Legitimate gun question [on topic]

[faulknerwn 38]

This is a serous question - so I please ask you not turn this into an insult match. There have been multiple mass shootings this year. Even if people had been armed - like say a schoolteacher - the gunman would still probably have killed 15 kids before he was killed.

Practically all of them shot themselves - they clearly went into these massacres expecting to die.

I live in Texas and practically everyone I know is really well armed. Many/most of those guns have been gotten from friends or on places like Craigslist and such where no background checks or anything else were required.

I don't have a theoretical problem with people owning all these guns - but I do want a way to keep the weapons out of the hands of crazy folks. Background checks are at least a start but tons of people are really anti required background checks

Having more people armed may halve the number of people the nut jobs can kill, but it seems like the far better plan is to keep weapons out of the hands of the crazy people. And the crazy people go into these mass murder situations expecting to die so fear of being shot isn't much motivation

So my question is - how can we let regular folks own their guns - while keeping them out of the hands of the crazy people? I'm really interested in legitimate ideas. My Texas friends tend to be anti-background check and stuff like that - and they would pass because I don't think any of them would go nuts.

I am really interested in legitimate ideas and in keeping this a civilized thread and discussion. I see both sides. I understand that rapid fire weapons can be fun to play with, but I also don't anyone think legitimately needs them. I would like to see the best of both worlds - there is such a crazy amount of guns in thsi country that banning them now wouldn't make a dent for a hundred years. That's not the solution. But there has to be some way of stopping the crazies.

I think that greatly improving mental health care in this country would help. But beyond that?

[billvon 3,070]

Do you want to make this an on-topic discussion? (moderated to keep it that way)

[faulknerwn 38]

Sure. That would help prevent random insults :)

I understand both sides of the gun control argument but still want a way to stop all these mass murders from happening.

[quade 4]

Some sort of minimum mental certification for ownership. Something roughly analogous to a 3rd class medical. It won't catch everything. It's wouldn't be designed to. What it would be designed to do is have somebody look at the owner every couple of years to determine if the guy passes the basic sniff test of sanity.

Additional safeguards if anyone in the same domicile is under 18 or has mental issues; locking gun cabinets, trigger locks, etc.

Limits on amount of kinetic energy per minute a device can potentially deliver. Part of the problem with previous bans was the definition used to define "assault weapon." It described specific configurations of devices rather than describing the function of the device itself; which is sending lead down range at a target. That just lead to gun manufacturers running around looking for loopholes to redefine their weapons. The more quickly you can send lead down range, the more dangerous the weapon is. It's just that simple. Find a better description for what it is we're trying to limit. To me it makes no sense whatsoever to treat a .22 cal plinker the same as a AR-15 when it comes to magazine sizes. Let's talk about the total potential destructive power per minute rather than some vague magazine size which is going to be grandfathered, loopholed, buttoned and worked around.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skiskyrock 0]

Well, lets see. Maybe we could do something about the 1/3 of states that don't report mental health information to the instant check system.

Also we could up the number of convicted felons prosecuted for attempting to buy guns. In a two year period 27,000 felons failed the NICS check for purchasing a firearm in Pennsylvania. They were felons, checked the box that indicated they weren't felons, then signed the line that indicates that they acknowledge that lying on the form is against the law. You'd think that the trial for this would last about 5 minutes and have a 100% conviction rate.

They managed to get 423 convictions. A whopping 1.5% conviction rate.

[loch1957 0]

I'm not sure keeping guns out of unstable peoples hands is possible. If more laws were enacted then people with mental issues would probably not seek treatment. As for background checks I don't see a problem with them. I know a lot of people object but seems like a legitimate response. As for fully automatic weapons they are hard to get as it is, not to mention very expensive. They require a rather in depth background check now.

Its not my idea but it may be a workable option, we have so many retired military and police officers, why not use them as security? There be no need for uniforms if that would be disruptive, they could be janitors or crossing guards or any staff member. They could be in most any area, schools, malls anywhere large numbers of people routinely gather. It would be a well trained armed person and cost isn't prohibitive. May not be a perfect idea but doesn't sound bad.

