Gun Laws

[9wood]

When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.

[rkim291968]

For those who are gun enthusiasts, is there anything that can be improved (e.g, banning or restricting military style guns)?   Or, the current laws are to be left alone?

[Gunther]

I don't have a huge problem limiting clips to 10 rounds but other than that, there are enough laws around gun control.  Just because a rifle looks like a military weapon doesn't make it one.  Those AKs and such do not fire automatic rounds, already a law there.  So, they are no more dangerous than a semi-auto shotgun except to the extent that their clips can hold 30 rounds or more.  

[iacas]

3 hours ago, imsys0042 said:

I took a break from the forums after one of the other threads.   I don't think it's the right thing to do, but when the rhetoric or talking points get out of hand, you carry bad feelings into other threads.

That's a big part of why we shut the threads down.

I mostly stay out of the political threads, and other threads, and will actively block the usernames/avatars section of the site so I don't attach negative feelings toward someone about whom I like in golf conversations.

12 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

For those who are gun enthusiasts, is there anything that can be improved (e.g, banning or restricting military style guns)?   Or, the current laws are to be left alone?

I think calling people "gun enthusiasts" goes a bit too far (unless you want the one or two actual "gun enthusiasts" on here to post, of which I am not one), but please define "military style"? Because a hunting rifle is almost "military style." So what makes a gun "military style" in your opinion?

1 minute ago, Gunther said:

I don't have a huge problem limiting clips to 10 rounds but other than that, there are enough laws around gun control.  Just because a rifle looks like a military weapon doesn't make it one.  Those AKs and such do not fire automatic rounds, already a law there.  So, they are no more dangerous than a semi-auto shotgun except to the extent that their clips can hold 30 rounds or more.  

That would be almost pointless. The average number of bullets fired in a gunfight is something like 3.5. People who want to commit mass gun shooting things can either:

• Bring more clips filled with ammo.
• Manufacture, buy, or PRINT (3D printers…) their own clips of whatever capacity they want.

Clips are one of those things anti-gun people think is a "win" but it really results in almost no change. There are millions of higher-capacity clips out there, and they're easy to modify, make, print, etc. if you are so bad at being a criminal that you can't find any.

I'm all for rational toughening of gun laws. I don't need a new gun the day after I decide to get one. I can wait awhile, and they can look at my (non-existent) criminal history, mental history, etc. But limiting gun magazines or clip sizes… that's not going to do anything except make the clips gun owners already have "illegal." There's no upside, unless the upside is for the anti-gun people to feel good.

---

And I know I just seem to have conflicted things by saying I don't typically respond, but I respond in gun threads (occasionally) because it is something about which I have some knowledge. Politics? Nah. Almost zero knowledge there. Or interest. Guns? I have a weak interest (seriously, my life would not change much if I didn't have my two handguns), but a good knowledge base.

[Jeremie Boop]

1 minute ago, rkim291968 said:

For those who are gun enthusiasts, is there anything that can be improved (e.g, banning or restricting military style guns)?   Or, the current laws are to be left alone?

There's no reason to ban/restrict the current guns available to the general public. The only change I agree with is implementing the requirement to do background checks at gun shows. Restricting or banning certain guns will do nothing to curb most of these violent attacks since, typically, the weapons used are not obtained legally. In events like the recent one, I doubt having those weapons banned would have stopped anything because they also used some explosive devices, which I believe are illegal already? The problem is, you aren't going to stop people who are determined to do heinous things of this nature through gun sale laws. Look at what happened in Egypt, that was fire bombs.

[rkim291968]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I think calling people "gun enthusiasts" goes a bit too far (unless you want the one or two actual "gun enthusiasts" on here to post, of which I am not one), but please define "military style"? Because a hunting rifle is almost "military style." So what makes a gun "military style" in your opinion?

 

Those used in San Diego?

[iacas]

Just now, rkim291968 said:

Those used in San Diego?

I don't really watch the news much. So I have no idea. So again… define "military style." What features and forms and so on make a gun "military style"?

[Pretzel]

25 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

For those who are gun enthusiasts, is there anything that can be improved (e.g, banning or restricting military style guns)?   Or, the current laws are to be left alone?

They already have bans on automatic weapons, and I know many states (like Colorado) have bans on high capacity magazines (no more than 10). One important thing to note here is, can you define "military style"? My family has a .223 caliber semi-automatic hunting rifle (really just used for coyote control). It doesn't have tactical rails or any fancy attachments besides a basic 4x zoom scope, but would that be considered military style in the fact that it shoots the same cartridge as an AR-15 in semi-automatic fire? I'm not saying either answer, yes or no, to that question is wrong, just wondering how you would draw the line. If you draw the line at saying semi-automatic guns are now illegal, does this include .22 caliber firearms that generally cannot penetrate bone? Do you restrict the type of guns as "military style" based upon the caliber (e.g. no Barrett .50 cals, though I haven't heard of a shooting with one of those yet)? 

My opinion on the matter of magazine sizes is that they really should be no more than 10 for a couple reasons.

1) If you need more than 10 shots in a magazine for hunting, you are incompetent enough with a firearm that you shouldn't be hunting. If it takes you that many shots than it becomes likely that all you're going to hope to accomplish is wounding the animal and/or destroy the meat.

2) There are two issues with magazines larger than 10 shots (for handguns or rifles) used in a self defense situation:

a) Having a magazine of that size is rather impractical for concealed carry purposes, both in terms of size and weight

b) If you require more than 11 bullets to defend yourself or others it most likely means that you are a greater danger to those around you than the threat. I believe that most concealed carry/self-defense classes will teach you to try to put two shots into the center of mass of the threat. If it takes you more than 11 bullets to do that you just sprayed at least 9 projectiles on a potentially dangerous trajectory.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what measures would be viable and effective. Even with restricting magazine sizes, you are only restricting those purchased going forwards rather than retroactively removing them from the population, just because an attempt to do that would be political suicide for anyone who backed it (meaning it wouldn't get backing). 

