Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[Strychnine 1,804]

6 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

That's what I was referring to.... however, Jeeze man 17.5k for that. It'd be cool to own but dang that's expensive.

 

https://dealernfa.com/product-category/machine-guns/all-transferable-machine-guns/

That will give you an idea of what a legally transferable automatic weapon cost.  There are some that also cost considerably more, that happen to not be for sale at this time.

http://blog.adamsarms.net/blog/how-do-i-get-an-nfa-tax-stamp

That will give you an idea of the process involved in acquiring one.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

It's beyond sad but it's essentially impossible to have a serious discussion in this country, regardless of the evidence and data presented, on this topic b/c every time it comes up, the NRA and 2A defenders turn it into a false debate of the government is trying to confiscate my guns.

I own a few guns, mainly for protection and possibly hunting but I'm not much of a hunter. I think it's funny when people are saying taking away AR's is going to take away their ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. That was valid back in the day when the government and citizens had roughly the same type of weapons. 

They can regulate all kinds of things, so I feel something can be done with AR's and converting them, etc. It would not eliminate tragedies 100% but if it helps stop 1 event it helps.

 

Back to the 2A, if a government tyranny were to take place we aren't going to stop them with some AR's. They will just use a tank, jet, etc. and squash the people anyways. My hope would be that our military wouldn't allow that to happen and revolt against a rougue leader.

 

I feel to utilize the 2A to protect ourselves some the government we need to be getting ahold of some tanks, aircraft and lots of ammunition to level the battlefield. 

 

 

[Strychnine 1,804]

1 minute ago, RunInRed said:

So we should just put our arms up (don't shoot) and do nothing?  I don't accept that.

 

I made some suggestions in a previous post.

[aujeff11 6,243]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I own a few guns, mainly for protection and possibly hunting but I'm not much of a hunter. I think it's funny when people are saying taking away AR's is going to take away their ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. That was valid back in the day when the government and citizens had roughly the same type of weapons. 

They can regulate all kinds of things, so I feel something can be done with AR's and converting them, etc. It would not eliminate tragedies 100% but if it helps stop 1 event it helps.

 

Back to the 2A, if a government tyranny were to take place we aren't going to stop them with some AR's. They will just use a tank, jet, etc. and squash the people anyways. My hope would be that our military wouldn't allow that to happen and revolt against a rougue leader.

 

I feel to utilize the 2A to protect ourselves some the government we need to be getting ahold of some tanks, aircraft and lots of ammunition to level the battlefield. 

 

 

Yep. AR’s are pea shooters compared to what the government has. The government tyranny argument is kindve outdated much like the militia argument.

[autigeremt 6,716]

I honestly don't see a law that will stop this stuff. Even if you repeal the 2nd Amendment there will be people who have guns that shouldn't. The fact that people think a new law will stop this stuff is naive. We've gone WAY beyond the ability to stop the evil minded outside of total loss of freedom and even then it won't stop it. 

[AU64 10,122]

14 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

So we should just put our arms up (don't shoot) and do nothing?  I don't accept that.

I understand....but do what. ? 

Nobody can show that laws have any effect on those who want to violate the law.  We have laws against all kinds of anti-social activities which mostly provide a means to punish those who don't follow them but probably do very little to prevent the criminal act.

Stringent gun laws mostly inconvenience law abiding citizens...not the criminal. JMO

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

34 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Confiscate guns....a false debate....you must only be listening to one side of the argument in my view.  The false debate is really the argument that more gun regulation will change the behavior of people who use guns for illegal purposes. 

And just considering that there is some unknown number (many millions) of guns in this country, without collecting them all up, there is no possible way from keeping a determined person from acquiring one illegally or otherwise. JMO but the horse is long out of the barn as far as gun control legislation is considered. 

Spot on!!

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

12 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I honestly don't see a law that will stop this stuff. Even if you repeal the 2nd Amendment there will be people who have guns that shouldn't. The fact that people think a new law will stop this stuff is naive. We've gone WAY beyond the ability to stop the evil minded outside of total loss of freedom and even then it won't stop it. 

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that.

[Mims44 1,890]

28 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

https://dealernfa.com/product-category/machine-guns/all-transferable-machine-guns/

That will give you an idea of what a legally transferable automatic weapon cost.  There are some that also cost considerably more, that happen to not be for sale at this time.

http://blog.adamsarms.net/blog/how-do-i-get-an-nfa-tax-stamp

That will give you an idea of the process involved in acquiring one.