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Some sort of minimum mental certification for ownership. Something roughly analogous to a 3rd class medical. It won't catch everything. It's wouldn't be designed to. What it would be designed to do is have somebody look at the owner every couple of years to determine if the guy passes the basic sniff test of sanity.

Additional safeguards if anyone in the same domicile is under 18 or has mental issues; locking gun cabinets, trigger locks, etc.

Limits on amount of kinetic energy per minute a device can potentially deliver. Part of the problem with previous bans was the definition used to define "assault weapon." It described specific configurations of devices rather than describing the function of the device itself; which is sending lead down range at a target. That just lead to gun manufacturers running around looking for loopholes to redefine their weapons. The more quickly you can send lead down range, the more dangerous the weapon is. It's just that simple. Find a better description for what it is we're trying to limit. To me it makes no sense whatsoever to treat a .22 cal plinker the same as a AR-15 when it comes to magazine sizes. Let's talk about the total potential destructive power per minute rather than some vague magazine size which is going to be grandfathered, loopholed, buttoned and worked around.

What you propose would end hunting. Most AR 15's are .223 caliber and that isn't a very high powered round. It's not suitable for hunting deer.

[loch1957 0]

A decent article in guns and ammo on this topic.

http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

[faulknerwn 38]

Automatic weapons may be hard to get - but as far as I understand it semi-automatic weapons can still have really large capacities but just require pulling the trigger in between shots.
I'm not super familiar with these - but could a shooter still not get several rounds a second off? I'm not sure but I would think that outside of a war zone that a semi-automatic could cause just as much damage as an automatic. Magazine capacity seems more important


As was pointed out above though, the power of the weapon does matter. I'm not sure of the difference in power between these weapons in question and others.

[beowulf 1]

I don't have a problem with background checks. As for the private sale of guns, requiring people to go through an FFL isn't a bad idea, but I don't think it will make that much of a difference. People will still do private sales without going through an FFL.

I don't see any new regulations as having any real effect in minimizing the possibility of this happening again. Laws are only as good as the number of people that follow them and it only takes a very few for it to be unacceptable. I think the only real solution is to allow CHL holders to carry in schools, some teachers will be among them. It will be those that feel they have what it takes to be responsible CHL holders. Posting armed security in the form of paid security guards or LEO at all schools. There is no way to know who the next crazy shooter will be.

[beowulf 1]

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

[faulknerwn 38]

Your ideas sound reasonable to me - but as someone pointed out we do want to allow hunting.

Question - has anyone in either party brought up ideas like these?

It seems like that dems want to ban stuff and reps want to ban nothing and no one is taking a middle ground.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Some sort of minimum mental certification for ownership. Something roughly analogous to a 3rd class medical. It won't catch everything. It's wouldn't be designed to. What it would be designed to do is have somebody look at the owner every couple of years to determine if the guy passes the basic sniff test of sanity.

Additional safeguards if anyone in the same domicile is under 18 or has mental issues; locking gun cabinets, trigger locks, etc.

Limits on amount of kinetic energy per minute a device can potentially deliver. Part of the problem with previous bans was the definition used to define "assault weapon." It described specific configurations of devices rather than describing the function of the device itself; which is sending lead down range at a target. That just lead to gun manufacturers running around looking for loopholes to redefine their weapons. The more quickly you can send lead down range, the more dangerous the weapon is. It's just that simple. Find a better description for what it is we're trying to limit. To me it makes no sense whatsoever to treat a .22 cal plinker the same as a AR-15 when it comes to magazine sizes. Let's talk about the total potential destructive power per minute rather than some vague magazine size which is going to be grandfathered, loopholed, buttoned and worked around.

What you propose would end hunting. Most AR 15's are .223 caliber and that isn't a very high powered round. It's not suitable for hunting deer.

