|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2012 : 14:05:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The NRA is for a national registry which has limited access to it by state and local governments only when they have a valid and active law enforcement concern and not a seizure for a gun ban reason. |
Are you pro or con on that idea? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 15:48:15 [Permalink]
|
Val:
Ney York City used a gun registry enacted in 1967 to ban "assault weapons" which were defined as semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in 1993. They then used this registry to sieze these weapons.
The siezure was done in spite of the Police Commissioner Lee Brown testifying that no assault weapon had been used in a violent crime for the city.
California required the registration for the SKS rifle. The law was bobbled and an grace period was allowed for the registry of these weapons. Recently, California has reneged on the grace period and demanded the seizure of all registered SKS's.
Chicago also banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in the 1990's after requiring a registry. The city began seizing those weapons. |
So that means that gun registration is primarily used that way? These couldn't be anomalies? And you do understand what "sources" means still. Right?
Val:
The NRA is for a national registry which has limited access to it by state and local governments only when they have a valid and active law enforcement concern and not a seizure for a gun ban reason. |
NRA’s phony gun control
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 06:11:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The NRA is for a national registry which has limited access to it by state and local governments only when they have a valid and active law enforcement concern and not a seizure for a gun ban reason. |
Are you pro or con on that idea?
|
Actually pro on that idea. There must be some sort of limit placed on government to prevent gun confiscations from compliant owners. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 06:40:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Val:
Ney York City used a gun registry enacted in 1967 to ban "assault weapons" which were defined as semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in 1993. They then used this registry to sieze these weapons.
The siezure was done in spite of the Police Commissioner Lee Brown testifying that no assault weapon had been used in a violent crime for the city.
California required the registration for the SKS rifle. The law was bobbled and an grace period was allowed for the registry of these weapons. Recently, California has reneged on the grace period and demanded the seizure of all registered SKS's.
Chicago also banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in the 1990's after requiring a registry. The city began seizing those weapons. |
So that means that gun registration is primarily used that way? These couldn't be anomalies? And you do understand what "sources" means still. Right?
|
Since registration databases are rarely implemented in a state by state basis, these are the only ones I can find.
There are only 5 states which require registration of guns (1 of those limited to handguns). Three of those states used them for gun confiscations.
I am still trying to locate the source documents. Some have been moved/removed due to age and others quote the data but not the underlying source.
Val:
The NRA is for a national registry which has limited access to it by state and local governments only when they have a valid and active law enforcement concern and not a seizure for a gun ban reason. |
NRA’s phony gun control
|
Wow. And you called my series unsourced. This is an opinion piece. It makes a lot of generalized complaints and irrelevant points. It points out that the NRA is just fine with reasonable licensure for concealed carry.
You keep saying that you want guns registered like cars. Fine, then remove the requirement in 4 states that you must apply for a permit to purchase a gun in the state above and beyond the Instacheck and 3-14 day waiting periods. You would actually be reducing the number of strictures in several states. Removing limits on purchasing guns, removing waiting periods (cooling off periods), while gaining resistrations from private sales. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 07:13:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Actually pro on that idea. There must be some sort of limit placed on government to prevent gun confiscations from compliant owners. |
Well, if you're worried about government abuse of power, then what good are government-imposed limits? Isn't that a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 08:23:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Actually pro on that idea. There must be some sort of limit placed on government to prevent gun confiscations from compliant owners. |
Well, if you're worried about government abuse of power, then what good are government-imposed limits? Isn't that a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation?
