Which do you support most and why? (Select 1 or more)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you include AR-15s on military type weapons, because I'm pretty sure they aren't. They just look spooky.
Well to be honest, you are right but I'm playing along. It's not a military-type weapon, it's a semi-automatic rifle made to look like a military-type weapon (like an M-16 or M4). The ammo caliber is different and it's not fully-automatic. Altering to make it full-auto is illegal but that's true of any semi-auto rifle.

Same thing holds true for an AK-47. If it's designed as full-auto, it's a military weapon. If not, it's just another semi-auto rifle like an AR-15.

Based on this then none of those 49 mass shootings involved a military type weapon.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
We still had multitudes of mass killings (43) that did not involve a military type weapon
You know, it boggles the mind that after all the people we've had killed by guns in this country, you people still want to argue about which guns they used in the mass killings. Will it take one of your family members being a victim before you open up your stinking eyes to the truth? I'm done here.
 
You know, it boggles the mind that after all the people we've had killed by guns in this country, you people still want to argue about which guns they used in the mass killings. Will it take one of your family members being a victim before you open up your stinking eyes to the truth? I'm done here.
You also said this.

Restricting access to anything more than hunting rifles (not semi-automatic) and pistols for home defense, and returning to the enlightened days of no concealed carry, would go a long way to making this country safer.
You were the first on this thread to start talking about which guns. Is this a standard tactic to bring up a subject and then mock someone else that argues your subject? Yes "boggles the mind" is a mock attempt although a very weak one.

One last thing. If I buy a Jeep and paint it olive drab or forest green, does that make it a military type vehicle? Or do I have to go a little further and throw a little camouflage into the body paint? Will that now make it a military type vehicle? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Last edited:

ShadowWarload

Active Member
How many mass killing by random people you saw in Europe lately! Teenagers can get emotional too often of silly reasons and if they have access to guns they can become a mass murderer. otherwise, they would just go away from home for a few hours.
 

Titris Thrawns

Well-Known Member
Hrmm, I haven't waded into a Gun debate discussion in awhile. Time to see how many blindsides I have.

Limiting magazine sizes - I have no problem with that. Many states already do that. In California, where I live, magazines are limited to hold 10 ammo. However, the only thing this will do is slow someone down from switching mags. What's the difference if I have 3 magazines holding 30 rounds vs. 9 magazines holding 10 rounds (assume we are talking about rifles and not pistols)? Pistols are different because it isn't realistic to have a 30 round mag (even a .22 mag holding 30 rounds wouldn't be realistic).
Supposition argument: If we take into account police response and/or Blaze of glory types, it certainly would be an advantage to force the 'bad guys' to slow down to switch mags now and then.

I agree that there isn't much difference other than that, but that seems like a clear advantage for controlling the .01% of crazies who don't bother to secure bigger mags.

Regardless, it leads to the question of why the rest of us non-crazies need the bigger mags. If the only defense is 'because I want to fire off 30 rounds', then that raises a red flag on that person's 'non-crazy' status in my book. Need > Want would be what I'd support, but I admit that gets subjective quick.

ozzonelayyer said:
Expanding background checks. Again I have no problem with this but... I don't believe someone should have to go through a background check every single time they buy a firearm. That's ridiculous and just a means to make more revenue because it costs you every time it's done. Expanding them to all sales is ok, but they should be only done on a time basis (in other words a maximum of once each year if you purchase a gun).
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I agree with your logic. Red Tape = blarg. On the other, if we accept waiting periods as necessary, then the 'once a year' stance isn't tenable. Also, the smart gun buyer will buy in bulk once a year rather than get hit with the cost of multiple background checks a year due to poor impulse control in purchasing.

ozzonelayyer said:
Waiting periods. This should only be as long as it takes to complete the background check, or 3 days, and not a mandatory 10 days like here in California. I've been told by gun dealers that it only takes a day or two to get the results back. The argument that the waiting period is to prevent someone from buying a gun (out of anger or some current emotional state) is a valid one but 10 days???? Seriously? Most people don't stay angry more than a day or two. What other reason would there be for a waiting period? I've heard the argument it's a "cool down" period before actually acquiring the gun.
I have to ask you to see your sources on the 'most people don't stay angry more than a day or two'. If a crazie has decided they want a gun to shoot someone(s), then I don't think their anger is 'normal'. I suppose another reason for the waiting period is to give authorities a chance to catch up? 10 days may allow them to catch the crazy in the plotting stage? I guess the weakness of that argument is if the background check is done in 2-3 days, then is there an actual check at the end of the 10 day period, or is it just a hopeful 'let's see if the crazy reveals their plan early and gets caught by the authorities before they pick up their gun(s)'.

