Gun control thread

[wawa]

Jul 20, 2012 12:46:40 GMT -5 smock said:

Jul 20, 2012 12:36:59 GMT -5 druidp said:

But believe it or not, people DO use these weapons for recreation. They like to learn to shoot them, how they work, how to control them and how to shoot at targets. They enjoy it. It's something they do to relieve stress, pressure and they actually take pleasure in it. These people probably have no inclination to ever do anything violent with those firearms; rather they just find the entire exercise interesting.

Can't you make the same argument for legalizing flame throwers? Or grenade launchers? We have to draw a line somewhere, and drawing it based on safety and potential misuse rather than "it's fun to blow stuff up" makes more sense.

I agree. That's why I think lumping a normal semi-automatic rifle in with a machine gun and calling them all "assault weapons" is fucking ridiculous.

[mominatrix]

Jul 20, 2012 12:45:30 GMT -5 Daria Morgandorffer said:

The whole "there's no reason to own a gun other than intent to kill" argument always cracks me up. My Dad is a National champion in competition sharpshooting. It's a sport....for recreation.

does he honestly think there's any skill involved in using one of these fire hose guns?

Sharpshooting is a skill sport. Do you honestly think we're saying that he shouldn't be allowed to do that?


Shit. I love me some target shooting. Honest and for true, Top Shot is like one of my favorite shows on TV (convince your dad to apply!!!)... because it's about SKILL.

Where's the fucking skill and sport in using a weapon that puts out hundreds of rounds a minute?

Were I somebody who was a target shooter of high skill, particularly at long range, I'd be horribly offended by the existence of these garbage guns, and the people who like to play with them.

[Daria Morgandorffer]

Jul 20, 2012 13:10:27 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Jul 20, 2012 12:45:30 GMT -5 Daria Morgandorffer said:

The whole "there's no reason to own a gun other than intent to kill" argument always cracks me up. My Dad is a National champion in competition sharpshooting. It's a sport....for recreation.

does he honestly think there's any skill involved in using one of these fire hose guns?

Sharpshooting is a skill sport. Do you honestly think we're saying that he shouldn't be allowed to do that?


Shit. I love me some target shooting. Honest and for true, Top Shot is like one of my favorite shows on TV (convince your dad to apply!!!)... because it's about SKILL.

Where's the fucking skill and sport in using a weapon that puts out hundreds of rounds a minute?

Were I somebody who was a target shooter of high skill, particularly at long range, I'd be horribly offended by the existence of these garbage guns, and the people who like to play with them.

Well, he does own a couple of semi automatics and an automatic I believe but it's because he's a collector (and a federal arms dealer) and occasionally enjoys target shooting with them as well (you can target shoot with autos, it's....interesting). Now, I said earlier in the thread that I would be down with tighter control on automatics because for the most part, I agree with you.

"Sharpshooting is a skill sport. Do you honestly think we're saying that he shouldn't be allowed to do that?"

No, I haven't seen anyone say that yet in THIS particular thread. However, I've seen many of these types of discussions over the years and yes, there are many people that believe that a private citizen should not be able to sharp shoot for recreation.

[wawa]

Random fun fact - I was chatting with one of my gun collector friends by email to double check my facts before I posted here. He informed me that you can actually buy a grenade launcher legally. You just can't buy the grenades. Tricksy.

[Daria Morgandorffer]

Jul 20, 2012 13:22:36 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:21:48 GMT -5 wawa said:

Random fun fact - I was chatting with one of my gun collector friends by email to double check my facts before I posted here. He informed me that you can actually buy a grenade launcher legally. You just can't buy the grenades. Tricksy.

I would launch pigeons. Dirty fucking birds.

I got a wing in the face this morning. I'd be happy to host a pigeon launching party.

[mominatrix]

Jul 20, 2012 13:16:52 GMT -5 Daria Morgandorffer said:

No, I haven't seen anyone say that yet in THIS particular thread. However, I've seen many of these types of discussions over the years and yes, there are many people that believe that a private citizen should not be able to sharp shoot for recreation.