|
A more balanced voice in Congress than in individual cities. Plus, it can fall back quicker to the courts.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 09:54:16 [Permalink]
|
Val:
You keep saying that you want guns registered like cars. Fine, then remove the requirement in 4 states that you must apply for a permit to purchase a gun in the state above and beyond the Instacheck and 3-14 day waiting periods. You would actually be reducing the number of strictures in several states. Removing limits on purchasing guns, removing waiting periods (cooling off periods), while gaining resistrations from private sales. |
I don't keep saying I want guns registered like cars. Find where I said that. I just pointed out (in the thread on facebook) that there are parts of car registration where something similar would be good to use with gun registration too. Like having some registry know of a change title (or ownership) in private gun sales. Cars are bought for transportation. Guns are weapons. Obviously the registration requirements shouldn't be exactly the same. Nice strawman.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2012 : 12:36:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I don't see how capacity really makes any difference in labeling something an "assault" anything. |
Because you can do more damage to people with them and they seem unnecessary for most any legitimate situation?
| While drum magazines are impractical and not likely to be purchased for sporting, they could be purchased in the future for antique gun collections. There are some legitimate uses for high capacity magazines in training/practice situations. |
Suppose we put them into the class of more tightly controlled weapons, such as some automatic weapons, otherwise disallowed antiques, and the like, instead?
I'm struggling to find a legitimate situation when high caliber weapons with high capacity magazines are needed at all. If it exists, it must be pretty uncommon, uncommon enough that special controls wouldn't put undue burden on the owners.
| High capacity magazines are more prone to jamming. The Colorado shooter's AR-15 jammed because of a misfeed from the high capacity magazine. |
Yes, but why does it matter? No one should really be arguing stronger than "there's more risk of more damage being done with x" anyhow. The risk of shooting more rounds without delay exists with them, even if it's sometimes not met. Taking them out of the equation puts an effective cap potential rounds shot per unit time. Sure, highly trained individuals could swap out the magazines without a problem in the situation, but mass shooters in the U.S. have hardly ever been experienced or particularly competent (except Fort Hood, but military personnel on bases probably aren't going to be affected regardless).
I'm sympathetic to the argument that rules initially meant to be controls easily offer opportunity to be pushed further when the political winds shift. The NRA proposal for a national registry is interesting, but I'm not sure how to parse valid law enforcement purposes.
Validity couldn't be granted by the state's laws necessarily because newly enacted laws that ban the weapons would mean the owners would be breaking state laws. So what next? Do we try to exclude state laws that ban weapons not banned nationally? Or, bring the standard needed to get access to suspicion of breaking federal law?
What happens when they get access, their hunch was wrong, but they still find weapons not allowed in the state? Do the owners still get prosecuted and weapons confiscated? I can't imagine this wouldn't be sufficient to get a warrant from the state to search for the illegal weapons known to be owned by the persons. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 07/26/2012 12:38:41 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2012 : 05:56:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I don't see how capacity really makes any difference in labeling something an "assault" anything. |
Because you can do more damage to people with them and they seem unnecessary for most any legitimate situation?
|
This assumes that one only buys these for use on humans. Also, by that logic, the definition of assualt weapon hinges on the magazine size. An AR-15, by that logic, is not an assault weapon when it has the standard 10 round clip, but magically is transformed into one when a 50 round banana clip or 15 round extra long clip is added.
Also, these high capacity clips changes significantly the handling characteristics of the weapon.
| While drum magazines are impractical and not likely to be purchased for sporting, they could be purchased in the future for antique gun collections. There are some legitimate uses for high capacity magazines in training/practice situations. |
Suppose we put them into the class of more tightly controlled weapons, such as some automatic weapons, otherwise disallowed antiques, and the like, instead?
I'm struggling to find a legitimate situation when high caliber weapons with high capacity magazines are needed at all. If it exists, it must be pretty uncommon, uncommon enough that special controls wouldn't put undue burden on the owners.
|
The AR-15 in question is a .22 caliber. The bullet is puny. We aren't talking about the .45 Thompson or .50 Thompson sub machine guns with 100 round drums as seen in gangster movies like "White Heat".
