gut;1880429 wrote:Hmmm, so you want to increase the cost of gun ownership? Seems racist....

I think you're being facetious but if this was really an impediment I would be fine with subsidies or rebates for the poor if they could successfully get through a robust regulatory scheme involving licensing and examination of all gun purchases and sales.

SportsAndLady;1880430 wrote:I’m not really a gun guy, but how on earth is this true? This doesn’t seem right.

Because the AR-15 doesn't have a higher rate of fire than semi-auto handguns - in either case it's as fast as you can pull the trigger.

At least, that's my understanding. Someone with two handguns and a few extra clips can spray a crowd with A LOT of bullets in short order.

jmog;1880426 wrote:1. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle since it is not an automatic weapon.
2. An AR-15 fires just as fast as any other semi-automatic hunting rifle, just as fast as a semi-automatic pistol, etc. So yes, a Ruger Mini 14 hunting rifle fires the same ammunition, is semi-auto, and has 30 round clips as well. That rifle just doesn't "look scary" like an AR-15. It looks like a hunting rifle, is perfectly legal, has never been accused of wrong doing like the AR-15 but it is essentially the exact same weapon except for how it looks.
3. Before any moron talks about Bump Stocks, I am in agreement, they simulate near auto fire and should have the same restrictions as fully auto assault rifles.
4. If you don't think a guy with 2 semi-auto pistols or a semi-auto hunting rifle could have pulled off exactly what happened at the church yesterday, then you really do not understand guns.

Jmog's post epitomizes while attempts to ban certain guns will fail.

National firearms act of 1934 has been,hugely successful by criminalizing the sale of automatic weapons. Let's try making it illegal to sell a firearm to any person who doesn't have a license to purchase a firearm - with said license requiring examination.

This could avoid some,of the problems we have seen in this case and the roof case, the Vegas shooter case (and others) where clearly deranged individuals who otherwise were on the edge of the background check system/got passed it and could get firearms.

BoatShoes;1880434 wrote:Let's try making it illegal to sell a firearm to any person who doesn't have a license to purchase a firearm - with said license requiring examination.

That will probably be just as effective as the war on drugs. 200k guns are stolen a year - there's a pretty healthy black market for illegal guns. I'm sure Dylan Roof would have had no trouble buying a gun illegally.

The Vegas shooter had no history. I can't think of a gun law that would have stopped him, and he's a guy who clearly had the means to get some seriously illegal weapons if he so chose.

gut;1880437 wrote:That will probably be just as effective as the war on drugs. 200k guns are stolen a year - there's a pretty healthy black market for illegal guns. I'm sure Dylan Roof would have had no trouble buying a gun illegally.

The Vegas shooter had no history. I can't think of a gun law that would have stopped him, and he's a guy who clearly had the means to get some seriously illegal weapons if he so chose.

Well like I have said I have tried to compare it to securities regulation. Every state in the union + FINRA + The SEC regulates securities transactions & investment advisors. One way is through examination after suspicious,activity. Maybe guys like the Vegas shooter stockpiling guns purchased through his would-be license would raise a read flag that would start an exam,process or administrative action.

There are still illegally sold securities and fraud but it is a pretty good system that has gone a long way to eliminate the massive fraud that took place in the early 1900's.

I agree there would be a black market but it would at least be subject to penalty...e.g. National Firearms Act of 1934 did a pretty good job of eliminating crimes with automatic weapons.

BoatShoes;1880444 wrote:Well like I have said I have tried to compare it to securities regulation.

Why? It's apples-to-oranges. Those regulations exist because investors demand the transparency. The buyers and sellers in the gun industry want no part of what you're proposing.

There are a lot of people who own a lot of guns who never went on a rampage. You're just proposing placebos. It sounds suspiciously like, since you can't make guns illegal, that you want to make gun ownership overly onerous and expensive. Now how do you feel about that with respect to, say, voting?

I can see republicans agreeing to that, BS, about as fast as I can see democrats agreeing to every voter must have a license/voter ID.

Maybe that can be a compromise between the parties? :RpS_w00t:

SportsAndLady;1880430 wrote:I’m not really a gun guy, but how on earth is this true? This doesn’t seem right.

Rugar semi-auto hunting rifles, semi-auto hand guns, etc all fire at the same rate, as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Vegas is a different story with Bump Stocks (which, even as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I believe they should have the same requirements as any fully auto weapon does...meaning nearly impossible to buy).

BoatShoes;1880434 wrote:Jmog's post epitomizes while attempts to ban certain guns will fail.

National firearms act of 1934 has been,hugely successful by criminalizing the sale of automatic weapons. Let's try making it illegal to sell a firearm to any person who doesn't have a license to purchase a firearm - with said license requiring examination.