Kind of insane an M16A2 would cost me upwards of 30 grand. :/

I always loved them, but they aren't the best/flashiest of rifles we were issued.

[aujeff11 6,243]

45 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

That's what I was referring to.... however, Jeeze man 17.5k for that. It'd be cool to own but dang that's expensive.

I feel like you weren’t actually referring to anything with your subtleties but okay. Regardless, that referral didn’t help your position anyway. 

I’m not into disingenuous conversations so I guess I’ll keep an eye on you.  

 

[Mims44 1,890]

12 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I feel like you weren’t actually referring to anything with your subtleties but okay. Regardless, that referral didn’t help your position anyway. 

I’m not into disingenuous conversations so I guess I’ll keep an eye on you.  

 

I'm keeping three on you.

[aujeff11 6,243]

6 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

I'm keeping three on you.

Your boyfriend wouldn’t like that.

[Mims44 1,890]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

Your boyfriend wouldn’t like that.

Check your privilege.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

Confiscate guns....a false debate....you must only be listening to one side of the argument in my view.  The false debate is really the argument that more gun regulation will change the behavior of people who use guns for illegal purposes. 

And just considering that there is some unknown number (many millions) of guns in this country, without collecting them all up, there is no possible way from keeping a determined person from acquiring one illegally or otherwise. JMO but the horse is long out of the barn as far as gun control legislation is considered. 

No one is talking about taking all guns away.  Go back and watch Obama's answer that Red posted.  The man makes a really logical point.  The false narrative is that doing nothing is the only option because nothing will change.  If that's the case, then we should legalize cocaine, prostitution, crack, and other vices because hell, people are going to get it anyway.  Status quo never changes until action is taken and we cannot and should not continue to accept mass shootings at this rate.  It's not the "price of freedom" either as some have argued.  Lots of other countries have freedom too, but they certainly don't have mass shootings at the alarming pace seen in the U.S. because they have common sense gun laws.

By the way, I'm probably one of the only people on this board who has had a gun pointed as his/her head in a threatening situation.  I'm lucky that the guy didn't pull the trigger.  And I'm still not a proponent of taking away all guns.  The second amendment guarantees your right to a firearm.  Hunting rifles, handguns for personal protection, etc.  Those make sense.  But making them harder to obtain, running stringent checks, and removing guns like semi-automatics is something that needs to be seriously talked about.  If you want to shoot something like that, go to a licensed and regulated gun range and rent one for an hour or two.

One bright side is that reports are already coming out that Republicans may be willing to ban bump-stocks.  From the linked article below:

“I own a lot of guns, and as a hunter and sportsman, I think that’s our right as Americans, but I don’t understand the use of this bump stock,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said, adding, “It seems like it’s an obvious area we ought to explore and see if it’s something Congress needs to act on.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-open-to-banning-‘bump-stocks’-used-in-massacre/ar-AAsVbuJ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[aujeff11 6,243]

16 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Check your privilege.

K

[aujeff11 6,243]

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

By the way, I'm probably one of the only people on this board who has had a gun pointed as his/her head in a threatening situation.

Mims and I say otherwise.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Mims and I say otherwise.

Thus I why I said "one of the only".  Three people out of however many on this board.  Figured I wasn't the only one, although I would ask, were you guys doing it in battle or as a civilian?  Think that makes a difference in the debate being had, as soldiers understand the inherent risk (and I'm very appreciative of them for taking that risk for me).  My incident was as a civilian hanging out in his ex-girlfriend's apartment.

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

Used to think gun control was the answer

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term

[Mims44 1,890]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Thus I why I said "one of the only".  Three people out of however many on this board.  Figured I wasn't the only one, although I would ask, were you guys doing it in battle or as a civilian?  Think that makes a difference in the debate being had, as soldiers understand the inherent risk (and I'm very appreciative of them for taking that risk for me).  My incident was as a civilian hanging out in his ex-girlfriend's apartment.

By civilians? Only twice, and to be fair it was never held to my head. Simply dumb rednecks waving it at me. It's still unsettling though.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, Mims44 said:

By civilians? Only twice, and to be fair it was never held to my head. Simply dumb rednecks waving it at me. It's still unsettling though.

Gotcha.  My situation was an armed robbery.  Laid down execution style alongside my ex and two others.  Definitely unsettling no matter the situation as it is a freaking gun being pointed at you.

[Strychnine 1,804]

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

But making them harder to obtain, running stringent checks, and removing guns like semi-automatics is something that needs to be seriously talked about.

