Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have no firsthand knowledge. I do have common sense.  Deferral back to you "buyback".

No need for the scare quotes. Buyback programs are a thing and they've been done successfully before.

[alexava 6,973]

I would like to have the term “bad guys” defined. 

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

I would like to have the term “bad guys” defined. 

Go back and read Loofs previous posts. They would be the ones that are not "good guys".

[alexava 6,973]

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Go back and read Loofs previous posts. They would be the ones that are not "good guys".

They are easily identified in hindsight. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Go back and read Loofs previous posts. They would be the ones that are not "good guys".

Actually, talk to your buddy Proud Tiger and get back to us. His phrase. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

38 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Actually, talk to your buddy Proud Tiger and get back to us. His phrase. 

Funny that you use a phrase like "talk to your buddy" while having a problem with another one. I have never met, let alone talked to, Salty but would love to. Would love to meet you too.

 

 

 

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Funny that you use a phrase like "talk to your buddy" while having a problem with another one. I have never met, let alone talked to, Salty but would love to. Would love to meet you too.

It was a figure of speech. But you're right. There was no need for it. My apologies. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

It was a figure of speech. But you're right. There was no need for it. My apologies. 

No problem. we just beat the hell out of bama. All is well.

[homersapien 11,362]

On 2/21/2018 at 1:30 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

(re bump stocks and Las Vegas)

This is a faulty basis for sweeping regulation, i.e., isolation of an event and emotion-based legislation following. It's exactly the sort of legislative basis that the Constitution protects us from. 

Are  you saying legislation preventing bump stocks is unreasonable?

Does that mean you feel the same way about truly automatic weapons?

[homersapien 11,362]

23 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Limiting the scope of coverage re 2nd Amendment in the context of all that you said would require a Constitutional Amendment. 

Has nothing to do with my interpretation. That’s a fact.

No, it's not a fact, it's your opinion.

The wording of the 2nd amendment allows for a very wide range of limitations in scope, some of which have been already implimented. That's my opinion.

It is a matter of interpretation.

[homersapien 11,362]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Brilliant! Let's (instead of using the term "government" because I'm assuming taxpayers would be the ones footing the bill for your atrocious proposal) buy back all of their drugs too while we're at it! Then maybe we can buy back business licenses granted to fast-food corporations because uhh heart disease. 

If one stipulates the shear quantity of guns in the US represents a problem then a buy back program - presumably combined with restrictions on ownership - makes perfect sense.  And it has already demonstrated to be effective in Australia.

Regardless, It most certainly is a serious, viable proposition, not one that merits ridicule.

[homersapien 11,362]

14 hours ago, japantiger said:

Hey Homey, how much fun is that BAR?

Certainly not as much "fun" as it would be with a large capacity, detachable magazine and a "gentler" cartridge.  

But then, I am willing to forgo that much fun in the interests of our society. 

[alexava 6,973]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not as much fun as it would be with a large capacity, detachable magazine.  

But then, I am willing to forgo that fun in the interests of our society. 

An ar with multiple mags holding 30 plus would be exhilarating to go to the range and play war fantasy games. Even have a system of robotic zombies to play walking dead games. I would have one if it was free, I guess. I am not mad at anyone who is in to assault riffles. Although some folks seem overly obsessed about it I don’t fault people for enjoying the hobby. I do fault them when they can’t admit high capacity mags are more lethal than lower capacity mags yet they are hell bent on keeping the mags. 

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Actually, talk to your buddy Proud Tiger and get back to us. His phrase. 

 I felt that you inferred "criminals, drug users, street types" were bad guys and they would steal each others weapons ( have to kill one to steal ones weapon) and then sell that weapon to the "good guys". Apologies if you did not mean "bad guys".

BTW, you did note that responsible people would hopefully have their weapon secured in a manner to prevent theft by "street types". What value is a gun locked in safe. May as well sell it like the criminals, drug users, and street types are going to do and collect $1000.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 May as well sell it like the criminals, drug users, and street types are going to do and collect $1000.

That would be a tremendously pleasant surprise; however, as gun ownership seems to be the most precious right we have in the eyes of so many, and since they are so critical to our safety and survival, I'm operating on the assumption that the good guys wouldn't trade them for such a paltry sum.

[Strychnine 1,802]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That would be a tremendously pleasant surprise; however, as gun ownership seems to be the most precious right we have in the eyes of so many, and since they are so critical to our safety and survival, I'm operating on the assumption that the good guys wouldn't trade them for such a paltry sum.

 

My automatic rifles alone are worth over $100,000.

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

24 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

My automatic rifles alone are worth over $100,000.

Geez!! Do they have twin Yamahas or twin Mercury's on them.

[McLoofus 35,182]

31 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

My automatic rifles alone are worth over $100,000.

There is that. 

I have no idea what you would have to offer in a buyback program, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't even have to be the median MSRP for most guns. And it's my guess that it wouldn't cost substantially more than other programs people are suggesting.

 

[Strychnine 1,802]

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

There is that. 

I have no idea what you would have to offer in a buyback program, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't even have to be the median MSRP for most guns. And it's my guess that it wouldn't cost substantially more than other programs people are suggesting.