This could avoid some,of the problems we have seen in this case and the roof case, the Vegas shooter case (and others) where clearly deranged individuals who otherwise were on the edge of the background check system/got passed it and could get firearms.

So you want the only Amendment that requires a license from the federal government to be the 2nd amendment?

Why shouldn't you have to have a license to prevent the government from invading your home?
How about a license to be allowed to speak your mind?

I am sorry that my post lists facts about said weapon that was used as it is not any different than any other semi-auto hunting rifle.

CenterBHSFan;1880446 wrote:I can see republicans agreeing to that, BS, about as fast as I can see democrats agreeing to every voter must have a license/voter ID.

Maybe that can be a compromise between the parties? :RpS_w00t:

touche

gut;1880437 wrote:That will probably be just as effective as the war on drugs. 200k guns are stolen a year - there's a pretty healthy black market for illegal guns. I'm sure Dylan Roof would have had no trouble buying a gun illegally.

Careful. I was vilified pretty harshly for saying effectively the same thing.

BoatShoes;1880444 wrote:One way is through examination after suspicious,activity. Maybe guys like the Vegas shooter stockpiling guns purchased through his would-be license would raise a read flag that would start an exam,process or administrative action.

I understand the thought behind this, but when you change the rules of the game, you'll just change how people play it.

Now, perhaps a more covert way of watching for suspicious activity would be logistically effective, but when it comes to something like tracking purchases through an ID, it'll just raise the demand on the quiet gun purchase market.

BoatShoes;1880444 wrote:There are still illegally sold securities and fraud but it is a pretty good system that has gone a long way to eliminate the massive fraud that took place in the early 1900's.

I think the distinction between an intangible (securities) and a tangible (a gun/dime bag/etc.) is significant. The former is, by its nature, more easily tracked. Now, the surrounding context of its buying and selling isn't, but the unit itself is.

BoatShoes;1880444 wrote:I agree there would be a black market but it would at least be subject to penalty...e.g. National Firearms Act of 1934 did a pretty good job of eliminating crimes with automatic weapons.

The black market on narcotics and other controlled substances is also subject to penalty, though. And it's hard to necessarily prove that the National Firearms Act is the primary contributor to the lack of crime with automatic weapons. The ownership of those weapons is illegal, but we have no means for noting whether or not they're prevalent.

Worth considering, the BJS shows (Table 14) that as of 2004, only about 11.3% of inmates who possessed a firearm at the time of their offense purchased it through a retailer, pawn shop, gun show, or flea market. On the other hand, 77.4% got it from a personal contact, bought it illegally, or stole it. The remaining 11.2% were undetermined, it seems.

Worthy of note, this also seems to throw a stick into the spokes of those who want to make this entirely about mental health as well, since the measures against selling to someone with mental health issues would not stop those not buying from the store.

BoatShoes;1880421 wrote:What else might have stopped this? You should have to be licensed to purchase all firearms with examinations similar to the way investment advisors & reps have to. Since the latter doesn't violate the 1st amendment neither would the former violate the 2nd amendment. In turn, as QCB has,pointed out before, clearly seems like there's problems with current background check system.

I was more getting at that since he had domestic violence he shouldn’t have been able to own a gun anyway. Also, background checks having a problem doesn’t change the law, it’s the government, of course their system is fucked up. I’m all for harsher penalties for crimes but then minimum sentences get called racist. I don’t think beating your wife and child should only be a year in jail.

Regardless, even with your “rules”, a gun can be bought off the street easily if you want to. No law can stop it. And the reason people don’t even want to give an inch, like on bump stops, is because they don’t stop at an inch. Democrats already tried passing something with bump stocks in it and then loaded a bunch of other things too.

With respects to an AR vs pistol, a single pistol with multiple magazines would inflict just as much damage, although an AR would be easier to aim after 15 feet. The 40 round magazine in the AR also would have made it more effective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SportsAndLady;1880430 wrote:I’m not really a gun guy, but how on earth is this true? This doesn’t seem right.

At the very least, it is MUCH easier to sneak a handgun into a crowded area than a rifle. It's also a little easier/quicker to aim with a handgun at short distances, at least in my opinion. Which, again, is why going after a specific type of gun as Dr Boogie alluded to, would do little to nothing to stop events like this.

justincredible;1880465 wrote:At the very least, it is MUCH easier to sneak a handgun into a crowded area than a rifle. It's also a little easier/quicker to aim with a handgun at short distances, at least in my opinion. Which, again, is why going after a specific type of gun as Dr Boogie alluded to, would do little to nothing to stop events like this.

Not to mention the fact that you can wield two handguns at once.

Not that I really want to go there, but based on what appears to have been the objective, semi-auto handguns would have made more sense. But I guess they don't look as scary, and my guess is that not every shooter is particularly bright.

