Mass stabbing at Texas school results in... zero deaths

[stinkyfish]

Would you like me to read you the difference as defined in the law I just linked?

Yes, if you would please sir. Just for clarification and reference in this thread. Since we are trying to discuss "reasonable" firearm legislation, we should know exactly what we are talking about. So what is the difference between and "assault weapon" rifle and a regular run of the mill semi automatic rifle ?

Is the only high performance car in existence a Ferrari F430?  Since that's the only example I mentioned, I guess so!

No, there are plenty of other high performance cars in existence. I have no experience with high performance cars of that price range and and I can list many examples. I have plenty of experience with firearms and aside from your example of a specific firearm with specific ammunition. Off the top of my head, I can't come up with anything that won't fire through a wall or across the road and kill or injure someone.

[stinkyfish]

This discussion is absolutely ridiculous.....there is more than just the extreme positions of banning guns and having all weapons available and everyone carrying.

My position and one that I feel is reasonable:
- Have universal background checks for everyone that wants to buy a weapon. The far right gun lobby view that this infringes on any 2nd amendment right is completely false. EVERY responsible gun owner should welcome this step to try and curb the mentally ill or criminals from getting guns easily. And the argument that "Criminals will get guns anyway", while it may be true, why not try something rather than following the same path we have been on.

You are aware that there are already laws against the mentally ill or criminals from buying firearms. Since Sandy Hook happened, it seems the "more laws" people are foaming at the mouth. Adam Lanza tried to buy a firearm and was declined, the law did it's job as intended, and Sandy Hook still happened. It goes to show you that if a criminal or mentally ill individual can't buy a gun legally, they will get it illegally or steal it . A good many mass killings aren't from criminals or mentally ill people, just normal people that for some reason or another just snap one day. These people would pass your proposed universal background check, then go kill people. Problem not solved.

- Ban on high capacity mags and military assault weapons; but available for use in certain self contained and licensed places that have shooting ranges or tactical weapons training. But these guns should not leave the facility. There is really no reason for the common citizen to own these weapons other than the above use. All currently owned weapons would be grandfathered in.

As previously noted in this thread. Military assault weapons are already restricted and regulated. And a ban on magazines over a certain capacity does very little to prevent crime. It literally takes 2-3 seconds to change a magazine and be back on target firing. From the majority of reports that I have read. The 1994 assault weapons ban had little to no impact on total crime rates. Most studies reflect that while crime with banned weapons decreased slightly, crime with other types of firearms increased more than enough to offset the drop in use of assault weapons. If the goal is to reduce total crime. Go through the proper channels and repeal the 2nd amendment. Knock yourself out and have at it. But banning a single type of weapon that is used in a very small percentage of overall total crime is just not going to work.

I just don't understand the thought that if the more people you have carrying, the safer you are....if I go into a store and see a few guys with guns bulging from underneath their shirt or a holster, I am instantly more nervous and very aware of my surroundings. Unless one or more of them is clearly law enforcement, I do not feel safer in that environment.

Well Mboss, I don't know what to tell you. If your fear of firearms make you want to limit or take away law abiding citizens 2nd amendment right, it seems you are the one that has the problem. I can assure you that open carry and concealed carry aren't going to be banned anytime soon. In light of that, the only 2 solutions I see for you in that respect, is to either go out to a range and take a firearms safety class and do some shooting. Maybe even start carrying yourself. The other solutions involves not leaving the house and living scared. Ever notice that the cities with the strictest gun restrictions for law abiding citizens have the highest criminal use of firearms ? That should tell you something.

[stinkyfish]

fuck the NRA .. seriously .. people think it's some sort of gun owner right organization and it isn't .. it's a industry funded promotion group .. their concern is that gun companies make the most sales they can and anything that slows that down, they oppose .. people need to wake up

QFT

I'll throw a third on the "F the NRA" sentiment... They serve no purpose other than their own bottom line, and their bottom line is best served by increasing gun sales.

While I can understand your frustration. "Fuck the NRA" is hardly a productive way to get what you want or discuss reasonable firearm/crime reform. It really doesn't matter the reason behind why they support what they support. Half the country seems to agree with their support for firearms, 2nd amendment, gun sales, their own bottom line, etc. Also, it seems that politicians "care" what their NRA rating is. Why do you think that is ?

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, if you would please sir. Just for clarification and reference in this thread. Since we are trying to discuss "reasonable" firearm legislation, we should know exactly what we are talking about. So what is the difference between and "assault weapon" rifle and a regular run of the mill semi automatic rifle?

Here is the text from the link I just pasted:

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

        Folding or telescoping stock
        Pistol grip
        Bayonet mount
        Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
        Grenade launcher

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

        Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
        Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
        Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
        Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
        A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

        Folding or telescoping stock
        Pistol grip
        Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
        Detachable magazine.

