Gun control

Does anybody have cliff notes on the speech?

Ko Dokomo_sl said:

A few handguns? No, it would still be very difficult.


A semi-auto handgun would make that feat much more difficult. In addition, there would be longer stretches of reloading and more time for his prey to flee. Im sure the deaths would still have been in the double digits but there would have been fewer. Any improvement that makes it harder to commit these crimes should be looked at.

Click to expand...

You're an idiot. You can fire two handguns at a time, carrying roughly 30 rounds. Same as a single assault rifle. Two handguns would probably fire rounds faster than the single AR. You can carry many more handguns than assault rifles. Assault rifles have nothing over handguns in close quarters combat other than penetration, and civilians don't run around in body armor.

The only way a ban works is if it is all semi auto weapons, and is retroactive, which isn't happening. And then what do you do about explosives? Anyone with access to google can construct a crude bomb.

Tuco_sl said:

A. If Gavinrad was inclined, he could very easily acquire and arm himself with several glocks and cause a national tragedy at an elementary school.

Click to expand...

I'm not really comfortable with the direction this conversation is going. Besides, if I were to do something like this, it wouldn't be at a school, it would be at George R. R. Martin's house. Or maybe the Westboro Baptist Church, but I'm pretty sure Martin is a bigger monster.

ObservantBastard_sl said:

You're an idiot. You can fire two handguns at a time, carrying roughly 30 rounds.

Click to expand...

Hey look, someone else who doesn't know anything about guns. Trying to fire a pistol in both hands is a good way to make sure you don't hit anything with either hand, even at close quarters.

I completely agree that there is no point in doing a half-assed ban on guns. But I do not really agree with the bomb argument. If I wanted to make a bomb, I would want to test my bomb making skill before I tried it on live targets, because you only get one go at it and there is a good chance that you will not make a good bomb on your first attempt. However, it is difficult to test a bomb without people noticing. If people had to build their own guns from scratch and were not able to test them then I think you would have a lot of failed shootings.

Tuco_sl said:

I'm fine if you want to capture Martin in a cage and feed him raw meat until he finishes the series, but God help you if you kill him.

Click to expand...

The whole point would be to save the world from his shitty writing, not subject the world to even MORE of it.

Gavinrad_sl said:

Hey look, someone else who doesn't know anything about guns. Trying to fire a pistol in both hands is a good way to make sure you don't hit anything with either hand, even at close quarters.

Click to expand...

Have you tried? Because hitting a mass of huddled kids across a 20 ft room is so hard?

Point is, he was arguing volume of fire. You can, with handguns, put out the same volume of fire as a single assault rifle.

It's depressing, but not surpising, to see our politicians go right back for the 'ban scary looking guns' approach. Typical easy fix that dosen't adress the problem.

I am just as frustrated with the people shitting up my facebook with 'Guns dont kill people' as I am with the 'Ban Guns' people. As usual the national conversation is being driven by people on the lunatic fringe.

I would like to see something like the following.

1. Background checks for 100% of gun sales and a recorded transfer of ownership (like the title to a car)
2. If you want something more efficient at killing people than a bolt action rifle, shotgun or revolver you have to belong to a shooting range for some period of time (6 months, a year), complete a training program, demonstrate proficiency and pass a psych evaluation before you are allowed to take the weapon home. Same type of deal for CCW permits.
3. Gun owners have to provide proof of secure storage for thier firearms.
4. Periodic requalification for owned firearms.
5. Gun safety taught in schools starting in elementary school.

And really, most of that is not much different than obtaining a drivers license.

If people want military style weapons, they should go through vetting and training similar to military or law enforcement personnel. I dont even mind full auto ownership (zomg actual assault rifle!) if the vetting and training were stringent enough. I'd probably draw the line at belt fed weapons and explosives, maybe large caliber weapons (.50 and up?)

I imagine most responsible gun owners want only responsible people owning guns, just like everyone else.

So, that's the easy part, the harder, and at least equally important part is revamping mental health care. Don't even know where to get started there, but not having to wait until people commit a crime to get care might be a good start.

Gavinrad_sl said:

Hey look, someone else who doesn't know anything about guns. Trying to fire a pistol in both hands is a good way to make sure you don't hit anything with either hand, even at close quarters.

Click to expand...

I've played plenty of games where I've dual wielded pistols and it is mighty good dps. Should I believe you over decades of video game evidence? If what you say is true, how was Tomb Raider able to recover all those ancient treasures?

Tuco_sl said:

I agree with this as long as gun safety in elementary school amounts to 'guns are fucking dangerous don't touch them ever you little shits'

Click to expand...

Pretty much at that age. Mostly so if they find a gun at home or at a friends house they know that it is Very Dangerous. For older kids it could be more indepth. I was actually on a rifle team at my high school in the late 80s. There was a rifle range under the swimming pool. Can't imagine that there today, which is unfortunate as it was a good program.