Supposedly the douche fractured his step sons skull. How is that a 1 year in jail offense?
Oh and supposedly he was able to get a gun bc the Air Force never entered the conviction into a federal database. (It was reported by NPR and the AP, but I’m still going with supposedly). So the law worked, but the government sucks. Where have I heard that one before.

Edit to add that the gov was also at fault with Dylan Roof’s gun purchase


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jmog;1880426 wrote:1. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle since it is not an automatic weapon.
2. An AR-15 fires just as fast as any other semi-automatic hunting rifle, just as fast as a semi-automatic pistol, etc. So yes, a Ruger Mini 14 hunting rifle fires the same ammunition, is semi-auto, and has 30 round clips as well. That rifle just doesn't "look scary" like an AR-15. It looks like a hunting rifle, is perfectly legal, has never been accused of wrong doing like the AR-15 but it is essentially the exact same weapon except for how it looks.
3. Before any moron talks about Bump Stocks, I am in agreement, they simulate near auto fire and should have the same restrictions as fully auto assault rifles.
4. If you don't think a guy with 2 semi-auto pistols or a semi-auto hunting rifle could have pulled off exactly what happened at the church yesterday, then you really do not understand guns.

This

Man the dumb fucks on the left and in the media should really wait a day to tweet about a tragedy. Turns out the gov fucked up AND an NRA trained instructor was the man who engaged the shooter. There goes all the narratives that they spent all day blaming the NRA. Schmucks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea....US government going to pay a pretty penny to the victims families on this one.

iclfan2;1880507 wrote:Man the dumb fucks on the left and in the media should really wait a day to tweet about a tragedy. Turns out the gov fucked up AND an NRA trained instructor was the man who engaged the shooter. There goes all the narratives that they spent all day blaming the NRA. Schmucks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both sides use these events immediately, there is not monopoly on the left. Once some crackpot shoots a place up, the gun lovers are out in force saying, "Oh, now the libs are going to blame guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people" etc.

Not having access to assault weapons would make a difference. We have nut jobs here that use them in all of these big events. There's a reason they don't bring a handgun. You cannot buy similar weapons in most other western countries. Assuming there are proportionally the same number of nut jobs in those countries as in ours, why then to we have more of these events on a massive scale then elsewhere?

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880530 wrote:Both sides use these events immediately, there is not monopoly on the left. Once some crackpot shoots a place up, the gun lovers are out in force saying, "Oh, now the libs are going to blame guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people" etc.

Not having access to assault weapons would make a difference. We have nut jobs here that use them in all of these big events. There's a reason they don't bring a handgun. You cannot buy similar weapons in most other western countries. Assuming there are proportionally the same number of nut jobs in those countries as in ours, why then to we have more of these events on a massive scale then elsewhere?

I proposed this question a million times, and people like you still haven't given me an answer. When we ban "assault" weapons like we already did for a 10 year span, what do you do when gun crime statistics don't change?

The picture of a well-regulated militia

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880532 wrote:The picture of a well-regulated militia

The picture of not having 2nd amendment rights vs a tyrannical government.



If you're going to go full retard with posts like the one you just posted, it is only seems reasonable to counter them with this.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880530 wrote:Both sides use these events immediately, there is not monopoly on the left. Once some crackpot shoots a place up, the gun lovers are out in force saying, "Oh, now the libs are going to blame guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people" etc.

Not having access to assault weapons would make a difference. We have nut jobs here that use them in all of these big events. There's a reason they don't bring a handgun. You cannot buy similar weapons in most other western countries. Assuming there are proportionally the same number of nut jobs in those countries as in ours, why then to we have more of these events on a massive scale then elsewhere?

ARs aren't assault weapons. And yea, a terrorist attack happens, people say things about vetting immigrants etc and are told to not politicize, then a white guy shoots someone and it is politicized immediately AND WRONG. Both sides do it, but usually the right is calling out terrorists and the left are calling our republicans.

A truck killed 84 people in Nice, did you forget that?

Another issue coming out is that people here are calling for new laws, yet the government isn't enforcing laws that already exist. It is a felony to lie on a 4473, but Biden himself admitted they don't have time to follow up on these incidents when a felon tries to buy a gun by lying on an application. Further, how many local/ state governments are slow or don't even report all felony convictions to the database? Enforce laws on the books already before trying to implement new laws and punish states and municipalities that do not comply with said laws.

So, I want to know if the rep. from Texas who was talking to CNN was misinformed by government officials or if he was hoaxed by somebody else:
http://ussanews.com/News1/2017/11/06/texas-rep-falsely-accuses-comedian-sam-hyde-as-texas-shooter-on-cnn/

Either way, this is awful.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880532 wrote:The picture of a well-regulated militia

He wasn't allowed to own a gun. Do you do any research before you post?