I'm about as big a gun-control person as you'll find, and I'm OK with that.

If I ruled the world...

...only certain types of guns would be available to non-military / non-police. Generally, they would be guns that would have very limited capacities (maybe topped at 10 rounds before having to be reloaded) and automatic or semiautomatic would require additional licensing.

...anybody who wants to own / possess a gun has to be licensed. If you aren't and you're in possession of a gun, you're in for a year. Licensing requires a comprehensive class (like, not an hour in somebody's living room, but a multi-part class, at a range, that includes gun safety and maintenance). Licensing also includes a criminal record and mental health review. Certain diagnoses of mental health issues would require a certification from a mental health professional before license granted. Renewed, say, every two years.

...anybody who wants to own / possess an automatic or semiautomatic has to go through additional training and background checks. Maybe they even have to establish a necessity (like, they work in private security, for instance).

...anybody who wants to concealed carry has to go through additional training and background checks, and maybe establish a necessity.

...if you own a gun, you either have to keep it locked or in a locked gun safe. Failure to do so can impact your ability to renew your license.

...if you own a gun and its lost or stolen you have to report it to authorities immediately. Failure to do so means that if the gun is used in a criminal act you could be charged as an accessory.



Like I said, I'm pretty much the biggest gun-control person you're going to find... and yet I'm OK with people having guns for hunting, for recreation, and for protection. What I'm not OK with is guns whose sole purpose being for killing massive numbers of people quickly being in the hands of complete randoms.

[Daria Morgandorffer]

Jul 20, 2012 13:33:42 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:25:04 GMT -5 Daria Morgandorffer said:

I got a wing in the face this morning. I'd be happy to host a pigeon launching party.

I would still be shaking.

I'm reasonably sure I have the plague. Nice knowing ya'll.

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2012 10:18:50 GMT -5 ttt said:

While I think mental illness care in this country is pretty pathetic, I also think it's a red herring to the overall gun control argument. People with severe mental illness who want to carry out attacks like this probably can't be stopped. Look at the guy in Belgium who stabbed to death a woman and two babies a couple years ago. How do you stop that? If he had had a gun, the death toll probably would have been much higher. But you can't really stop everyone who gets violence into their head. You can, however, make it more difficult for them to actually carry out that violence. Which is where the gun control argument comes into play.

And again, gun control isn't really about stopping random mass shootings - it's about stopping overall gun violence in this country, whether from regular street crime or accidents. That's where you would really see an impact from increased gun control.

This is very true.

One of the first things the Canadian news outlets were discussing today was the gun laws in the us. They also think the reason gn violence Is on the rise in Canadian border towns s because of how many there are in the US. There are just too many guns, period.

[wawa]

Momin (and anybody else who likes her list of restrictions) - How would/do mental health restrictions work for gun control? How do you do those screenings without impinging on privacy rights?

I'm asking seriously.

[Daria Morgandorffer]

Mom- I'm on board with about 80% of what you posted. The only things I don't agree with are limits to the types of guns for private citizens and having to establish a necessity.

I'm actually all for tighter gun control (I do work in scary ass downtown Chicago after all), but I can't get down with outright bans.

[msmerymac]

There's a place in Texas where you can go drive tanks. And even drive over a car. They're mostly British tanks, though, since the Brits sell them fairly cheap and it's harder to get ahold of an American tank.

[wawa]

Jul 20, 2012 13:38:56 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

There's a place in Texas where you can go drive tanks. And even drive over a car. They're mostly British tanks, though, since the Brits sell them fairly cheap and it's harder to get ahold of an American tank.

Oh, where? I'd totally hit that up for a random road trip stop someday....

[msmerymac]

Jul 20, 2012 13:39:52 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:38:56 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

There's a place in Texas where you can go drive tanks. And even drive over a car. They're mostly British tanks, though, since the Brits sell them fairly cheap and it's harder to get ahold of an American tank.