I'm struggling to find a legitimate reason to place special controls on these items. The special controls that make sense are on rate of fire. Capacity is not a real concern.
| High capacity magazines are more prone to jamming. The Colorado shooter's AR-15 jammed because of a misfeed from the high capacity magazine. |
Yes, but why does it matter? No one should really be arguing stronger than "there's more risk of more damage being done with x" anyhow. The risk of shooting more rounds without delay exists with them, even if it's sometimes not met. Taking them out of the equation puts an effective cap potential rounds shot per unit time. Sure, highly trained individuals could swap out the magazines without a problem in the situation, but mass shooters in the U.S. have hardly ever been experienced or particularly competent (except Fort Hood, but military personnel on bases probably aren't going to be affected regardless).
|
It takes longer to clear a misfeed than change a standard clip. How is limiting access by non-criminal (as shown by the FOID card background checks and ability for the FOID card to be revolked for ANY felony and some violent misdameanors.)
This thinking assumes that the majority of people buying these are doing so strictly to open up on a crowd of people.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that rules initially meant to be controls easily offer opportunity to be pushed further when the political winds shift. The NRA proposal for a national registry is interesting, but I'm not sure how to parse valid law enforcement purposes.
Validity couldn't be granted by the state's laws necessarily because newly enacted laws that ban the weapons would mean the owners would be breaking state laws. So what next? Do we try to exclude state laws that ban weapons not banned nationally? Or, bring the standard needed to get access to suspicion of breaking federal law?
|
For consistency's sake, it almost has to be Federalized. I think, based on the capricious nature of state laws, that it has to be based on an articulated suspicion of a violent crime or post felony conviction and not be a widespread fishing expedition (like the "safety checkpoints" on the highway).
What happens when they get access, their hunch was wrong, but they still find weapons not allowed in the state? Do the owners still get prosecuted and weapons confiscated? I can't imagine this wouldn't be sufficient to get a warrant from the state to search for the illegal weapons known to be owned by the persons.
|
They would have to have that articulable suspicion that the individual has committed a violent crime or the fact that the individual has been convicted of a felony. At that point, it is like the dime bag found in clear view by police when a car is stopped for speeding. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2013 : 08:22:19 [Permalink]
|
Question: How are assault rifles more of a threat to society than handguns?
To my knowledge, most of the gun violence in the US involves hanguns. People have easier access to them, they're cheaper than assault rifles, they're more portable than assault rifles, and more concealable than assault rifles. How many times do you hear of children sneaking daddy's AR-15 into their backpacks let alone onto school grounds?
Sure, the size and destructive power of the AR-15 comes with a great deal more shock value than hanguns, but I have never seen or known someone with an AR except for military personnel at the World Trade Center. Try walking down to your local 711 with an AR and you're likely to be arrested before you even traverse 3 blocks; try the same thing with a concealed handgun and you most likely won't hear a peep from anyone. |
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2013 : 10:55:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
Question: How are assault rifles more of a threat to society than handguns?
To my knowledge, most of the gun violence in the US involves hanguns. People have easier access to them, they're cheaper than assault rifles, they're more portable than assault rifles, and more concealable than assault rifles. How many times do you hear of children sneaking daddy's AR-15 into their backpacks let alone onto school grounds?
Sure, the size and destructive power of the AR-15 comes with a great deal more shock value than hanguns, but I have never seen or known someone with an AR except for military personnel at the World Trade Center. Try walking down to your local 711 with an AR and you're likely to be arrested before you even traverse 3 blocks; try the same thing with a concealed handgun and you most likely won't hear a peep from anyone.
|
You make an excellent case for banning handguns, a little extereme for me but hey to each his own! ;) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2013 : 11:52:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
Question: How are assault rifles more of a threat to society than handguns?
To my knowledge, most of the gun violence in the US involves hanguns. People have easier access to them, they're cheaper than assault rifles, they're more portable than assault rifles, and more concealable than assault rifles. How many times do you hear of children sneaking daddy's AR-15 into their backpacks let alone onto school grounds?
