsoever. We register to vote, we register to drive, but register mah shiny gun? Fuck you, Big Brother! Amirite?

-_-

[Ors Might]

You lost me at "Registration"

Because $Deity forbid we have any controls in place whatsoever. We register to vote, we register to drive, but register mah shiny gun? Fuck you, Big Brother! Amirite?

-_-

What would a registry actually achieve that wouldn’t be accomplished with background checks? All it gives you is a list of legal gun owners.

[Washington Resistance Army]

@Nathi

I don't see anyone ever complying with registration in any large numbers nowadays, there's too many bad memories with it. We registered machine guns and eventually the registry was closed altogether in what amounted to a de facto ban as we could no longer get new ones. California required registration of several guns in the early 2000's and people were told they could keep their guns legally as long as they did that then California later decided several models of SKS that they had okay'd were actually in violation of the law and had to be turned in. Of course this was made much easier because people had foolishly registered them. The same has happened in New York. There was also that time that a bunch of manufacturers built guns to comply with Californian laws and the legislature wasn't happy with that and so banned guns built to comply with the previous laws with orders to turn them in and if I'm not mistaken they didn't even offer compensation.

[Grinning Dragon]

"A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm."

God that's fucking stupid lol

Hey man, my AR 15 is a weapon of war and needs to be banned but the M1 series of rifles are harmless sportier models.

None of my ARs are weapons of war, instead they are soul reapers of the innocent which fuels them for endless ammo.
But you are right, it seems if a firearm looks like the ones back in the day that super great granddad used it's ok, but modern modular firearms are a big no no and somehow super charge the very same round that super great granddad used in his rifle.

[Sovaal]

You lost me at "Registration"

Because $Deity forbid we have any controls in place whatsoever. We register to vote, we register to drive, but register mah shiny gun? Fuck you, Big Brother! Amirite?

-_-

Yah screw them. Trying to restric my freedom of movement and to vote. Down with Big Brother!

[Gig em Aggies]

You lost me at "Registration"

Because $Deity forbid we have any controls in place whatsoever. We register to vote, we register to drive, but register mah shiny gun? Fuck you, Big Brother! Amirite?

-_-

well to be fair registration wont stop someone shooting up a school or movie theater or military base or church. registration is so the government can see who does and doesn't own a gun. besides guns already have traceable serial numbers so if you didn't file off the number then the authorities can find out where you bought the gun.

[Sovaal]

@Nathi

I don't see anyone ever complying with registration in any large numbers nowadays, there's too many bad memories with it. We registered machine guns and eventually the registry was closed altogether in what amounted to a de facto ban as we could no longer get new ones. California required registration of several guns in the early 2000's and people were told they could keep their guns legally as long as they did that then California later decided several models of SKS that they had okay'd were actually in violation of the law and had to be turned in. Of course this was made much easier because people had foolishly registered them. The same has happened in New York. There was also that time that a bunch of manufacturers built guns to comply with Californian laws and the legislature wasn't happy with that and so banned guns built to comply with the previous laws with orders to turn them in and if I'm not mistaken they didn't even offer compensation.

Surprised they just haven’t gone ahead and banned semi autos entirely.

[Telconi]

You lost me at "Registration"

Because $Deity forbid we have any controls in place whatsoever. We register to vote, we register to drive, but register mah shiny gun? Fuck you, Big Brother! Amirite?

-_-

Yup.

[Gig em Aggies]

@Nathi

I don't see anyone ever complying with registration in any large numbers nowadays, there's too many bad memories with it. We registered machine guns and eventually the registry was closed altogether in what amounted to a de facto ban as we could no longer get new ones. California required registration of several guns in the early 2000's and people were told they could keep their guns legally as long as they did that then California later decided several models of SKS that they had okay'd were actually in violation of the law and had to be turned in. Of course this was made much easier because people had foolishly registered them. The same has happened in New York. There was also that time that a bunch of manufacturers built guns to comply with Californian laws and the legislature wasn't happy with that and so banned guns built to comply with the previous laws with orders to turn them in and if I'm not mistaken they didn't even offer compensation.

Surprised they just haven’t gone ahead and banned semi autos entirely.

well I guess ill have to stick to the papashaw or aa-12 then or get my trusty mp-40 or stg-44 its not like they'll ban those all hail the might of German and Russian gun engineering

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Because $Deity forbid we have any controls in place whatsoever. We register to vote, we register to drive, but register mah shiny gun? Fuck you, Big Brother! Amirite?

-_-

What would a registry actually achieve that wouldn’t be accomplished with background checks? All it gives you is a list of legal gun owners.

Consider it to be an extended part of 'background checks' - it would all be part of the same system, with very limited access, and the release of any of its information to the public met with jail time etc. People have a right to their privacy. People also have a reasonable right to expect relative safety when going to school, church, etc etc etc.

WRA: Granted, which is also why we'd need the states to cooperate, not continue to go overboard in some areas, and not do enough in others. Owners ought to have reasonable rights as well, and not be subjected to random whims of ever-changing governmental politc spin.