Oh, where? I'd totally hit that up for a random road trip stop someday....

Sherman. It says to arrive in Dallas.

www.incredible-adventures.com/texas-tanks.html

I heard about it on NPR. Although I guess if you want to crush a car it costs $500 extra or something.

[secretlyevil]

A friend shared one of his friend's FB status. I thought it was pretty poignant.

The Aurora theater shooter had a bulletproof vest, leggings, helmet, throat and crotch protector. This was a chaotic movie theater with hundreds of crazed people and smoke. Anyone who says "this is why I carry a gun" or somehow thinks another gun in the room would have helped anything is misguided. There are confirmed military in the theater at the time and they couldn't do anything, you and your concealed weapons permit with 2 trips to the range would only have increased the casualties.

[mominatrix]

Jul 20, 2012 13:38:07 GMT -5 wawa said:

Momin (and anybody else who likes her list of restrictions) - How would/do mental health restrictions work for gun control? How do you do those screenings without impinging on privacy rights?

I'm asking seriously.

If you're applying for a gun license, you're giving permission for the review...

We have rights to privacy in our medical records, but when we apply for a drivers' license, they're allowed to ask if we have a seizure disorder and they're allowed to check our eyes. You don't want to provide info about seizure disorders or have your eyes checked, no drivers' license for you. Same thing here.


...and I'm not a mental health professional. Like I said, if I ruled the world...in that case, I'd have an expert telling me what diagnoses would warrant additional review / required certification by a mental health professional. It would be about potential harm to other people.

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2012 13:38:07 GMT -5 wawa said:

Momin (and anybody else who likes her list of restrictions) - How would/do mental health restrictions work for gun control? How do you do those screenings without impinging on privacy rights?

I'm asking seriously.

Im not sure, and that's a good question.
But I'm of the opinion that 99% of citizens shouldn't have guns so I don't really care.

I would go far as to suggest that gun ranges, etc should also be banned unless its for law enforcement. There is a twisted sense of entitlement in the US around guns. We don't need them in the hands of citizens, period.

[mexicali]

There is a lot going on and I skimmed through it, so sorry if this is a repeat. On my other board it is being implied that if we had an "open carry law" this guy would have not went off on a shooting rampage. I think it's naive to think like this.

They also feel that having a license and training will equip you with enough knowledge to detain a man with four guns, gas grenades and a crowd of people running in chaos. I think this naive hero mentality is a big issue as well.

I am not anti-gun for the whole world. I am anti-gun in my house. I just don't think putting guns in whoevers hands is the resolution to this massacres we have been experiencing.

[pixy0stix]

Jul 20, 2012 13:45:28 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

A friend shared one of his friend's FB status. I thought it was pretty poignant.

The Aurora theater shooter had a bulletproof vest, leggings, helmet, throat and crotch protector. This was a chaotic movie theater with hundreds of crazed people and smoke. Anyone who says "this is why I carry a gun" or somehow thinks another gun in the room would have helped anything is misguided. There are confirmed military in the theater at the time and they couldn't do anything, you and your concealed weapons permit with 2 trips to the range would only have increased the casualties.

Ding! And really, that's the sum of my whole argument at the beginning of the thread.

[mominatrix]

Two other things I'd add, to my ruling the world list...

...different, easier-to-get license for "historic" guns. The person who has a 300 year old musket because it belonged to their greatgreatgreatgreat grandfather shouldn't have to go through all that.

...judges having the power to pull gun licenses from the bench when issuing restraining orders.

[mexicali]

Jul 20, 2012 13:50:14 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:45:28 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

A friend shared one of his friend's FB status. I thought it was pretty poignant.