Sure, the size and destructive power of the AR-15 comes with a great deal more shock value than hanguns, but I have never seen or known someone with an AR except for military personnel at the World Trade Center. Try walking down to your local 711 with an AR and you're likely to be arrested before you even traverse 3 blocks; try the same thing with a concealed handgun and you most likely won't hear a peep from anyone.
|
Per the FBI's victimology survey on violent crime, about 6,500 were committed with handguns. 323 were committed with rifles of all types (including but not limited to "assault rifles" whatever that means.).
Military doesn't have AR-15's. They have their auto and burst capable cousins, the M-16. I've known several people with AR-15's. Some use them for hunting. Most for sport shooting. Carrying any weapon in public usually gets a passing notice. Much less in hunting areas.
I don't see either of these tools inherently societally dangerous. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2013 : 22:21:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
This assumes that one only buys these for use on humans. Also, by that logic, the definition of assualt weapon hinges on the magazine size. An AR-15, by that logic, is not an assault weapon when it has the standard 10 round clip, but magically is transformed into one when a 50 round banana clip or 15 round extra long clip is added.
Also, these high capacity clips changes significantly the handling characteristics of the weapon. |
Of course it doesn't assume that, please tell me a legitimate situation where a clip larger than 10 rounds is needed. What sort of hunter needs to shoot more than 10 rounds at a time?
I guess its cheaper or more fun for target shooting if you don't have to buy more magazines or reload them more often.
I said nothing of the label assault weapon, which is meaningless thanks to media not knowing what the hell they're reporting on at even a very basic level. It's exceptionally bad journalism really -- I saw Michael Bloomberg on 20/20 or Dateline literally say that semi-automatic rifles allow people to hold down the trigger and get multiple rounds to fire, and the interviewer didn't even realize there was anything wrong with the statement and accepted it as a valid point.
I don't think handling is much of an issue in these sorts of incidents with close-range unarmed civilians, and the handling issues can only make handling worse for legitimate usage anyway, so this seems moot.
| While drum magazines are impractical and not likely to be purchased for sporting, they could be purchased in the future for antique gun collections. There are some legitimate uses for high capacity magazines in training/practice situations. |
We currently have stronger controls on antique weapons not otherwise allowed, and stronger controls on equipment not otherwise allowed for training by a narrower class of trainers or institutions.
| The AR-15 in question is a .22 caliber. The bullet is puny. We aren't talking about the .45 Thompson or .50 Thompson sub machine guns with 100 round drums as seen in gangster movies like "White Heat". |
Right, I shouldn't really lump higher caliber into this debate. Any are quite effective on people from close range, and heck, even the military used .22 caliber pistols for special operations not so long ago.
| I'm struggling to find a legitimate reason to place special controls on these items. The special controls that make sense are on rate of fire. Capacity is not a real concern. |
The legitimate possibility that it allows more damage per time.
Yes, but why does it matter? No one should really be arguing stronger than "there's more risk of more damage being done with x" anyhow. The risk of shooting more rounds without delay exists with them, even if it's sometimes not met. Taking them out of the equation puts an effective cap potential rounds shot per unit time. Sure, highly trained individuals could swap out the magazines without a problem in the situation, but mass shooters in the U.S. have hardly ever been experienced or particularly competent (except Fort Hood, but military personnel on bases probably aren't going to be affected regardless).
|
It takes longer to clear a misfeed than change a standard clip. How is limiting access by non-criminal (as shown by the FOID card background checks and ability for the FOID card to be revolked for ANY felony and some violent misdameanors.) |
You basically ignored the key part of what you quoted there:
| The risk of shooting more rounds without delay exists with them, even if it's sometimes not met. |
While the risk of misfeeding is higher with large clips, they doesn't jam most of the time.
| This thinking assumes that the majority of people buying these are doing so strictly to open up on a crowd of people. |
It doesn't, but I can't find another reason, beyond making target shooting cheaper and/or faster. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2013 : 06:38:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
This assumes that one only buys these for use on humans. Also, by that logic, the definition of assualt weapon hinges on the magazine size. An AR-15, by that logic, is not an assault weapon when it has the standard 10 round clip, but magically is transformed into one when a 50 round banana clip or 15 round extra long clip is added.