Fuse_sl said:

If people want military style weapons, they should go through vetting and training similar to military or law enforcement personnel. I dont even mind full auto ownership (zomg actual assault rifle!) if the vetting and training were stringent enough. I'd probably draw the line at belt fed weapons and explosives, maybe large caliber weapons (.50 and up?)

Click to expand...

Full auto ownership is already heavily vetted. You have to be pretty wealthy to even afford the weapons. Anything above .50 cal is already regulated under the same law as full auto I'm pretty sure.
These types of guns are pretty much a non issue.

Burnesto_sl said:

Does anybody have cliff notes on the speech?

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...r-gun-control/

First step: An inter-agency task force, led by Joe Biden, which will issue recommendations ?no later than January?:

The fact that we can?t prevent every act of violence, doesn?t mean that we can?t steadily reduce the violence and prevent the very worst violence. That?s why I asked the vice president to lead an effort to include members of my Cabinet and outside organizations to come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than January, proposals that I then intend to push without delay.

My colleaguesreportthat the recommendations ?will most likely include new restrictions on guns, particularly assault rifles, and high-capacity magazines. But they say it will also probably involve measures that touch on mental health initiatives and, perhaps, a discussion on the depiction of violence in popular culture.?

Second step: He asked Congress to vote on a few key gun-control measures that have popular support:

The good news is there?s already a growing consensus for us to build from. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases so that criminals can?t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won?t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.
I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner.

Third step: Ask Congress to confirm a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, something that hasn?t happened in six years:
And considering Congress hasn?t confirmed a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in six years ? the agency that works most closely with state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals ? I?d suggest that they make this a priority early in the year.
You can readthe full transcriptof Obama?s press conference.

Fuse_sl said:

It's depressing, but not surpising, to see our politicians go right back for the 'ban scary looking guns' approach. Typical easy fix that dosen't adress the problem.

I am just as frustrated with the people shitting up my facebook with 'Guns dont kill people' as I am with the 'Ban Guns'
people. As usual the national conversation is being driven by people on the lunatic fringe.

I would like to see something like the following.

1. Background checks for 100% of gun sales and a recorded transfer of ownership (like the title to a car)
2. If you want something more efficient at killing people than a bolt action rifle, shotgun or revolver you have to belong to a shooting range for some period of time (6 months, a year), complete a training program, demonstrate proficiency and pass
a psych evaluation before you are allowed to take the weapon home. Same type of deal for CCW permits.
3. Gun owners have to provide proof of secure storage for thier firearms.
4. Periodic requalification for owned firearms.
5. Gun safety taught in schools starting in elementary school.


And really, most of that is not much different than obtaining a drivers license
If people want military style weapons, they should go through vetting and training similar to military or law enforcement personnel. I dont even mind full auto ownership (zomg actual assault rifle!) if the vetting and training were stringent enough. I'd probably draw the line at belt fed weapons and explosives, maybe large caliber weapons (.50 and up?)



I imagine most responsible gun owners want only responsible people owning guns, just like everyone else

So, that's the easy part, the harder, and at least equally important part is revamping mental health care. Don't even know where to get started there, but not having to wait until people commit a crime to get care might be a good start.

Click to expand...

Good post I agree with most of it up to elementary school children part not sure how I feel about that, maybe middle school would be better. And I'm a gun owner just not a member of the NRA.

Burnesto_sl said:

Full auto ownership is already heavily vetted. You have to be pretty wealthy to even afford the weapons. Anything above .50 cal is already regulated under the same law as full auto I'm pretty sure.
These types of guns are pretty much a non issue.

Click to expand...

Yep, this is how it should be.

Semi-autos need to be taken more seriously than they are. They are too deadly (and by deadly I mean efficient) for how easily they can be aquired. It's a bit mind boggling that people can go to walmart to do some grocery shopping, refill thier bi-polar meds and pick up an AR-15. Not just rifles either, semi auto pistols are in the same boat, in some ways more dangerous because of how small they are.

Also, and I'm not 100% about this, but I'd suspect that semi auto can be more deadly than full auto. Full auto is less accurate, burns through ammo very quickly and is more prone to a weapon malfuction.

Ko Dokomo_sl said:

Really? Let's look at the statistics.http://www.slate.com/articles/health...shootings.html



Already we have evidence that Lanza was only able to kill as many as he did because he had a weapon that could fire 3 bullets a second.



Obviously there are two approaches here. Make sure that people cannot fire multiple rounds a second and train police to engage immediately, thus lowering the time a shooter has free reign. Prevention of course is ideal, but these are the tactical changes that can have the immediate impact

Click to expand...

If you knew anything about firearms at all you would know that the only thing these statistics indicate is that these peple were prepared. They had multiple magazines/stripper clips/speed loaders ready to go. It takes a significant amount of time to load 500 rounds into magazines and store them in a way to facilitate quick access.

This sensationalism about rate of fire and number of rounds fired is completely misplaced. It does not represent the lethality of a certain type of rifle, it represents the amount of preperation the shooter went through prior to the event. The same results could have been accomplished by an Enfield rifle, which is bolt action with an internal 10 round magazine (non removable) and was put into service in 1895. 115 years ago....