First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Firearm Legislation in the United States
63155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 4/11/13

spacebat wrote:



I do apologies if I misinterpreted your stance as I too am an advocate of "rational" gun laws. However, beginning your argument using the example of a rifle that is perfectly legal to own isn't the best way to begin any debate against over-reaching gun reform laws.

Your story reminded me of the recent story the NRA had used as an appeal to emotion. The story was one where a robber broke into the home of a mother of two in Loganville Georgia. The mother was smart enough to hide her children in a crawl space. The woman deciding not to be victim grabbed her pistol .38 revolver and fired 5 shots into the man and then called 911 after he fled.

The problem with using this harrowing story AGAINST the gun reform laws is that a .38 revolver is perfectly legal!

So, here is my stance on what gun legislation should consider and what should be done as gun reform does need to occur:

1) It should be illegal for private sellers to sell their guns to someone at a gun convention that does not have a license. If they do sell to someone who is not licensed if that individual uses the firearm to commit a crime they are accessory to that crime.

2) stricter license requirements need to be imposed.

3) limit clip.

The fact of the matter is that there are more fatalities due to pistols than assault weapons each year, this needs to be acknowledged and addressed. However, I don't see the point of civilians owning military arms. I come from a military family.

I own 2 shotguns. A Mossberg 500 and a Remington 870. I guarantee you they are enough for home defense.



I agree with that, but i also think that there should be some effort to actually have some sort of register of a weapon's rifling pattern at the manufacturer, as well as having that pattern linked to a identification number of the gun. At least then it will be possible to know what gun was used and where it came from. You can then track down who bought and sold it legally, and if someone sold it illegally or did not report it stolen, they can be held accountable for that.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/11/13

metalsmith wrote:


spacebat wrote:



I do apologies if I misinterpreted your stance as I too am an advocate of "rational" gun laws. However, beginning your argument using the example of a rifle that is perfectly legal to own isn't the best way to begin any debate against over-reaching gun reform laws.

Your story reminded me of the recent story the NRA had used as an appeal to emotion. The story was one where a robber broke into the home of a mother of two in Loganville Georgia. The mother was smart enough to hide her children in a crawl space. The woman deciding not to be victim grabbed her pistol .38 revolver and fired 5 shots into the man and then called 911 after he fled.

The problem with using this harrowing story AGAINST the gun reform laws is that a .38 revolver is perfectly legal!

So, here is my stance on what gun legislation should consider and what should be done as gun reform does need to occur:

1) It should be illegal for private sellers to sell their guns to someone at a gun convention that does not have a license. If they do sell to someone who is not licensed if that individual uses the firearm to commit a crime they are accessory to that crime.

2) stricter license requirements need to be imposed.

3) limit clip.

The fact of the matter is that there are more fatalities due to pistols than assault weapons each year, this needs to be acknowledged and addressed. However, I don't see the point of civilians owning military arms. I come from a military family.

I own 2 shotguns. A Mossberg 500 and a Remington 870. I guarantee you they are enough for home defense.



I agree with that, but i also think that there should be some effort to actually have some sort of register of a weapon's rifling pattern at the manufacturer, as well as having that pattern linked to a identification number of the gun. At least then it will be possible to know what gun was used and where it came from. You can then track down who bought and sold it legally, and if someone sold it illegally or did not report it stolen, they can be held accountable for that.


Great idea. I completely support this. Solves the online firearms sells issue as well. I was under the impression that they did keep records of all firearms that they sell, though.
63155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 4/11/13

spacebat wrote:


metalsmith wrote:


spacebat wrote:



I do apologies if I misinterpreted your stance as I too am an advocate of "rational" gun laws. However, beginning your argument using the example of a rifle that is perfectly legal to own isn't the best way to begin any debate against over-reaching gun reform laws.

Your story reminded me of the recent story the NRA had used as an appeal to emotion. The story was one where a robber broke into the home of a mother of two in Loganville Georgia. The mother was smart enough to hide her children in a crawl space. The woman deciding not to be victim grabbed her pistol .38 revolver and fired 5 shots into the man and then called 911 after he fled.

The problem with using this harrowing story AGAINST the gun reform laws is that a .38 revolver is perfectly legal!