Regardless, the sad truth of any regulation in regards to mental state is going to be weird since there is little medical technology can do now to 'quantify' anger cool down. When Medical Technology DOES hit that kind of level... then we have to deal with Minority Report type struggles.

ozzonelayyer said:
Mental health checks. Hmmm. This one is the toughest and presents the biggest slippery slope. What mental state should a person have that would prevent them from buying a firearm? Who would determine that? How? In my opinion, a person should not be required to have a check done BUT if there is a recent history of a SERIOUS mental issue, then they should be flagged and that should be caught in the background check. What do you want to do, have people go see a shrink before they buy a gun? Get real.
This kinda ties into the previous point. I'll just add: Forcing everyone to go to a shrink before they buy a gun would be 'nice'... If we could get your previous slippery slope questions answered in a way we like. Probably would need socialized health care to avoid the pitfall of social economic status robbing one of their 2nd amendment right. The issue I have with mental checks, regardless of seriousness, is how it could act as a determent from people getting the help they need for their issues. *shrugs*

ozzonelayyer said:
One thing I will never, ever agree on is a national registry. Too many ways for the government to abuse it.
On the one-hand, I agree with Captain America. On the other hand, Stark kinda has a point. I have to go research how Driver's Licenses work now.


You know, it boggles the mind that after all the people we've had killed by guns in this country, you people still want to argue about which guns they used in the mass killings.
Sadly, I think that has to be part of the argument. Unless all guns are banned, good regulation should take each gun into account. If magazine or 'automatic' status is part of the regulation debate, then this further shows that the 'type of gun' should be looked at. I think the 'type of gun' issue suffers majority to what SJS said about either side working the definitions to fit their agenda.


Anywho, that probably ended up being more sharing than arguments. I try to play it safe when it comes to guns.
 
Titris, I'll try to answer each point the best I can.

Regardless, it leads to the question of why the rest of us non-crazies need the bigger mags. If the only defense is 'because I want to fire off 30 rounds', then that raises a red flag on that person's 'non-crazy' status in my book. Need > Want would be what I'd support, but I admit that gets subjective quick.
And this is where you lost me. There's that word again - 'need'. Government should never have the power to determine what we need unless we prove otherwise.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I agree with your logic. Red Tape = blarg. On the other, if we accept waiting periods as necessary, then the 'once a year' stance isn't tenable. Also, the smart gun buyer will buy in bulk once a year rather than get hit with the cost of multiple background checks a year due to poor impulse control in purchasing.
I'm thinking more like a license (not much different than a fishing or hunting license) good for one year after passing a background check. Your ID number authorizes you to purchase a gun without having to get a background check to purchase it. Each year you renew it with a background check. Annual fees would pay for the creation of cards and running the data system.

In regards to them buying bulk once a year, they wouldn't need to since they can buy anytime during that year without having to get a background check.

I have to ask you to see your sources on the 'most people don't stay angry more than a day or two'. If a crazie has decided they want a gun to shoot someone(s), then I don't think their anger is 'normal'. I suppose another reason for the waiting period is to give authorities a chance to catch up? 10 days may allow them to catch the crazy in the plotting stage? I guess the weakness of that argument is if the background check is done in 2-3 days, then is there an actual check at the end of the 10 day period, or is it just a hopeful 'let's see if the crazy reveals their plan early and gets caught by the authorities before they pick up their gun(s)'.
Maybe I'm an optimist. I would never expect someone, that suddenly became angry, to stay angry very long once the issue passed. Now, deep-seated anger, means nothing and there's no time-limit how long someone will wait.

However, the idea that the extra time helps the authorities to catch that person, plotting to do something bad, needs to have some numbers to back it up. How many times has the 10 day period prevented someone from getting a gun who shouldn't have gotten one? What you offer is speculation, what I ask for is proof.

Regardless, the sad truth of any regulation in regards to mental state is going to be weird since there is little medical technology can do now to 'quantify' anger cool down. When Medical Technology DOES hit that kind of level... then we have to deal with Minority Report type struggles.
There's the dilemma we face for the future. At what point, as a society, do we start charging and sentencing people BEFORE they commit a crime?