    The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons (all of which are or were commonly used by police or military forces, in various countries around the globe):

        Norinco, Mitchell Arms, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models)
        Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Uzi
        Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil
        Beretta AR-70 and

            SC-70 (variant of the AR-70)

        Colt AR-15
        Fabrique National FN FAL

            FN LAR and
            FNC

        MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10

            MAC-11
            MAC 11/9 and
            MAC-12

        Steyr AUG
        INTRATEC TEC-9

            TEC-DC9 and
            TEC-22

        Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the "Street Sweeper" and/or

            Striker 12 (commonly referred to as the "Street Sweeper").

I hope that helps.

No, there are plenty of other high performance cars in existence. I have no experience with high performance cars of that price range and and I can list many examples. I have plenty of experience with firearms and aside from your example of a specific firearm with specific ammunition. Off the top of my head, I can't come up with anything that won't fire through a wall or across the road and kill or injure someone.

You seem to be mixing up points.  Does the example of "high performance" (yet factory equipped) cars help you to understand the concept of "high capacity" (yet factory equipped) magazines?  Because that was the purpose of that analogy.

As for your following statement, I'd say that the best time to make the claim that you can't conceive of another weapon that won't fire through a wall and (not or) across the road was probably before you decided to give an unprompted dissertation on frangible rounds.  Just saying.

[Spider-Dan]

Adam Lanza tried to buy a firearm and was declined, the law did it's job as intended, and Sandy Hook still happened. It goes to show you that if a criminal or mentally ill individual can't buy a gun legally, they will get it illegally or steal it .

To clarify: are you saying that the use of a weapon by someone other than the legally registered owner of that weapon should be a crime?  If so, should the gun owner also be prosecuted?

It sounds like you're saying that if Adam Lanza was home alone, a burglar had broken in, and Lanza had shot him, he would be exactly as guilty of a crime as he was by stealing his mother's guns for Sandy Hook.  His mother instructed him how to use the weapons and either explicitly granted him access or failed to properly secure them.  Is Ms. Lanza also guilty of a crime?

Should a background check have been required if Ms. Lanza wanted to give her son one of the guns that she was training him how to use?
 

And a ban on magazines over a certain capacity does very little to prevent crime. It literally takes 2-3 seconds to change a magazine and be back on target firing.

In point of fact, the massacre at Tuscon was stopped when Jared Loughner was switching from one 30-round clip to another.  Had he been using 10-round clips, the loss of life could have been greatly reduced.

Ever notice that the cities with the strictest gun restrictions for law abiding citizens have the highest criminal use of firearms ?

Really?  Which gun-loving American city had a lower criminal firearm use rate than Tokyo?

Oh, wait... I'm guessing you were referring exclusively to U.S. cities where you're no more than a 2-hour drive from buying as many guns as you want.  Never mind, then.

[stinkyfish]

One thing at a time.

You seem to be mixing up points.  Does the example of "high performance" (yet factory equipped) cars help you to understand the concept of "high capacity" (yet factory equipped) magazines?  Because that was the purpose of that analogy.

As for your following statement, I'd say that the best time to make the claim that you can't conceive of another weapon that won't fire through a wall and (not or) across the road was probably before you decided to give an unprompted dissertation on frangible rounds.  Just saying.

Let's try this.
You stated:

I support guns for purposes of home protection (but I don't support guns powerful enough to travel across the street and kill your neighbor on a miss).

I asked you what firearm won't fire through walls or across the street ?

You answered :

If I fire a shotgun inside, will buckshot travel through the walls of my home, across the street, through the wall of my neighbor's home, and into the bed of their kid?  You tell me.

Now my questions is, since you don't support "guns powerful enough to travel across the street and kill your neighbor on a miss". Besides one certain gun used in conjunction with one certain type of ammunition. What are some other guns that you support, that are not "powerful enough to travel across the street and kill your neighbor on a miss"?

[stinkyfish]

To clarify: are you saying that the use of a weapon by someone other than the legally registered owner of that weapon should be a crime?  If so, should the gun owner also be prosecuted?

First off, there is no federal legally required registration of  firearms with exception of NFA compliant items. Also, the vast majority of states have no legally required registration of firearms. If memory serves me correctly, only 9 states require registration. All 9 require handgun registration and only 2-3 require long gun registration.

So, to clarify for you. Since there is no "legal" registration for the majority of the country. The use or possession of a weapon by someone other than the owner is not a crime. Provided that the owner has given permission and the weapon isn't stolen. And the person in possession is legally allowed to possess a firearm.

It sounds like you're saying that if Adam Lanza was home alone, a burglar had broken in, and Lanza had shot him, he would be exactly as guilty of a crime as he was by stealing his mother's guns for Sandy Hook.  His mother instructed him how to use the weapons and either explicitly granted him access or failed to properly secure them.  Is Ms. Lanza also guilty of a crime?

Good question. I would venture to guess that if Adam Lanza took his mothers guns without her consent that he would be guilty of stealing her guns. I would also guess that if Adam Lanza was mentally ill and his mother explicitly granted him access to, gave him possession of, or had reason to believe that he would take possession of her firearms, that she would be guilty of a crime. As far as current law goes, I don't know if they had a state law about properly securing firearms.

Should a background check have been required if Ms. Lanza wanted to give her son one of the guns that she was training him how to use?