Also, these high capacity clips changes significantly the handling characteristics of the weapon. |
Of course it doesn't assume that, please tell me a legitimate situation where a clip larger than 10 rounds is needed. What sort of hunter needs to shoot more than 10 rounds at a time?
|
Varmint hunting. Pest control. Usually against prarie dogs, gophers, pigeons, ground squirrels, etc.
I guess its cheaper or more fun for target shooting if you don't have to buy more magazines or reload them more often.
|
It also allows you to gauge how the weapon will handle the stress of operation. It is also useful in target shooting. There is a secondary reason. That being the ability of the populace to rise up against a tyrannical government should the need arise.
I said nothing of the label assault weapon, which is meaningless thanks to media not knowing what the hell they're reporting on at even a very basic level. It's exceptionally bad journalism really -- I saw Michael Bloomberg on 20/20 or Dateline literally say that semi-automatic rifles allow people to hold down the trigger and get multiple rounds to fire, and the interviewer didn't even realize there was anything wrong with the statement and accepted it as a valid point.
I don't think handling is much of an issue in these sorts of incidents with close-range unarmed civilians, and the handling issues can only make handling worse for legitimate usage anyway, so this seems moot.
| While drum magazines are impractical and not likely to be purchased for sporting, they could be purchased in the future for antique gun collections. There are some legitimate uses for high capacity magazines in training/practice situations. |
We currently have stronger controls on antique weapons not otherwise allowed, and stronger controls on equipment not otherwise allowed for training by a narrower class of trainers or institutions.
| The AR-15 in question is a .22 caliber. The bullet is puny. We aren't talking about the .45 Thompson or .50 Thompson sub machine guns with 100 round drums as seen in gangster movies like "White Heat". |
Right, I shouldn't really lump higher caliber into this debate. Any are quite effective on people from close range, and heck, even the military used .22 caliber pistols for special operations not so long ago.
| I'm struggling to find a legitimate reason to place special controls on these items. The special controls that make sense are on rate of fire. Capacity is not a real concern. |
The legitimate possibility that it allows more damage per time.
|
So..... we are left to depending on the police for response at this point. Significantly increases your time part of the factor.
Yes, but why does it matter? No one should really be arguing stronger than "there's more risk of more damage being done with x" anyhow. The risk of shooting more rounds without delay exists with them, even if it's sometimes not met. Taking them out of the equation puts an effective cap potential rounds shot per unit time. Sure, highly trained individuals could swap out the magazines without a problem in the situation, but mass shooters in the U.S. have hardly ever been experienced or particularly competent (except Fort Hood, but military personnel on bases probably aren't going to be affected regardless).
|
It takes longer to clear a misfeed than change a standard clip. How is limiting access by non-criminal (as shown by the FOID card background checks and ability for the FOID card to be revolked for ANY felony and some violent misdameanors.) |
You basically ignored the key part of what you quoted there:
|
Because the "speed of shot" argument is a distraction.
| The risk of shooting more rounds without delay exists with them, even if it's sometimes not met. |
While the risk of misfeeding is higher with large clips, they doesn't jam most of the time.
|
But it does increase with the rate of fire.
| This thinking assumes that the majority of people buying these are doing so strictly to open up on a crowd of people. |
It doesn't, but I can't find another reason, beyond making target shooting cheaper and/or faster.
|
And defense of freedoms from a tyrannical government. And ability to shoot more varmints (as detailed above) without the need to do a lengthy reload. Under the classification that 10+ rounds makes something an assault weapon, the .22 long rifle varmint gun I had growing up was an assault weapon because it held 15. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2013 : 09:01:35 [Permalink]
|
| VD, what the AR-15 lacks in bullet size it more than makes up in range, accuracy and bullet speed. I would much rather face down a 50cal tommy gun than a 22cal AR-15. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Predictably, the gun control debate heats up