On the one-hand, I agree with Captain America. On the other hand, Stark kinda has a point. I have to go research how Driver's Licenses work now.
Loki has a point also. Think about that the next time you visit the DMV.
 
Please enlighten me on the difference.
Sure.

Conspiracy to commit: In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense.

1) Requires 2 or more people
2) Requires at least one overt act

What I am referring to is charging (even a single person) and sentencing before a crime is even committed. Shades of "Minority Report" kinda. Let's say for example some idiot posts on twitter or facebook that he is going to rob a bank. Or someone overhears him talking about it. He actually hasn't committed a crime yet nor done anything to clearly indicate the crime is going to be committed (other than him saying it). Should he be charged and sentenced?

The day that starts to happen is the day we are screwed as a society. Wouldn't you agree?
 

Ozyman Tremble Weaklings

Well-Known Member
Sure.

Conspiracy to commit: In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense.

1) Requires 2 or more people
2) Requires at least one overt act

What I am referring to is charging (even a single person) and sentencing before a crime is even committed. Shades of "Minority Report" kinda. Let's say for example some idiot posts on twitter or facebook that he is going to rob a bank. Or someone overhears him talking about it. He actually hasn't committed a crime yet nor done anything to clearly indicate the crime is going to be committed (other than him saying it). Should he be charged and sentenced?

The day that starts to happen is the day we are screwed as a society. Wouldn't you agree?
I think we're already at that point, but the tweeter wouldn't be immediately arrested. The post would be justification enough for a warrant which would then have to provide evidence of an overt act. But people are already being arrested for tweets as an individual, usual justification is that the post is attempting to cause public unrest or undue anxiety to the population as a whole. I don't like this comparison to Minority Report though, those arrests are based off people seeing events happening the future, not just the threat of an event happening.
 
I think we're already at that point, but the tweeter wouldn't be immediately arrested. The post would be justification enough for a warrant which would then have to provide evidence of an overt act. But people are already being arrested for tweets as an individual, usual justification is that the post is attempting to cause public unrest or undue anxiety to the population as a whole. I don't like this comparison to Minority Report though, those arrests are based off people seeing events happening the future, not just the threat of an event happening.
Good point. Using Minority Report wasn't a good example.

Again, I was specific about charging and sentencing someone. Law enforcement gets warrants all the time but that doesn't give prosecutors the authority to charge someone and doesn't give a judge the authority to sentence someone unless an actual crime was committed.

So, once again, what will happen to society when someone can be charged and sentenced for a crime (not conspiracy to commit which is a crime) that they haven't committed yet?
 

Ozyman Tremble Weaklings

Well-Known Member
Good point. Using Minority Report wasn't a good example.

Again, I was specific about charging and sentencing someone. Law enforcement gets warrants all the time but that doesn't give prosecutors the authority to charge someone and doesn't give a judge the authority to sentence someone unless an actual crime was committed.

So, once again, what will happen to society when someone can be charged and sentenced for a crime (not conspiracy to commit which is a crime) that they haven't committed yet?
No need to worry then, the laws will be rewritten to make the threat the offense so they wll be violating the law. So instead of that being reserved just for terrorist threats and threats against anyone under Secret Service protection (only two I can think of off the top of my head) it'll be a blanket law that makes it illegal to even think about breaking a law.
 
No need to worry then, the laws will be rewritten to make the threat the offense so they wll be violating the law. So instead of that being reserved just for terrorist threats and threats against anyone under Secret Service protection (only two I can think of off the top of my head) it'll be a blanket law that makes it illegal to even think about breaking a law.
Just what we need. Thought Police.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
Vote Topic 1:
A. Guns don't kill people, I do.
B. Guns don't kill people they just make it easier.
C. Guns don't kill people Gaping holes in vital organs kill people.
D. Guns don't kill people fathers with pretty daughters do.
E. So if guns DO kill people then I guess pencils misspell words, Cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.
F. Guns don't kill people technically the bullets do.
G. Coconuts kill more people do every year than guns shoot someone.
H. Guns kill people.
Locked, loaded and will to help you test any theory you may have.

Oooops ... A-H
 

Elfwand

New Member
The problem isn't who or what kills but how they can be regulated. flat out bans don't work. DC, NYC and Chicago all have very strict laws on gun ownership and very high rates of gun crime. a person planning to break the law by robbing a store isn't going to care if they break the law by owning a gun. And if there's a shooting there's a rush to pass a new law, which the criminals will ignore, instead of seeing why the existing laws failed and correcting that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.