The Aurora theater shooter had a bulletproof vest, leggings, helmet, throat and crotch protector. This was a chaotic movie theater with hundreds of crazed people and smoke. Anyone who says "this is why I carry a gun" or somehow thinks another gun in the room would have helped anything is misguided. There are confirmed military in the theater at the time and they couldn't do anything, you and your concealed weapons permit with 2 trips to the range would only have increased the casualties.

Ding! And really, that's the sum of my whole argument at the beginning of the thread.

YES, this sums it up better for me. Are they quoting this from an article? HOw do the know there were military? I need a link.

the women on my other board seem to think their H's could have taken this guy down with one shot.

[mominatrix]

Jul 20, 2012 13:38:34 GMT -5 Daria Morgandorffer said:

Mom- I'm on board with about 80% of what you posted. The only things I don't agree with are limits to the types of guns for private citizens and having to establish a necessity.

I'm actually all for tighter gun control (I do work in scary ass downtown Chicago after all), but I can't get down with outright bans.

See??

One of the things about this issue that gets me all crazy is that RESPONSIBLE gun owners and those who are in favor of RESPONSIBLE gun control laws actually share a lot of ground...

but the NRA and their buddies get all OMIGOD!!!! the GOBUMENT is going to make you register as a first step to taking all your guns away!!!!!!1111!!!!!... but that's not what rational gun control laws area about.

[pixy0stix]

Jul 20, 2012 13:54:22 GMT -5 mexicali said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:50:14 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Ding! And really, that's the sum of my whole argument at the beginning of the thread.

YES, this sums it up better for me. Are they quoting this from an article? HOw do the know there were military? I need a link.

the women on my other board seem to think their H's could have taken this guy down with one shot.

It stands to reason, there's an air base right there. The whole area is pretty saturated with military.

ETA: Confirmed by the Pentagon www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31290074/detail.html

[wawa]

Jul 20, 2012 13:48:22 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:38:07 GMT -5 wawa said:

Momin (and anybody else who likes her list of restrictions) - How would/do mental health restrictions work for gun control? How do you do those screenings without impinging on privacy rights?

I'm asking seriously.

Im not sure, and that's a good question.
But I'm of the opinion that 99% of citizens shouldn't have guns so I don't really care.

I would go far as to suggest that gun ranges, etc should also be banned unless its for law enforcement. There is a twisted sense of entitlement in the US around guns. We don't need them in the hands of citizens, period.

well...if by twisted sense of entitlement, you mean "it's specifically laid out in our constitutional rights" well then, yes, yes we do.

Momin - I see what you're saying. But if you're going to require that kind of restriction on gun ownership (giving up privacy rights, extensive time and money commitment for ALL guns), then you're going to have to repeal the 2nd ammendment first. I just don't see how you can leave the right to bear arms standing and then restrict it THAT far.

[druidp]

And just for fun, he used an AR-15. Which you CAN target-shoot with. I know this because I have. Sure, you can "firehose" shoot it but if you're using it correctly, you hold it like a rifle and take aim.

[secretlyevil]

Jul 20, 2012 13:54:22 GMT -5 mexicali said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:50:14 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Ding! And really, that's the sum of my whole argument at the beginning of the thread.

YES, this sums it up better for me. Are they quoting this from an article? HOw do the know there were military? I need a link.

the women on my other board seem to think their H's could have taken this guy down with one shot.

It's a friend of a friend. Let me see if I can dig any details up.

Here's a link that says Pentagon confirmed members of the military were in the audience: www.woai.com/news/local/story/Pentagon-Military-casualties-in-Colorado-shooting/wqzXKAXq7E2Up06NoKgjzg.cspx

[Daria Morgandorffer]

Jul 20, 2012 13:54:55 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:38:34 GMT -5 Daria Morgandorffer said:

Mom- I'm on board with about 80% of what you posted. The only things I don't agree with are limits to the types of guns for private citizens and having to establish a necessity.

I'm actually all for tighter gun control (I do work in scary ass downtown Chicago after all), but I can't get down with outright bans.

See??