I honestly am fine with gun control provided that I will still be able to obtain a concealed carry permit when I turn 21 (after passing the required background checks and courses) and can continue to hunt. I would encourage anyone who owns a firearm, or is looking to purchase one, to ensure that they know how to safely operate, store, and handle firearms, and I wouldn't at all be opposed to requiring everyone who looks to purchase a firearm to at least pass basic hunter's safety courses that teach those fundamentals.

[rkim291968]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't really watch the news much. So I have no idea. So again… define "military style." What features and forms and so on make a gun "military style"?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/2-Guns-From-San-Bernardino-Shooting-Came-From-Turners-Outdoorsman-Store--360520721.html

[Pretzel]

5 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/2-Guns-From-San-Bernardino-Shooting-Came-From-Turners-Outdoorsman-Store--360520721.html

Those are semi-automatic AR-15 rifles. They generally fire rounds chambers for the .223 caliber and merely look intimidating while having the same physical properties as other non-"military style" weapons.

That rifle is the same thing, it just doesn't look as "fancy" or dangerous as the ones you linked to (it also likely has a smaller clip capacity, but iacas hit the nail on the head with why that would be pretty much just a token gesture).

I suppose you're saying that, were you to limit "military-style" weapons, you would like to limit semi-automatic centerfire rifles? Or were you referring to the handguns they purchased?

[Jeremie Boop]

12 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

 

Those used in San Diego?

 

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't really watch the news much. So I have no idea. So again… define "military style." What features and forms and so on make a gun "military style"?

I believe those are ar-15s, a .223 semi-auto rifle. Because they have the mounting rails for optics and grips and such people associate them with "military" when they are just semi-auto rifles. So you basically want to ban a specific "style" aka look of rifle? Because you can get hunting rifles *and people do actually use the ar-15 as a hunting rifle* with a wood stock that are chambered the same, or even higher. Heck, it's actually a good thing people who do this haven't realized that a pump action or semi auto shotgun loaded with buckshot would net many more victims. If you did ban these so called "military style" rifles you can bet they would soon discover this, then what? Ban pump/semi auto shotguns?

*edit I guess Pretzel and are both on the same page about the rifles*

Edited December 4, 2015 by Jeremie Boop

[rkim291968]

1 minute ago, Jeremie Boop said:

 

I believe those are ar-15s, a .223 semi-auto rifle. Because they have the mounting rails for optics and grips and such people associate them with "military" when they are just semi-auto rifles. So you basically want to ban a specific "style" aka look of rifle? Because you can get hunting rifles *and people do actually use the ar-15 as a hunting rifle* with a wood stock that are chambered the same, or even higher. Heck, it's actually a good thing people who do this haven't realized that a pump action or semi auto shotgun loaded with buckshot would net many more victims. If you did ban these so called "military style" rifles you can bet they would soon discover this, then what? Ban pump/semi auto shotguns?

I threw that in as an example of, if anything, pro gun folks suggestion on improvement to the current laws.   If there is nothing to improve in your opinion, that's a valid reply.   Others suggested a few and I appreciate their answers, too.   

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/2-Guns-From-San-Bernardino-Shooting-Came-From-Turners-Outdoorsman-Store--360520721.html

Just answer the question, please: how do you define "military style." Because a lot of what people think is "military style" is really just cosmetics stuff that has no real impact on… anything except how the gun looks.

[Jeremie Boop]

Just now, rkim291968 said:

I threw that in as an example of, if anything, pro gun folks suggestion on improvement to the current laws.   If there is nothing to improve in your opinion, that's a valid reply.   Others suggested a few and I appreciate their answers, too.   

I'm fine with improving\expanding the background checks, but banning specific types of guns *other than those already banned* just wouldn't have any appreciable positive impact in my opinion.

[Dave2512]

Always a hot topic following mass shooting. IMO a big part of the problem is our culture and the media. It gets sensationalized. It's not the guns it's the act. Even those appalled by it can't stop talking and rubbernecking.

 

[rkim291968]

3 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I'm fine with improving\expanding the background checks, but banning specific types of guns *other than those already banned* just wouldn't have any appreciable positive impact in my opinion.

I'd agree with that.  

[Jaymancds]

Leave the laws alone.  As a matter of fact, loosen them so that law abiding citizens can protect themselves.  Is an AR 15 gonna kill anyone? No someone has to use it to kill someone.  Fix the people not the laws. You can hate on guns all day long but when somebody breaks into your house, you call someone with a gun.  The more armed the general public the safer the general public.  Since when do mass murderers abide by laws?  To make guns illegal is the same as making law abiding citizens outlaws.  You cant have fully automatic guns now days anyway so "military style" guns are not buyable.

 

Oh and I hunt deer and hogs with a .300 Win Mag rifle capable of killing at distances well over a mile if I could see that far.  That is the same caliber that the most deadly sniper in american history used, and I have never even considered using it to harm another person. 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Jaymancds

[Dave2512]

25 minutes ago, Jaymancds said:

Leave the laws alone.  As a matter of fact, loosen them so that law abiding citizens can protect themselves.  

But I see what you talk about and the mass shootings that rile everyone up as completely different things.

I know people like to think they could handle themselves in certain situations. But having a gun when raving lunatics choose a random location and surprise everyone with a barrage of bullets is as much about being lucky enough to not be in the line of fire as being able to defend yourself. This is why cops and military get killed. These things happen fast, there is less preparation time to react than when your home has provided an initial barrier.