 

Given the sheer amount of legal semi-automatic rifles (and rifles classified as handguns) out there, you would have better luck with registration similar to the NFA process than you would with a buyback.  Most of their owners have invested considerably in ammo, magazines, accessories, and optics, on top of the value of the firearms.  It is not at all uncommon for an AR-15 to have another $1000 worth of things associated with it, that would become useless without it.  Of course, that assumes you are talking about a buyback to remove them from ownership altogether.

If you are simply talking about a "no questions asked" buyback intended to reduce illegal firearms, it would definitely be cheaper than MSRP.  If memory serves, LAPD has done buybacks offering $100-200 gift cards.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, Strychnine said:

Given the sheer amount of legal semi-automatic rifles (and rifles classified as handguns) out there, you would have better luck with registration similar to the NFA process than you would with a buyback.  Most of their owners have invested considerably in ammo, magazines, accessories, and optics, on top of the value of the firearms.  It is not at all uncommon for an AR-15 to have another $1000 worth of things associated with it, that would become useless without it.  Of course, that assumes you are talking about a buyback to remove them from ownership altogether.

If you are simply talking about a "no questions asked" buyback intended to reduce illegal firearms, it would definitely be cheaper than MSRP.  If memory serves, LAPD has done buybacks offering $100-200 gift cards.

Had not considered peripherals. Great point.

But, yeah, the latter scenario is what I was talking about. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Had not considered peripherals. Great point.

But, yeah, the latter scenario is what I was talking about. 

 

The combination of registration, licensing, and a buyback would probably put a substantial dent in the proliferation of illegal firearms.  One of the challenges law enforcement faces when they encounter a firearm, is that unless it has been reported stolen, and the report is contained within records their department has access to, there is no other way to determine whether a firearm is legal or not.  The same applies to verifying whether the person encountered with a firearm can legally possess it or not.  NICS, and subsequently a random Sheriff's Department in Georgia, might not have records of felony convictions in other states.  Of course, I have a Georgia Weapons Carry License and laminated copies of my NFA stamps to verify myself, but neither of those things are required to drive around with a firearm in my car.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

An ar with multiple mags holding 30 plus would be exhilarating to go to the range and play war fantasy games. Even have a system of robotic zombies to play walking dead games. I would have one if it was free, I guess. I am not mad at anyone who is in to assault riffles. Although some folks seem overly obsessed about it I don’t fault people for enjoying the hobby. I do fault them when they can’t admit high capacity mags are more lethal than lower capacity mags yet they are hell bent on keeping the mags. 

Exactly. Simple cost-benefit analysis. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, Strychnine said:

The combination of registration, licensing, and a buyback would probably put a substantial dent in the proliferation of illegal firearms.  One of the challenges law enforcement faces when they encounter a firearm, is that unless it has been reported stolen, and the report is contained within records their department has access to, there is no other way to determine whether a firearm is legal or not.  The same applies to verifying whether the person encountered with a firearm can legally possess it or not.  NICS, and subsequently a random Sheriff's Department in Georgia, might not have records of felony convictions in other states.  Of course, I have a Georgia Weapons Carry License and laminated copies of my NFA stamps to verify myself, but neither of those things are required to drive around with a firearm in my car.

If I'm not mistaken, it's pretty difficult for law enforcement in GA to even ask you if you are carrying a weapon, or if you're licensed to carry one. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

19 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Huh? Loof are you proposing that we offer to "buyback" the bad guys guns from them? To them, that gun is like hammer to carpenter. As a bonus we get street types killing other street types, steal the weapon, then turn it in to some good guy for "buyback" money?

Genius 

 

19 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Let's just hope he doesn't actually posses such a dubious ideology. 

 

19 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Brilliant! Let's (instead of using the term "government" because I'm assuming taxpayers would be the ones footing the bill for your atrocious proposal) buy back all of their drugs too while we're at it! Then maybe we can buy back business licenses granted to fast-food corporations because uhh heart disease. 

 

16 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have no firsthand knowledge. I do have common sense.  Deferral back to you "buyback".

You guys obviously didn't even bother googling it before doubling down on your embarrassment, but in case you still haven't. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

 

 

[Strychnine 1,802]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

If I'm not mistaken, it's pretty difficult for law enforcement in GA to even ask you if you are carrying a weapon, or if you're licensed to carry one. 

 

You are required to have a Georgia Weapons Carry License on your person, while you are carrying a concealed firearm, but you are not required to inform law enforcement.  You cannot be detained for verification either.  It varies by state.  Some states require you to inform, others require it only when asked.  Georgia only requires you to produce a license.

Personally, I advise anyone to inform law enforcement during a traffic stop, and to definitely inform if asked.  Approaching an unknown vehicle to deal with an unknown person is one of the most tense situations an officer can be in.  While all officers are certainly not equal, many will interpret the gesture as a good indicator that you are not a threat, and the rest of the encounter is more likely to go better.  They may or may not want to secure your handgun during the stop.

I have yet to be pulled over with any of my NFA items in the car, but experiences with some random police officers' ignorance at the range leads me to actively seek to avoid it.  I have been approached by some off-duty and retired officers that were unaware that it was legal for me to possess and use automatic weapons and suppressors.  I do not expect officers to have all laws committed to memory, but the NFA is not exactly a trivial one.