So, here is my stance on what gun legislation should consider and what should be done as gun reform does need to occur:

1) It should be illegal for private sellers to sell their guns to someone at a gun convention that does not have a license. If they do sell to someone who is not licensed if that individual uses the firearm to commit a crime they are accessory to that crime.

2) stricter license requirements need to be imposed.

3) limit clip.

The fact of the matter is that there are more fatalities due to pistols than assault weapons each year, this needs to be acknowledged and addressed. However, I don't see the point of civilians owning military arms. I come from a military family.

I own 2 shotguns. A Mossberg 500 and a Remington 870. I guarantee you they are enough for home defense.



I agree with that, but i also think that there should be some effort to actually have some sort of register of a weapon's rifling pattern at the manufacturer, as well as having that pattern linked to a identification number of the gun. At least then it will be possible to know what gun was used and where it came from. You can then track down who bought and sold it legally, and if someone sold it illegally or did not report it stolen, they can be held accountable for that.


Great idea. I completely support this. Solves the online firearms sells issue as well. I was under the impression that they did keep records of all firearms that they sell, though.



They would have a record of sellling A firearm. Like, They would have a record of selling you a colt .45, but there are no rifling patterns on file. The big thing for me is that you have a proven and unique way of identifying firearms that cannot be reproduced, and you don't do anything with it.
13278 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / West Point (USMA)
Offline
Posted 4/11/13
Senate seems to back up the background checks. Not sure what Congress will say as their final answer though.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/11/13

Gyava wrote:

Senate seems to back up the background checks. Not sure what Congress will say as their final answer though.


we'll wait and see. Watching Young Justice in the meantime. Batman doesn't need guns...
13278 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / West Point (USMA)
Offline
Posted 4/11/13

spacebat wrote:


Gyava wrote:

Senate seems to back up the background checks. Not sure what Congress will say as their final answer though.


we'll wait and see. Watching Young Justice in the meantime. Batman doesn't need guns...


There are times when I play the song "Molossus" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZst_2xJHAI and run around while no one is looking.. It's epic, until someone spots you.
464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Wisconsin
Offline
Posted 4/15/13
Legislation in congress should be about dealing with mentally ill people not preventing people from owning guns.
1716 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 4/16/13 , edited 4/16/13
I do not see how recording or measuring the rifling pattern on a bullet is viable. Though I am assuming such implementation to facilitate an investigative forensic purpose in the recovery of a stolen arm or identifying the weapon used in a crime. Tracing a weapon by its rifling pattern is unlikely to be successful, considering that upon impact the bullet will deform (even against ballistic gel or human tissue and bone) depending on its velocity and the bullet itself, since ammunition manufacturers and bullets may vary(different grain, bullet material [i.e. FMJ, steel cored, lead core, hollow-point, etc.]). This reminded me of proposed microstamping of the firing pin and its flaw, which a criminal may simply go to a range and collect spent casings and "salt" the scene of a crime.




Above: Clockwise from top; .40S&W, 7.62x63mm, .44 Remington, .444 Marlin. No way to resize this picture is there? Well they are much more smaller than the picture.

Tracing these to a specific gun model can be problematic, unless the bullets can be an extrapolated to a matched caliber based on grain weight, spall deformation or tissue injury patterns.

Otherwise I absolutely agree with the rest of what metalsmith says, with exclusion to his fifth proposition "...guns with a capacity of rapid automatic or semi automatic fire of more than 10 bullets in a row would be illegal outside of special licensed shooting ranges. You may not be in possession of one of these fire arms at any point in time." Why? My family and I own several semi-automatic rifles capable of holding more than 10 cartridges, and no we do not hunt game with AKMs or ARs, because we too agree that weapons of such nature are inappropriate and better suited to other purposes. We are not members of the NRA and believe in solidarity apart from them. Myself, I'm an amateur at gunsmithing in Kalashnikov pattern rifles (and I mean gunsmithing, not just changing out the furniture, but receiver flat bending, heat treating, and riveting) and metalworking, hoping to become an armorer and forensics ballistics/toolmark examiner.
63155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 4/17/13

Realtaliation wrote:





Otherwise I absolutely agree with the rest of what metalsmith says, with exclusion to his fifth proposition "...guns with a capacity of rapid automatic or semi automatic fire of more than 10 bullets in a row would be illegal outside of special licensed shooting ranges. You may not be in possession of one of these fire arms at any point in time." Why? My family and I own several semi-automatic rifles capable of holding more than 10 cartridges, and no we do not hunt game with AKMs or ARs, because we too agree that weapons of such nature are inappropriate and better suited to other purposes. We are not members of the NRA and believe in solidarity apart from them. Myself, I'm an amateur at gunsmithing in Kalashnikov pattern rifles (and I mean gunsmithing, not just changing out the furniture, but receiver flat bending, heat treating, and riveting) and metalworking, hoping to become an armorer and forensics ballistics/toolmark examiner.


The gun itself wouldn't be outlawed, just the modifications for using bananaclips or large magazines with them. You should never have a reason to have a 30 round magazine outside of a shooting range. Why not just have the magazines stay at the shooting range? Most guns only have a 10 round capacity stock, or have a small magazine size like that. Even my SKS has a 10 round capacity without modification. It is illegal in most states to hunt with a weapon capable of holding more than 7 rounds in a magazine anyways.

I apologize for the poor wording, but it's not the gun itself. It's just the magazines that go with it. I think that weapons should be made to use a 10 or less magazine, and require some modification to use larger magazines. The modifications would not need to be difficult, but should be obvious that if a police officer asks if you have any weapons and chose to inspect them, he could see right away that nothing had been done to allow larger magazines to be attached. if it had been, because you are transporting it to a range where the magazines are, it would at least be reasonable for the officer to do a quick search to make sure that you are carrying your ammunition in appropriate containers separate from your ammo etc.

I mean, to pull a person over requires some cause, and if you hid your gun case or gun, you could always lie about having a firearm in the vehicle if you really wanted to, and they would have no reason to question it unless they saw it themselves in plain sight. Anyone with half a brain would have the gun in a case with a saftey lock on the trigger or a cord lock through the action, with the ammunition in a completely separate container / location in your vehicle.

Anyhow, that's really my logic or reasoning behind that last bit. I keep in mind that something being illegal (at least without some sort of permit) is only punishable if police have probable cause to look for it. It's mostly based off the idea that I can't think of a time I would ever put a high capacity magazine on my rifles unless I was at a range.
1716 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 4/17/13
I am familiar with the obvious precautionary measures concerning transportation laws and the existence of magazine plugs that render any standard capacity magazines to become limited to 10 rounds without the need to alter the arm itself, although proving to an inspecting officer would simply require disassembly. Fixed magazines like those of the SKS or most other bolt actions have the advantage of being built in and other benefits, but a rifle like an AR-15 or AKM would require a bullet button, that device I think would satisfy a requirement to identify the rifle as fixed magazine weapon.

I admit that I can not think of any reason to defend the "right" (as some would consider it) to own a standard or high capacity magazine, without having to associate the argument to some highly improbable notion of cataclysmic collapse of society. Being a Californian entails disciplined and adaptable adherence to regulations. Leaving standard capacity magazines at the range though, assuming the magazines are your property, seems odd to my perspective, but reasonable I suppose. Though I could mention that 30 round magazines should be just as permissible at a designated range as shooting on public land outside of city limits after consulting with the BLM.
63155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 4/17/13

Realtaliation wrote:

I am familiar with the obvious precautionary measures concerning transportation laws and the existence of magazine plugs that render any standard capacity magazines to become limited to 10 rounds without the need to alter the arm itself, although proving to an inspecting officer would simply require disassembly. Fixed magazines like those of the SKS or most other bolt actions have the advantage of being built in and other benefits, but a rifle like an AR-15 or AKM would require a bullet button, that device I think would satisfy a requirement to identify the rifle as fixed magazine weapon.

I admit that I can not think of any reason to defend the "right" (as some would consider it) to own a standard or high capacity magazine, without having to associate the argument to some highly improbable notion of cataclysmic collapse of society. Being a Californian entails disciplined and adaptable adherence to regulations. Leaving standard capacity magazines at the range though, assuming the magazines are your property, seems odd to my perspective, but reasonable I suppose. Though I could mention that 30 round magazines should be just as permissible at a designated range as shooting on public land outside of city limits after consulting with the BLM.