Currently, there's a lot that isn't working - clearly. The idea is to try and improve that.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I think the worst part about the Hughes amendment is that the ATF actually wasn't being silly at the time and testified that machine guns were no threat and they virtually never appeared in crime and we still lost the ability to get them.

[Ors Might]

What would a registry actually achieve that wouldn’t be accomplished with background checks? All it gives you is a list of legal gun owners.

Consider it to be an extended part of 'background checks' - it would all be part of the same system, with very limited access, and the release of any of its information to the public met with jail time etc. People have a right to their privacy. People also have a reasonable right to expect relative safety when going to school, church, etc etc etc.

WRA: Granted, which is also why we'd need the states to cooperate, not continue to go overboard in some areas, and not do enough in others. Owners ought to have reasonable rights as well, and not be subjected to random whims of ever-changing governmental politc spin.

Currently, there's a lot that isn't working - clearly. The idea is to try and improve that.

But it isn’t legal gun owners that are committing the majority of gun crime. Most of that is done by gangs, which consist of members that wouldn’t likely be given a pass on background checks. So what would a registry achieve beyond making confiscation easier?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

But it isn’t legal gun owners that are committing the majority of gun crime. Most of that is done by gangs, which consist of members that wouldn’t likely be given a pass on background checks. So what would a registry achieve beyond making confiscation easier?

That isn't a valid excuse to put in place a system that assists in keeping it that way, and besides - there have been situations where things might have been flagged, persons looked at more closely, or had shootings possibly avoided entirely had a better, more comprehensive system been in place, if we can believe any of the reports dealing with things like 'having a large gun collection within access of a very disturbed family member', or 'shooter was on anti-depressants and had a history of odd behavior', or 'numerous police reports had been made' etc etc etc ...

Our current system is a failure, and with this most recent, we can see it failed top to bottom. The idea is to protect the responsible gun owners, and continue to allow them access and rights of operation as they aren't doing anything wrong or harmful, and to attempt to keep those who shouldn't have access from getting guns. As for the gangs etc - well that's another matter entirely, and something the police and feds seriously need to crack down on, wouldn't you say?

[Ors Might]

But it isn’t legal gun owners that are committing the majority of gun crime. Most of that is done by gangs, which consist of members that wouldn’t likely be given a pass on background checks. So what would a registry achieve beyond making confiscation easier?

That isn't a valid excuse to put in place a system that assists in keeping it that way, and besides - there have been situations where things might have been flagged, persons looked at more closely, or had shootings possibly avoided entirely had a better, more comprehensive system been in place, if we can believe any of the reports dealing with things like 'having a large gun collection within access of a very disturbed family member', or 'shooter was on anti-depressants and had a history of odd behavior', or 'numerous police reports had been made' etc etc etc ...

Our current system is a failure, and with this most recent, we can see it failed top to bottom. The idea is to protect the responsible gun owners, and continue to allow them access and rights of operation as they aren't doing anything wrong or harmful, and to attempt to keep those who shouldn't have access from getting guns. As for the gangs etc - well that's another matter entirely, and something the police and feds seriously need to crack down on, wouldn't you say?

Alright, let’s say you have a registry. And lets say that every gun owner in America complied with it and puts their trust in the government. How will you prevent gun violence using this? Like I said, this does nothing to gangbangers. Will you confiscate guns from people who have “at risk” relatives? Will simply taking medicine for mental issues be enough of a reason to lose your gun rights? What would you actually do with this?

[The New California Republic]

A man-portable anti-tank weapon was one of the things handed in during the recent gun amnesty in Australia.

It is an Armbrust, made by the German arms manufacturer Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm. They are used by Indonesia, which is nearby, so I assume this one was smuggled across to Australia at some point, as Australia doesn't use them at all.

The news article says that: "About a third of the weapons were destroyed, with the others registered or returned for sale." I wonder if the Armbrust was returned for sale.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Shame that anyone turned anything in.

[Paddy O Fernature]

And not everyone who owns an AR is preparing for a second ruby ridge (or at least have it as a primary concern). Still doesn’t make fearing some guns over others based on looks any less, well, idiotic? No. Unreasonable? Yah, unreasonable.

not really a small arm but yesterday I learned from my mom that there were M1 Abrams at Waco, I thought their wasn't because of the rule saying only Congress and the President could authorize the use of US military troops and equipment within the borders of the US.

[Len Hyet]

Hokay, crazy thought here - bear with me, then I gotta dash and run some errands for a bit.

Howdly DLN, didn't expect you to pop by.

Here's my overall layout for change:

There's tools in place, but we aren't utilizing them properly. We start locally, and go up for maintaining a database for gun registration and safety checks. Feds would not have oversight, states could work together across lines to keep things going smoothly, but otherwise maintain and operate their own systems. We probably ought to have all the states get together and agree on some levels of rules and such, to keep things neat and tidy. Why? To make sure weapons aren't being sold to people who probably shouldn't have them.

Ooh, no, registration is a non-starter. Other's have mentioned it but every time there has been a registry proposed as "common sense compromise" it has done dick to stop gun crime and eventually led to more restrictive laws down the road. California is of course the brightest and shiningest example of it.

