Here's how I view gun control:

The 1st Amendment (free speech) does not equate to complete, 100% freedom of expression. There are well established exceptions.

Similarly, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment equates to the complete freedom to own every and any type of firearm and firearm accessory. In order to maintain a functioning society, there has to be reasonable limits- and that's where gun control fits into the picture.

I have issues with some of the exceptions to free speech (on a related note, the guy responsible for producing 2 girls 1 cup was just sentenced to 4 years in federal prison for violating "obscenity" laws). Similarly, I have issues with some of the provisions of gun control laws. But I still agree that there is a need for clear legislation that limits those rights in certain specific situations.

As to human nature- I am a firm believer that most people on this planet are altruistic- that is to say, their viewpoints and opinions concerning societal issues are based on the intent of improving their society for the betterment of all those who belong to it. Having "good" intentions doesn't always translate to "good" actions though. And unfortunately, for many people the specific route we take towards making the world a better place becomes far more important than the end result.

i wish we had a plus one button on here or something. sometimes you dont have anything to add, but really like what someone says.

As a side note, the video short "2 girls 1 cup" was actually a teaser for a full length feature titled, "Hungry *****es".

I can agree with firmer background checks and mental health evaluations. I can also agree to the ban of full-auto weapons. However, I think we should focus more on gun safety and the prevention of firearms getting into the hands of those that should not have them. In the Sandy Hook shootings, the individual responsible should not have had access to the firearms that he did. With just a bit more security in place as far the firearms go, this would have reduced the situation. US citizens have the right to bear firearms, but we also have the responsibility to prevent them from being accessed by those that should not have them. I, like many others in the state in which I live, were taught gun safety growing up, as well as the responsibility of taking care of said firearms. A gun IS NOT a toy, despite that it can be incredibly fun to do target practicing and the like. We need more people to take this seriously. If this right is taken away, I truly fear for what other rights will be taken away as well.

these teenagers blew up my battlestation and I didn't hit a single damn one

you mean the one that has been in place since 1986?

The only difference between a clip and a magazine is that a magazine is covered on all sides.

The best example I can think of is the en block clip. (The thing that loads the m1 garand.)

Glock with an extended 40 bullet clip with 9mm cop killer bullets.

I am well aware it is still in place. All I was stating was that this ban should stay in place - something that I'm sure a number of those that are anti-gun control would say should be lifted.

A magazine feeds rounds. The M1 Garand has a fixed magazine which is loaded with a clip; the clip is not a magazine.

i have no problem with the idea of it being lifted... as long as the 1934 law (National Firearms Act) requiring registration stays in place (btw since the NFA was put into effect only 2 recorded homicides involving a legally owned fully automatic weapon have happened... both after 1986)

illegal automatic weapons on the other hand... are still fairly rare in the hands of real criminals... and most of those that are used are modified semi-autos

Why should any citizen legally have access to anything other then a 20 gauge over-under (for personal defense if they want.)

****ing retarded question deserves a ****ing retarded answer...

"because we can"

because.

I'm of the opinion that Americans -- particularly those on the conservative right -- are pretty retarded when it comes to guns, and the Constitution in general.

Yeah man; a 12 gauge would be totally out of line.

Unless you want to pass-shoot ducks. Then you're **** out of luck. Or if you suck and can't stop canting your bottom barrel (like me), you might want a pump-action. Or if you can't aim (like me), you might want an auto-loader.

And this thread is officially fixed. Resume conversation.

Cool Matty this is the best thing you have ever done.

how did i miss this... you sir finally contributed something that actually made me laugh

pat yourself on the back but don't let it go to your head

In regards to expanding ammunition;

I keep hollowpoints around because I live in a brick house.

What I don't get is why so many people in the "common sense gun control" camp seem to be so focused on banning the guns that see the least use in actual murders. It's like they make a list of guns in order of their use in crime, and then try to ban them in reverse order of impact. .50 caliber sniper rifles, automatic rifles, ect., are designed for organized engagements. Outside of those situations, their strengths are pretty useless. If you are committing a crime, you are almost never going to be in a situation where you need the range and accuracy of a rifle. Moreover, the size and of the weapons is going to make it a much greater liability. Result? The overwhelming majority of weapons used in crime, are handguns, which are specifically designed for the kind of engagements that tend to come up in crime or self defense.

Automatic weapons even have extremely limited utility for killing, on or off the battlefield. They are great for suppressing fire, or making sure you hit a single target in a drive by, but other than that, you are probably just going to be wasting ammo. I think there is a very strong possibility that had any mass shooters been able to choose full auto weapon, they probably would have had lower kill counts.

What frustrates me is hearing people advocate for laws based on wholly ignorant speculation. No data, no science, no experience, just perceptions gained from watching TV. If the anti-gun control people weren't represented by a bunch of inarticulate right-wing conspiracy nuts, I think this whole thing would have blown over already. durin

What are we going to do, ban the sale of a few select automatic rifles and call it a day? What the hell is that supposed to accomplish?

All I know is that as soon as this blows over, I'm going to start stocking up on AR-15s to sell to paranoid gun nutsg gun scares.

You're wrong.

