Politics And Current Events

[Freddy Rumsen]

Source of the post shotguns and bolt action rifles

Bingo and I would even include handguns in there. Why do people think they need ready access to anything more than that?

The vast, vast, vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns.

Why keep them legal if the goal is to lower gun crime?

[PFiDC]

One could make an argument I could understand about owning a handgun for protection. I cannot, in any way shape or form, understand an argument that assault rifles (or any gun that isn't a shotgun or bolt action rifle) have any redeeming use whatsoever.

[shafnutz05]

One could make an argument I could understand about owning a handgun for protection. I cannot, in any way shape or form, understand an argument that assault rifles (or any gun that isn't a shotgun or bolt action rifle) have any redeeming use whatsoever.

But as Freddy said, somewhere north of 95% (I'd reckon) of homicides are committed with handguns. The "assault rifles" you mention tend to be used by two classes of people. Crazy white people that shoot up places, and Islamic terrorists. Both groups, IMO, that will go above and beyond legal means in order to obtain the weaponry needed to commit mass slaughter.

[grunthy]

Source of the post shotguns and bolt action rifles

Bingo and I would even include handguns in there. Why do people think they need ready access to anything more than that?

What if I want to shoot a dozen deer before they have a chance to scatter?

Have you ever shot a gun?

[grunthy]

One could make an argument I could understand about owning a handgun for protection. I cannot, in any way shape or form, understand an argument that assault rifles (or any gun that isn't a shotgun or bolt action rifle) have any redeeming use whatsoever.

One can do a lot more damage with a shotgun than a rifle.

[columbia]

There's not much the US can do to stop the lone wolf style of terror attacks. This dude in Orlando *should* have been picked up in someone's system, in terms of buying guns. But what's the mechanism for that? Forcing some delay only tips the person off that they are on a list and they will clearly seek non-legal means to obtain guns or use bombs.

I'm much more likely to be shot from a stray bullet in a gang thing, than to be taken out by a terrorist.

[grunthy]

All "assault rifles" should be painted this way so as to reduce how "scary" they look.

[NTP66]

Source of the post shotguns and bolt action rifles

Bingo and I would even include handguns in there. Why do people think they need ready access to anything more than that?

What if I want to shoot a dozen deer before they have a chance to scatter?

Oddly enough I am in favor of grenades and claymores so use one of those

How about a grenade that launches other grenades? I think we're onto something here.

[columbia]

I just waded through about 50 pro-Sanders comments on a social media site. Wow, he should start his own church....

[tifosi77]

For those who believe that the availability of guns is not an issue, what is the solution to Islamic Terrorism?

For one thing, call them out on their bulls*** worldwide. You can call yourself a peaceful whatever when the violence ends, until then i dont give a flying f*** if youre offended after an attack you probably applauded.

After that? Go to the neighborhoods these jagoffs are destroying in their new refugee sanctuary nations and enforce the god damn laws like you would for anyone else, not giving a **** if their dumbass hometown justice allows them to act like neanderthals.

Thats just the ones who arent terrorists. Just kill the terrorists.

I endorse this approach.

[tifosi77]

I'm much more likely to be shot from a stray bullet in a gang thing, than to be taken out by a terrorist.

What do you think the odds are that 1) said gangbanger is using an assault rifle, and 2) said gangbanger went through the proper channels and bought his gun legally at a gun store?

[columbia]

I'm much more likely to be shot from a stray bullet in a gang thing, than to be taken out by a terrorist.

What do you think the odds are that 1) said gangbanger is using an assault rifle, and 2) said gangbanger went through the proper channels and bought his gun legally at a gun store?

You're asking that question, because you think I want to ban assault (whatever than means) rifles ?

[tifosi77]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

[columbia]

If I intended to commit a crime with a gun, I would not legally purchase one.

[NTP66]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

Does it matter how much of an effect any changes will make?

[tifosi77]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

Does it matter how much of an effect any changes will make?

If not for effect, why make a change?

[Freddy Rumsen]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

Does it matter how much of an effect any changes will make?

Why pass laws unless a purpose undergirds their need?

[grunthy]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

Does it matter how much of an effect any changes will make?

Why pass laws unless a purpose undergirds their need?

Because more bureaucracy means more freedom.

[Freddy Rumsen]

https://twitter.com/PeteKDCNews/status/ ... 6733718528

[NTP66]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

Does it matter how much of an effect any changes will make?

If not for effect, why make a change?

So you agree with me.

[tifosi77]

I honestly do not have the first clue as to why they'd redact this stuff. They claim they don't want to give the guy a posthumous voice, yet they refer to him by name in the presser. They claim they don't want to give any publicity to Daesh, but they leave in all his references to the great and powerful Oz. They claim they don't want the victims' families re-traumatized, but they don't explain how hearing the words 'Islamic State' would do that.

They've made it into a bigger story than it needed to be by trying to minimize it. I get not wanting the president of the United States saying those Words That Should Not Be Said. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I at least get the thinking. But they way they're treating this Orlando thing makes no sense to me at all.

[tifosi77]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

Does it matter how much of an effect any changes will make?

If not for effect, why make a change?

So you agree with me.

That depends. Do you believe that stricter enforcement against gun shops that knowingly engage in straw purchases is necessary? Do you believe that there should be one national standard for reporting mental health data to the NICS background check system? Do you believe that the 3-day de facto approval of a NICS inquiry is stupid and should be abolished? Because those are changes that could be made to the legal purchase process which I believe could have a measurable impact on gun crime. (Especially the former)

Would they be hugely impactful changes? No, probably not. But I do believe they would be more meaningful than the outright ban on a certain type of weapon as some advocate.

[columbia]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

Does it matter how much of an effect any changes will make?

If not for effect, why make a change?

What laws or proposed measures are you talking about?

[NTP66]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

Does it matter how much of an effect any changes will make?

If not for effect, why make a change?

So you agree with me.

That depends. Do you believe that stricter enforcement against gun shops that knowingly engage in straw purchases is necessary? Do you believe that there should be one national standard for reporting mental health data to the NICS background check system? Do you believe that the 3-day de facto approval of a NICS inquiry is stupid and should be abolished? Because those are changes that could be made to the legal purchase process which I believe could have a measurable impact on gun crime. (Especially the former)

Would they be hugely impactful changes? No, probably not. But I do believe they would be more meaningful than the outright ban on a certain type of weapon as some advocate.

Yes, yes, and not sure to your first paragraph. I can see your point with the second, but I'm open to certain types of weapons being banned.

[tifosi77]

I'm asking that question to generally get an idea what everyone thinks restricting legal purchases - of any type or measure - will have on crime.

Does it matter how much of an effect any changes will make?

If not for effect, why make a change?

What laws or proposed measures are you talking about?

That's what I'm trying to find out. The gun control discussion is following a mass shooting/terrorist incident where the weapon used was an assault rifle. Some are saying ban the things outright, others are saying there needs to be something done, but stop short of advocating a ban. I'm curious what measures people would take. I've put my cards on the table in the exchange with NTP66, and I would further add that I would subject all firearms transfers to the FFL process.