"Register all your Assault Weapons or give them to us."

"Ok, we'll register."

"Now all Assault Weapons have to get their mags pinned so they can only be removed by a tool or you have to give them to us."

"Is a bullet a tool?"

"Yeah totally, call it a bullet-button it's 100% legal, see we even wrote it specifically to include bullets as a tool."

"Okay, done."

"You know what, we changed our minds. Bullets aren't tools anymore. Give us your guns."

"But you said-"

"Fuck you give us your guns you crazy child murderers."

Who would that be? Felons, people who haven't passed a gun safety course (yes, think they're a good idea)

I think they're a great idea. Only, they get kinda abused. See, for the course to qualify they have to meet certain requirements. Usually they have to be taught by an NRA certified instructor or the equivalent as recognized by the state. So, now there's a small list of people qualified to teach those gun safety courses. And now they're only offered Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm. What's that? 90% of people have a job during that time and so can't take the class? Well, guess you don't want it bad enough. No guns for you.

anyone operating under the influence of medications that can mess with your personality, judgement, etc (No, do not support invasion of privacy, would require a simple flag in the system without notation of 'this is because this person is on strong anti-depressants)

I dunno how you'll get around HIPPA, it's pretty ironclad and for some reason the medical field gets all anxious about it.

mentally incapable folks - those who lack the reasoning/understanding of the responsibility of gun ownership, those with psychological issues that could interfere with responsible gun ownership and operation. Once again, a simple flag in the system ought to suffice, keep people's privacy intact, have the appropriate flags sent in via docs/psychs/etc.

Perhaps there should instead be a negative list of some kind. We could call it NICS, and fill it with people who are legally barred from owning guns. Then let FFLs have access to it, and run people's names that come back with a simple Permit/Deny.

You're basically saying add mentally incapable folks to NICS, which, well I'm not against. Fair enough.

The problem isn't necessarily just guns. More the point that certain guns can do much more harm in a shorter amount of time than other weapons, aside from explosives which are already a huge no-no that no one seems to be against strong regulation thereof.

Damn Weathermen making it impossible to buy TNT from the hardware store.

Thus, examining the types of weapons, their relative usefulness to the public, the arguments of hunting, self defense, sport shooting, and collecting all coming under review. Should there be models out there that a mixed group decides are probably not the best idea to have floating about in anyone's hands, perhaps we ought to ban those models, or if not ban, have a much higher grade of checks one would have to pass in order to purchase/own one. Think of it as a security clearance review or the like - only the most responsible, with a clean history and no potential troubling concerns would be able to purchase that grade of weapon. Perhaps there ought to be a whole chart with grade levels, what one has to do to qualify, and what weapons are in each tier. Dunno. Tis a thought at least.

We have that. It's the National Firearms Act of 1934. Short Barrel Rifles, Short Barrel Shotguns, Automatic Weapons, and Disguised Firearms all require a much higher level of scrutiny than your average semi-automatic.

When people start talking about banning individual models of firearm they betray an ignorance of the facts. The difference between Joe Schmoe with an AR-15 and Joe Schmoe with a Winchester 1894 is minimal. The difference between Joe Schmoe with an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 is non-existent.

The reason that AR-15s keep appearing in mass shootings is two-fold.

1. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. When people try to reassure hunters that "oh we're not coming for your gun, we're coming for those evil AR-15s" it's not reassuring because he or she owns an AR-15 too. It's a great rifle. It's light-weight, accurate, and has so many aftermarket parts, basically it's like the Toyota Corolla of guns.

2. Copycats. The AR-15 is not mysteriously deadlier than any other gun chambered in .223/5.56, but ban it for a few years and it acquires a mystique. Then talk about it nonstop about how evil it is, how dangerous it is, how it's the perfect killing machine. Doesn't matter that all of that is made up nonsense, mass shootings in the US are a product of the media attention they get.

Why would I support something like that rather than an all-out ban? Welp, happen to think that we're capable of ample control and responsibility as individuals, and that when it all comes down to it, its the individuals we're having problems with. And that if we really want to sort this out, we're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than toss money at, toss bans at, toss rhetoric at, and toss hopes and prayers at to accomplish any real or lasting change.

Bullying, social pressures, home life, depression, a lack of accountability and responsibility for choices and actions, a lack of compassion and empathy on both societal and personal levels, greed, divisiveness and hate being encouraged from the top tiers on down, selfishness, poor support for mental health and accompanying issues, poverty, homelessness, the inability to provide for one's family, lack of proper education, lack of proper health care, and so forth - these all contribute to the overarching problem, and the pressures or attitudes that lead to someone thinking shooting others is a thing to be done, or someone snapping and not thinking things through in favor of reacting in one of the worst ways possible.

We've got a whole lot of work to do, and improving on the tools we have in place currently is just a small part of it all. The harder, more deeply-impacting issues are the ones more easily swept under the rug due to a lack of attention-grabbing headlines, or political platform strength. They're also the ones we need most addressed, imho. The sooner we can cut the media circus bs, and actually start doing something meaningful to do so, the sooner we'll see an upswing in positive results, across the board.

This much I can strongly agree with.