It's a pain in the ass, but I think the best way to do it would be to require that a vehicle transporting large clips like 30 or 100 rounds be unloaded and not in the same vehicle as the weapon itself.

you can't do anything about people on private land, and you the appropriate place for them is the shooting range. I suppose this would solve the majority of the issue legally, but most gun owners would ignore such a law like this.

The important part of any of this is that we, as citizens, are protect from unwarranted search and seizure. This law simply gives an officer a warranted reason to check for, if you have the clip, a weapon to go along with it, or if you have the weapon, to make sure that it is not set up to be used as a high capacity weapon outside of designated areas.


I'm not trying to make a simple solution to a horribly difficult problem, but at the same time, given the idea that there is no reason to be shooting a gun with more than 30 round in it anywhere but a shooting range or in a war zone, the answer should really just be, don't use them. I guess the core of my ideas is that possession is the same thing as intent. If you can't agree with that idea, then this whole thing is just not something you can get behind. It's like a car that you don't intend to drive. The only people that really do that are extraordinarily rich, and keep them in a nice garage made for showing off cars.
Banned
1789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 4/18/13

JustineKo2 wrote:

You're not going to like my response but I think it's valid. I guess I'm not as embroiled in this issue as many others are, it's not a high priority issue for me and I really don't dwell on it much. I think pro-gun people tend to be more active, opinionated, and strongly tied to the issue more than people who'd rather see fewer guns and the idealized elimination of gun violence. But here is my opinion: Repeal the 2nd Amendment. It should be abolished, completely eliminated, it's obsolete and completely incompatible with our modern world.

Replace it with what? Nothing. A Constitutional decree interferes with existing legislation that needs to evolve with a changing world. And the world is changing into a place that guns have no purpose except to kill. So recreational hunters, gun enthusiasts and hobbyists, people are dying unnecessarily because too many people are irresponsible with their "constitutionally protected right to gun ownership." That needs to stop. If you don't have access to a gun for the purposes of duty or law enforcement, you DON'T own a gun. And in the case of government sanctioned gun responsibility, the gun is not actually yours. You are leasing it as a contract of your responsibilities. So basically gun ownership does not exist, your uniform and your occupation is your license to carry a gun. If you don't have that uniform or occupation you don't even touch a gun, ever.

Yes I know it's a bit extremist, and probably dystopian too, but that's my opinion on the matter.


Don't blame the gun, blame the people.
A gun is only dangerous as its owner. Our right to fire arm does give us freedom & protection. If the government has its military armed with guns, and the civilians allowed none, then how will we protect ourselves? Many nations are known to suppress their citizens through military action.

With that said it is debatable on how to address the issue of the few people that get out of hand and start killing others. As OP mentioned, getting guns registered and such will at the very least allow some sort of control against these abusers of weapons.

And remember hunny. Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
31119 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Midwest
Offline
Posted 4/20/13
Mister Vici. I was under the impression bullets had a great deal to do with killing people. I think personally there should be a background check on ammunition sales and chemical taggants in all black and smokeless powder tracing the lot number so that if its used in bombs like the ones in Boston you can immediately trace it back to the point of sale and hopefully apprehend cowardly bastards that much swifter. The NRA has made it illeagal for anything other than plastic explosives to have chemical taggants. Why? They literally oppose adding the people on the United States Terror Watch list to the current background check system! Why? Its more than that I don't see a valid argument I want to know why we allow a lobby that supports terrorism in the United States?
28 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/13
Absolutely no infringements on my right to buy , own, or use any man portable weapon system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/wikileaks-kissinger-cables-bradley-manning
http://trevoraaronson.com/book/
http://www.infowars.com/new-orleans-mayor-admits-illegal-gun-confiscation/

Governments and the people who inhabit them can not be trusted. They are in it for their own profit. They consider you a slave. Free men own guns, slaves do not.
23561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Online
Posted 4/22/13 , edited 4/22/13

jicicle wrote:

Absolutely no infringements on my right to buy , own, or use any man portable weapon system.


(Bolded emphasis mine)

Yes, because the general public has a need for Stinger missiles, RPGs, or mortars, for, y'know, personal home defense. Just in case the census taker or tax collector comes knocking, right? Your paranoia is astounding.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.