 

Bolded is the legislative strategy most likely to have a positive effect, as well as the one most likely to gain support.  Firearms are easier to buy than a car, and that has more to do with our gun violence problem than the fact that one of those easy to buy firearms happens to be an AR-15.

Semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines are here to stay in the short and most likely long-term.  They are profitable for manufacturers, and they are immensely popular.  The only way to effectively ban them would be a mandatory turn in by X date.  Between the high and low end, the average value of an AR-15 is a range I would estimate around $800-1000.  Let us say I have 10 of them, each equipped with an EOTech holo and miscellaneous Magpul gear.  All of those accessories are now useless, and they represent another $1000 in value.  I am being asked to hand over $20,000.  What about my automatic weapons?  Do I get compensated, and at what percentage?  If yes, then a ban would be tremendously expensive, so expensive that it would never get anywhere.  If no, say goodbye to any owner of any such firearm supporting the initiative, and say hello to an enormous campaign led by the NRA.  If a ban allows existing firearms to remain, then it is really pointless.

I can support legislation to prohibit bump or trigger mod devices designed to increase rate of fire, but it really should not be necessary.  The ATF could simply start prosecuting users (and even the companies that make them) for making an illegal automatic weapon.  They should have been doing that for the last 30 years that such things have been available.  They do not have to wait for Congress, they could start doing that today, as it is already within their scope.

[japantiger 4,051]

From what little I've been able to read on the subject, most of what is being discussed in limiting "automatic conversion" or related products does not require legislation and can be done by the BATF administratively.  It would seem that would be a straightforward approach that aligns to broader gun laws aimed at limiting access to automatic weapons. 

[Strychnine 1,804]

13 minutes ago, japantiger said:

From what little I've been able to read on the subject, most of what is being discussed in limiting "automatic conversion" or related products does not require legislation and can be done by the BATF administratively.  It would seem that would be a straightforward approach that aligns to broader gun laws aimed at limiting access to automatic weapons. 

 

ATF can do so administratively, but a court ruling could override as it is ultimately based upon a constructive interpretation of law.  Take trigger cranks and other devices, for example, they are not technically prohibited OR allowed.  Same applies to bump stocks.  ATF could (and long ago should have) issue a finding that such devices constitute unlawful creation of an automatic weapon, but it would end up at the mercy of the courts, and there is at least a 50/50 it would be overruled.

Personally, I think a statement from ATF that they intend to prosecute users or manufacturers as creating an illegal automatic weapon would (and would have) suffice to curtail their production and sale, but it is not a guarantee.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

32 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

ATF can do so administratively, but a court ruling could override as it is ultimately based upon a constructive interpretation of law.  Take trigger cranks and other devices, for example, they are not technically prohibited OR allowed.  Same applies to bump stocks.  ATF could (and long ago should have) issue a finding that such devices constitute unlawful creation of an automatic weapon, but it would end up at the mercy of the courts, and there is at least a 50/50 it would be overruled.

Personally, I think a statement from ATF that they intend to prosecute users or manufacturers as creating an illegal automatic weapon would (and would have) suffice to curtail their production and sale, but it is not a guarantee.

You mentioned trigger cranks.  I wonder if Congress will mention those types of additions in the proposed bill with bump stocks or not.  And then, what would the reaction look like?  Seems like a lot of folks are on the same page with bump stocks, but if it got expanded to other accessories that offer basically the same outcome as bumps, do you think there would be heavy resistance?

[Strychnine 1,804]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

You mentioned trigger cranks.  I wonder if Congress will mention those types of additions in the proposed bill with bump stocks or not.  And then, what would the reaction look like?  Seems like a lot of folks are on the same page with bump stocks, but if it got expanded to other accessories that offer basically the same outcome as bumps, do you think there would be heavy resistance?

 

Bump stocks and trigger mod devices really are not popular accessories.  Automatic weapons are prohibited by many ranges, and I rarely bring mine out since they always equal 20 questions, and 20 people that want to do a mag dump with one.  Ammo is expensive with any automatic weapon, and no one pitches in.  Most of the range time my autos see is relative to help I provide to local cash-strapped law enforcement departments that cannot afford real training.

Personally, I support any initiative that eliminates devices (whether stocks or trigger devices) that are intended to artificially operate the trigger or manipulate semi-auto trigger pulls.  Automatic weapons have no business being something you can cheaply order online.  I think it would be one of the few bipartisan pieces of gun control legislation that could be crafted.