Discussion of US gun laws

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Nocturn**

Spacemanvic wrote:Going back to the beginning of this thread, someone stated:

I'm a huge supporter of pro-gun legislation, but I do think that some more specific regulation is required.

Like the transfer of gun ownership. Should be done at a licensed dealer, so that the appropriate background checks are performed.

While this would not have much impact criminals selling firearms to other criminals, it would decrease the possibility of the lawful gun owners from unknowingly selling to criminals.

I would also be supportive of a more thorough background check prior to issuing class 3 licenses, similar to the checks conducted when attempting to get a security clearance.

A lot of information can be learned about someone by asking their family, friends, and neighbors.

Transfers of firearms have to go through an FFL dealer (Federal Firearms Licensed).

They're not required to unless you're buying the firearm new. I specifically stated that it would be from person to person, not a new sale.

dogma wrote:You don't take cover behind a door, like they do in the movies (and if you do its about concealment not direct protection), anyone that isn't stupid has known this for decades.

Unless you're driving a CVPI with ballistic inserts.

Davylove21 wrote:It genuinely terrifies me when Americans talk about gun ownership. It's sensible to carry a gun around?! I got chewed out like hell when I was six for running with scissors.

My own personal view is that carrying a weapon in the name of self defense is cowardly in the extreme. It's a comfort blanket that feeds childish fantasies

How is it cowardly to want to be able to defend oneself from the threat of deadly force or grievous bodily injury?

If someone punches you and you shoot them (when you have other means of appropriately resisting), then it's cowardly. But if someone breaks into your house and hold you at gunpoint, wouldn't you want to know that you have the tools and the training to deal with the threat to your life of that of another?

And don't get me wrong, if I'm ever in a situation like that and have the ability to retreat without causing or allowing death or injury to someone else, I'll be smart about it and retreat to a more secure and defensible position. But if that person pursues me, you'd better believe that, in that split-second decision, that my life (and that of others) is going to be considered much more important.

Kaldor wrote:I understand there are those that live in fear, so obsessed with the idea of a vicious criminal accosting them during their day to day lives that they feel the need to arm themselves and leave firearms accessible in their homes, needlessly causing the deaths of innocent people every day. If they wish to wallow in fear and paranoia that is their choice, but do not endanger those of us who wish to live without that needless, unfounded and deranged point of view.

On the contrary. I do not live in fear at all. I am equally as comfortable leaving my gun(s) at home as I am carrying it(them). I carry it/them because there are those rare occasions where the need to protect oneself and others from deadly violence.

And the ones needlessly causing the deaths of innocent are giving all of the responsible gun owners a bad name, doing things like leaving them unattended or assuming they're unloaded.

And lastly, stay out of my country. We don't want your deranged point of view over here any more that you want our "deranged" point of view over wherever you hide.

**Frazzled**

Kaldor wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense
Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

**youbedead**

Frazzled wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense
Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

For the latter probably for the former unlikely. If someone wants to kill you then you're probably going to die. Really having a gun protects you from criminals that would be intimidated by the threat of violence, so petty thieves, muggers, some burglars etc. however a gun isn't going to help much if the criminal is prepared and wants to harm you as he will likely be armed. So guns are most useful in preventing crimes were a gun really shouldn't be fired.

**Frazzled**

youbedead wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense
Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

For the latter probably for the former unlikely. If someone wants to kill you then you're probably going to die. Really having a gun protects you from criminals that would be intimidated by the threat of violence, so petty thieves, muggers, some burglars etc. however a gun isn't going to help much if the criminal is prepared and wants to harm you as he will likely be armed. So guns are most useful in preventing crimes were a gun really shouldn't be fired.

Thats what situational awareness is all about.

**Kaldor**

Frazzled wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense
Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

But who are these mystery people? Most rapists are friends or family of the victim, not strangers attacking them at night.

**Frazzled**

Kaldor wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kaldor wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Kaldor wrote:Neither is carrying a firearm for self defense
Concealed carry is supremely sensible, if you stay in practice.

Is it really though? I appreciate it might make you feel safer, but wouldn't the time, effort and money involved be better invested? How much less likely to suffer a serious injury or be killed are you, really?

If a stalker appears intent on killing you or a rapist intent on raping you, its eminently worthwhile.

But who are these mystery people? Most rapists are friends or family of the victim, not strangers attacking them at night.

Jacketed hollowpoints stop them too.

**Kaldor**

Frazzled wrote:Jacketed hollowpoints stop them too.

I'm sure they do.

But you'd probably get more mileage out of silver bullets, for when the Werewolves attack. Because if we're inventing bogeymen as reasons for carrying, we might as well invent cool ones.

What's the best rounds to use in case of velociraptor invasion?

**Jihadin**

Ballpoint. 5.56mm for a raptor

**Frazzled**

Kaldor wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Jacketed hollowpoints stop them too.

I'm sure they do.

But you'd probably get more mileage out of silver bullets, for when the Werewolves attack. Because if we're inventing bogeymen as reasons for carrying, we might as well invent cool ones.