She couldn't legally give possession of a firearm to a mentally ill person. He would have failed the background check anyhow.

In point of fact, the massacre at Tuscon was stopped when Jared Loughner was switching from one 30-round clip to another.  Had he been using 10-round clips, the loss of life could have been greatly reduced.

Had 30 round magazines been banned. Loughner could have simply brought a fully loaded shotgun and 2 fully loaded 10 round pistols and the loss of life could have been greatly increased. Specifically, Giffords melon would be gone with the wind and she would no longer be with us. We can all play the "what if " game.

Really?  Which gun-loving American city had a lower criminal firearm use rate than Tokyo?

Oh, wait... I'm guessing you were referring exclusively to U.S. cities where you're no more than a 2-hour drive from buying as many guns as you want.  Never mind, then.

To clarify, strict anti-gun laws and lower firearm ownership rates do not equal less crime or safer. Conversely,  higher firearm ownership rates does not equal more crime and less safe. In fact, per your request, taking the whole world into account, I believe the exact opposite. Do you disagree ?

[stinkyfish]

Here is the text from the link I just pasted:

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

        Folding or telescoping stock
        Pistol grip
        Bayonet mount
        Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
        Grenade launcher

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

        Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
        Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
        Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
        Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
        A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

        Folding or telescoping stock
        Pistol grip
        Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
        Detachable magazine.

    The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons (all of which are or were commonly used by police or military forces, in various countries around the globe):

        Norinco, Mitchell Arms, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models)
        Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Uzi
        Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil
        Beretta AR-70 and

            SC-70 (variant of the AR-70)

        Colt AR-15
        Fabrique National FN FAL

            FN LAR and
            FNC

        MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10

            MAC-11
            MAC 11/9 and
            MAC-12

        Steyr AUG
        INTRATEC TEC-9

            TEC-DC9 and
            TEC-22

        Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the "Street Sweeper" and/or

            Striker 12 (commonly referred to as the "Street Sweeper").

I hope that helps.

I still don't get the difference. As far as I know, there are fully automatic select fire military "assault rifles" and there are "ordinary" semi automatic rifles.

Is one of these an assault weapon ? Are they both assault weapons ? They both have detachable magazines.

[Spider-Dan]

I had a reply typed up, but I think I'm done feeding the badger6.

Good day, sir.  On to the next sockpuppet account!

[bsmooth]

No, there are plenty of other high performance cars in existence. I have no experience with high performance cars of that price range and and I can list many examples. I have plenty of experience with firearms and aside from your example of a specific firearm with specific ammunition. Off the top of my head, I can't come up with anything that won't fire through a wall or across the road and kill or injure someone.

There are plenty of examples. The fact you cannot come up with them, combined with the fact you could not explain why the military went to 3 round burst over fully automatic speaks to just how litle you know about firearms and ammunition.
Hollow points based on their design will not go through multiple walls or vehicles, etc. and maintain lethal energy like full metal jacketed rounds will.
Caliber, bullet weight, and velocity play a huge role as well. We do not have a problem of people getting killed by over penetrating of rounds fired in defense from one home into another. Most people who have been killed in their homes were hit by rounds that only penetrated the wall of their home or were jacketed bullets from a rifle.

[bsmooth]

Here is a good informative site for those of you who lack knowledge of ballistics and weapons. Not the end all by any means, but it is a starting point for those of you who have little to no firearm experience...so you cannot be trolled by people claiming to be "knowledgeable".
http://www.ballistics101.com/personal_defense.php

[Phishfan]

Nice site for the uninformed I guess. I do take some issue with their position on penetration though. They seem to overstate the desired penetration needed for a lethal shot. They talk about needing 12 inches of penetration. How many human torsos are so large that it takes 12 inches of penetration to get to vital organs? Personally, I use a hollow point round that is filled with shotgun pellets. When the round expands on impact the pellets then penetrate deeper.

[mboss]

Well Mboss, I don't know what to tell you. If your fear of firearms make you want to limit or take away law abiding citizens 2nd amendment right, it seems you are the one that has the problem. I can assure you that open carry and concealed carry aren't going to be banned anytime soon. In light of that, the only 2 solutions I see for you in that respect, is to either go out to a range and take a firearms safety class and do some shooting. Maybe even start carrying yourself. The other solutions involves not leaving the house and living scared. Ever notice that the cities with the strictest gun restrictions for law abiding citizens have the highest criminal use of firearms ? That should tell you something.

You make assumptions about me just based on my positions....I don't fear guns. I have shot handguns at shooting ranges/gun stores before, but I do not own one. I don't live in fear of going out of the house, but as I stated, in a situation where guns are introduced to a fairly normal situation it makes me much more aware of my surroundings and more nervous because I don't know these people, or if they have any intentions to use their weapons.

[stinkyfish]

I had a reply typed up, but I think I'm done feeding the badger6.

Good day, sir.  On to the next sockpuppet account!

Are you talking to me ? If you are, I don't get it. Can you clarify ?

[Phishfan]

Are you talking to me ? If you are, I don't get it. Can you clarify ?

Badger 6 was another site visitor. he is saying you are the same person.