It's mighty-mighty?
Anyways, I'm a hardcore lefty, but gun control is one area where I definitely lean more moderate/almost rightish. I live in an area where the police can respond swiftly and crime is mostly relegated either to petty bull**** you can fix with a good left hook or nebulous and unpunished white collar crime that, sadly, we can't really defend against. As a result, I have no personal need or desire to own a firearm of any kind. But I recognize that's not the case all across the country. In some places, cops take more than 15 minutes to respond to a call, even moreso in the wilderness states like Alaska.
In fact, let's focus on Alaska, where the cops take 45 minutes to show up because they're currently a hundred miles away. Even if you're pretty sure a simple prowler's not going to come out and attack your family on your tiny little homestead, what's to protect you from the violent wildlife? Bears, man!
Bears!
Anyways, what I'm trying to allude to is I believe that even though I don't need guns for self defense, there's plenty of people in this nation that do, and I don't feel comfortable taking away their right to do so. I do believe that violent offenders and mentally unsound people should be restricted from purchasing firearms, though. And, for that matter, I don't believe anyone really needs automatic assault weapons, but I'm not an expert on what actually constitutes such a thing, and therefore have no authority to comment on it beyond "I don't think it's right".

-So I guess that actually makes me a lefty on that too, probably. Stricter licensing and background checking, and I believe the gun experts should put together a list of weapons that really shouldn't be freely available, but that all told, some people really do need guns in their lives.

Background checks should be more comprehensive.

Agreed, ban all non-ambi firearms.

What constitutes a gun expert?

Police/DOJ, criminologists/sociologists, victim advocates, NRA members/recreational shooters, soldiers/DoD all qualify as experts about firearms and firearm crimes. They all have different and frequently incompatible opinions about what weapons should and should not be available.

For example, concealed carry is welcomed by the NRA and victims, but it's opposed by criminologists because it's statistically worse - people who carry are 4 times more likely to be shot in an incident, independent of other factors.

If there were some group of empirically trustworthy experts who could be trusted to make these decisions, I don't think there would be any meaningful disagreement about this issue.

@Obi, People want "assault weapons" banned largely because they are "scary". If someone decides to use them in a crime, like say a mass shooting, they can potentially take out more people quicker? at least i am guessing that is the idea. A part of the problem though is that there is really no SET definition of an assault weapon.

No citizen should be allowed to have a fully automatic weapon of any kind in an urban center at all ever, there is no reason.

Pistols are designed to be compact, useful for short-range self defense.

The weapon specifically designed for close-quarters combat is a short rifle, carbines, PDWs or submachine guns. This is why Canada prohibits these weapons.

I imagine that price is the main reason criminals choose pistols.

I do agree with that part.

Jon'C is probably correct. Probably a combination of price and ease of concealment. While some rifles/shotguns can be much cheaper than handguns they tend to be more difficult to tuck into your waistband or hide in a pocket. almost any fully auto weapon (legal or illegal) is going to cost FAR more than a pistol.

considering legal full auto starts at around $5K last i checked

and then there's the added paperwork

handguns with a price tag of less than $200 do exist

"Short range" for military combat is a hell of a lot longer than "short range" when you are talking about crime. A sub-machine gun or short rifle is great if you are a trained soldier fighting in an urban environment against people who are shooting back, where you need controllability and accuracy. A pistol probably isn't the weapon you want to use if you are trying to kill someone who is hiding behind cover at 50 yards. A SWAT officer, for example, probably has the coordination and training to extend engagement distance, and needs to minimize collateral damage, so they aren't going to be using pistols. On the flip side, if your engagement distance is mostly 20ft [1] or less, there is dubious justification for anything more than a pistol, regardless of what the "tacti-cool" idiots will have you believe. Even if there was, though, it's not worth sacrificing the ability to conceal the weapon.

There really isn't that huge a difference in price between a a cheap semi-automatic rifle or sub machine gun (semi auto) and a decent hand gun. However, for obvious reasons, being able to conceal a firearm is a pretty big deal if you aren't in an active war zone. Nothing says, "I'm the guy, get me!" quite like having a big ass scary looking rifle near a crime scene. Bedsides, very few places have open carry laws, so good luck carrying a unwieldy rifle or sub-machine gun around with out getting arrested.

[1] http://www.pointshooting.com/sop9.htm




I doubt it would make a big difference. These guys are killing people at extremely close ranges, where a 45 or a 9mm with hollow points would have sufficient lethally. Worse still, you might force them to use something even more effective, like a shotgun. It's really so rare, that it's kind of pointless to worry about, considering how little certainty there is that it would make a difference. Orders of magnitude more people die in conventional crime. For comparison, 532 people were murdered in Chicago alone last year.

considering many shotguns and rifles (100$-300$ range for Mosin Nagants and Mossberg shotguns) are cheaper than handguns (at least in the good ol' US of A) i'd say concealment is a bigger factor than price..

I read the following article via FactCheck.org today & thought that it may be of interest to you folks as you discuss this issue.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

I tend to think that focusing on mass shootings is just a convenient way to ignore the serious social problems that are driving our high murder rates.

It makes for good media sensationalism to work people up, too.

gun control is putting a bandage over a wound with internal bleeding. it looks nice and makes people feel like something is being done, and something is, but it hasn't solved everything

Or because the victims of mass shootings are disproportionately white.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread but I will say it again for your benefit.

No, there is no easy solution. The problem is complex and different incidents happen for different reasons. Gun restrictions won't solve constructive homicide, but they may prevent some crazy autist from shooting up a school with his mom's gun collection. There may be no easy, complete solution, but that doesn't excuse you for doing nothing.

Want to stop all gun crime? Fix your wealth distribution, eliminate minimum mandatory sentences, decriminalize recreational drugs and spend enforcement money on rehabilitation, punish judges who give disproportionate sentences to black people, disband the Republican Party and/or eliminate gerrymandering (either one would cause the other), ... dot dot dot ...., and then you'll still have to ban guns anyway because there will always be some crazy people who want to shoot up schools no matter how nice the rest of your country is.

i vote for the ego party (myself) and vote liberal on most policies

being hard right is fairly akin to being bat**** in this day and age. being on the conservative side of liberal or maybe medium in the current spectrum is about the only sane right position in america