Nope. My understanding is hunting existed for several years before the AR-15 was invented. Single action bolt to boot.

And this is exactly my point. A single bullet would be allowed that is much more powerful than the AR-15, but the total amount of kinetic energy, not per round, but per minute would be what would be considered.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[beowulf 1]

So you really think banning semi automatic weapons would make them go away?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Your ideas sound reasonable to me - but as someone pointed out we do want to allow hunting.

Question - has anyone in either party brought up ideas like these?

It seems like that dems want to ban stuff and reps want to ban nothing and no one is taking a middle ground.

Compromise is where both sides get something they want.

Pro-gun people might get national shall-issue concealed carry permits or a law forbidding state and local gun bans more restrictive than the federal government's.

Anti-gun people might get mandatory background checks on private transfers or a 50 caliber ban.

Any gun or magazine ban by itself is not a compromise since the pro-gun people are loosing with nothing in return.

[quade 4]

Quote

So you really think banning semi automatic weapons would make them go away?

I think throwing up your arms and saying nothing can be done doesn't make the problem go away either.

I think you have to start with the assumption something can be done. Not to completely eliminate, because that probably isn't possible, but to do something in the direction of helpful rather than fuck it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

So you really think banning semi automatic weapons would make them go away?

I think throwing up your arms and saying nothing can be done doesn't make the problem go away either.

I think you have to start with the assumption something can be done. Not to completely eliminate, because that probably isn't possible, but to do something in the direction of helpful rather than fuck it.

I didn't say nothing could be done. I proposed a solution.

Banning something does not make it go away. Just look at illegal drugs.

[quade 4]

Quote

Banning something does not make it go away. Just look at illegal drugs.

It does, however, prevent it from being sold openly at Walmart, which is not nothing.

Lemme ask you something, how much meth do you have in your house right now? I assume none.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Banning something does not make it go away. Just look at illegal drugs.

It does, however, prevent it from being sold openly at Walmart, which is not nothing.

Yes it is nothing. Kids can buy marijuana easier then they can buy tobacco. Banning something only creates a black market and in the end makes it easier to obtain.

[beowulf 1]

The only reason I don't have any Meth is because I don't want any. Not because it's not available.

[quade 4]

Quote

The only reason I don't have any Meth is because I don't want any. Not because it's not available.

I see, so even though the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding citizens, they'll all participate in black market illegal activities if a ban was in place.

Okay. Good to know.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I see, so even though the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding citizens, they'll all participate in black market illegal activities if a ban was in place.

Okay. Good to know.

I don't know about that, but there will be a black market. The goal is to get the guns out of the hands of criminals and you seem to think it's get them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Some currently responsible gun owners will give up their guns and others won't. What the the percentages will be I don't know. But it won't stop the criminals or crazy people wanting to shoot up schools.

[quade 4]

Quote

The goal is to get the guns out of the hands of criminals . . .

No. The goal is to get them out of the hands of crazy people and limit the amount of death a crazy person can cause with one if he gets his hands on it. You do that by making them harder for the crazy people to get ahold of to begin with and limiting the amount of destruction a weapon can do over time.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[faulknerwn 38]

I would disagree with that. To get tobacco all I have to do is go in a local corner store. I could get marijuana but it would definitely take more effort.

Even for underage kids, it's still easier to find a 17 year old friend to go into the local Exxon than to find pot ( at least in most states!)

If ar-15s or whatever were to be banned, there is no doubt you could still get them. Would it be as easy as walking into your local Walmart? No way.

Right now I can honestly say that if I wanted to get heroin or coke or meth - I don't know where I would get it. I know where I would start asking, but if someone I know is selling that stuff, I don't know about it. But alcohol, which is legal, is available at 50 plus stores within a 10 mile radius. Legality makes a huge difference.

[beowulf 1]

Really when I was in High School I could buy it from other students. Just had to know who to go to. Where are the cigarette machines in High School? It wasn't that hard to figure out who the stoners were in school.