One of the things about this issue that gets me all crazy is that RESPONSIBLE gun owners and those who are in favor of RESPONSIBLE gun control laws actually share a lot of ground...

but the NRA and their buddies get all OMIGOD!!!! the GOBUMENT is going to make you register as a first step to taking all your guns away!!!!!!1111!!!!!... but that's not what rational gun control laws area about.

Hehe.

I'm actually an NRA life member, courtesy of my father enrolling me as an infant.

There ARE many sane NRA members, but I agree it gets quite hysterical up in there.

[mominatrix]

Jul 20, 2012 13:56:45 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:48:22 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Im not sure, and that's a good question.
But I'm of the opinion that 99% of citizens shouldn't have guns so I don't really care.

I would go far as to suggest that gun ranges, etc should also be banned unless its for law enforcement. There is a twisted sense of entitlement in the US around guns. We don't need them in the hands of citizens, period.

well...if by twisted sense of entitlement, you mean "it's specifically laid out in our constitutional rights" well then, yes, yes we do.

Momin - I see what you're saying. But if you're going to require that kind of restriction on gun ownership (giving up privacy rights, extensive time and money commitment for ALL guns), then you're going to have to repeal the 2nd ammendment first. I just don't see how you can leave the right to bear arms standing and then restrict it THAT far.

You have a constitutional right to travel, but that doesn't mean you get free tickets on amtrak. You have a constitutional right to free speech, but you still have to pay to get an ad on tv. Financial restrictions on constitutional rights are all over the place.

..via mobile.

[Chirp]

Jul 20, 2012 13:54:22 GMT -5 mexicali said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:50:14 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Ding! And really, that's the sum of my whole argument at the beginning of the thread.

YES, this sums it up better for me. Are they quoting this from an article? HOw do the know there were military? I need a link.

the women on my other board seem to think their H's could have taken this guy down with one shot.

Yeah, I would need a link too. I read a comment earlier that said the guy was wearing a riot helmet and a bulletproof vest, but wouldn't state their source and I haven't seen it in any of the articles from people who were on the scene. And now this one has elaborated to include the helmet, vest, leggings (?) and a junk protector, and again, no source.

I'm just curious. 'Cause really... where in the hell do you get an actual riot helmet without rousing any curiosity? I don't think they sell those at the local Army surplus store.

[druidp]

I'd like to take this moment to thank hawkeye and msmerymac for the best quotes summarizing the nanny-state mentality I have seen in a while on here:

And yet, part of living in society is the delicate balance between individual rights and the safety of the public. I don't think "because a small amount of people think it's fun" trumps the possibility of saving lives. - msmerymac

And

Just because people think of something as recreational and enjoyable, doesn't automatically mean they have a right to it. - hawkeye

You heard it here, peeps.

[wawa]

Jul 20, 2012 14:00:35 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Jul 20, 2012 13:56:45 GMT -5 wawa said:

well...if by twisted sense of entitlement, you mean "it's specifically laid out in our constitutional rights" well then, yes, yes we do.

Momin - I see what you're saying. But if you're going to require that kind of restriction on gun ownership (giving up privacy rights, extensive time and money commitment for ALL guns), then you're going to have to repeal the 2nd ammendment first. I just don't see how you can leave the right to bear arms standing and then restrict it THAT far.

You have a constitutional right to travel, but that doesn't mean you get free tickets on amtrak. You have a constitutional right to free speech, but you still have to pay to get an ad on tv. Financial restrictions on constitutional rights are all over the place.

..via mobile.

Hence my specification of ALL guns. You might not get a free cadillac, but nobody can stop you from walking.

You don't get free airtime on CBS, but nobody can stop you from standing on a street corner and talking.

do you see what I'm saying here? You are talking about extensive restrictions on ALL firearms. Not some. All. There is a difference.

I agree with you that fully automatics should require extensive hoop jumping. I don't agree that all semi-autos should go in that same category, but we can get on the same page with the "firehose" weapons. Definitely.