What's the best rounds to use in case of velociraptor invasion?

12 gauge with birdshot. They are birds after all.

**Jihadin**

I've no desire for a raptor to be that close to use a shotgun

**Frazzled**

well they are fast buggers. watch out for Trexes if you have cocnut tree.

**Jihadin**

50 cal...MK19...AT4....MWAW....A10...wait..Ido have experience in calling in a A10 strike

**Melissia**

It doesn't matter who they are.

It could be anyone. Could be family. Could be random guy across the street. Could be someone that no one knows. A hobo even.

Why does it matter who it is? There are things which it is better that you prepare for than not. It's called insurance. Fire insurance, just in case a fire starts from lightning or from someone tossing a cigarette or you leaving the oven on or any reason; house insurance, in case of disasters either natural or unnatural; car insurance, both because it's legally required and because quite a few drivers aren't all that sane to begin with; health insurance, because you never know when you'll get sick or hurt; And donkey-cave insurance, because you never know when you'll need to defend yourself.

**Lone Cat**

It is not only the law that reduces gun crimes.

It is the law ENFORCEMENT that makes it happens.

corrupted law enforcers does not prevent any crimes. but he also increases it.

Do you know anything about how (american) gangsters procure firearms and certain military grade weapons (like RPG-7) and doin' drive by shooting. creating their nation state that never will be recongnized by the World. ??

**Melissia**

Gangsters are highly unlikely to produce RPGs. Haven't heard of it ever happening.

**Lone Cat**

If they can't make RPG7 and its ammo. they have to acquire it by other means.

so 'how'. how could those nasty peeps acquire these despite the law and the enforcement.?

**Melissia**

Usually... they don't.

**xole**

There's a local made video I've seen in which some members of our local bulldog gang were toting various weapons, including one RPG. I was told by a cop/teacher of mine that all the people in that video were arrested save the camera man and one of the people behind it.

It's been a few years now and I don't believe an RPG has yet been fired within the city.

I'm not sure if I can actually give the name of the video or anything, as it also contains (mild) amateur pornography.

So, I would say it IS possible. Just unlikely. Like finding a good president.

**Jihadin**

If they can't make RPG7 and its ammo. they have to acquire it by other means.

so 'how'. how could those nasty peeps acquire these despite the law and the enforcement.?

South of the Border

as for RPG's

Middle East

**GalacticDefender**

I collect guns purely for their historical value, aside from plinking and very occasional hunting. But mainly I collect old WW2 era bolt action rifles.

I do think the gun control laws should be a bit tighter. Not restrictions on what you can buy (I'd LOVE to be able to own a PPsh-41 lol) but I think there should be more rigorous background checks, and you should have to pass a gun safety course to be able to purchase guns.

**broodstar**

GalacticDefender wrote: but I think there should be more rigorous background checks, and you should have to pass a gun safety course to be able to purchase guns.

While I do believe that weapon safety courses should be required to bring a weapon into public, I don't believe that you should have a license to keep a 45 under the matress. (sort of speak) Yes, you need to know how to drive a car to drive it on public roads, but not just to own a car.

While working in a gas station I've turned away the towns drunks plenty of times. Wouldn't it be more applicable if we could empower the gunshop clerks to be able to deny service to people they believe to be nuts....As well as defining behaviors that would allow them to legally make that call.

**Poppabear**

Guns kill people.... simple as that.

Don't know why it is so hard to understand, every country should just outlaw guns completely (I'm sure we can hunt in other ways) BUT accept for the states, it's WAY to late for them, everyone and their grandmother has one, lets just let them blow themselves up from within and take China and Russia on board for our new world leaders!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It really come's down to BY PIECE OF METAL IS BIGGER THEN YOUR PIECE OF METAL. HERPA DERPA DEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRR....

*BANG*

**Bromsy**

Poppabear wrote:Guns kill people.... simple as that.

Don't know why it is so hard to understand, every country should just outlaw guns completely (I'm sure we can hunt in other ways) BUT accept for the states, it's WAY to late for them, everyone and their grandmother has one, lets just let them blow themselves up from within and take China and Russia on board for our new world leaders!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It really come's down to BY PIECE OF METAL IS BIGGER THEN YOUR PIECE OF METAL. HERPA DERPA DEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRR....

*BANG*

... your command of grammar, rhetoric and logic has shown me the true way. I for one welcome our new russian and chinese overlords so long as they make just as much sense as you and match your exacting linguistic standards.

I mean, I just look at the long years of the Pax Americana and long for the more righteous days of major wars every generation.

**broodstar**

Poppabear wrote:Guns kill people.... simple as that.

Guns don't kill people, husband who come home early do, lol. But seriously, if we are at such risk from dieing to a firearm, how come in the CDC list of gak most likely to kill you, firearms isn't on there.

Don't know why it is so hard to understand, every country should just outlaw guns completely (I'm sure we can hunt in other ways) BUT accept for the states, it's WAY to late for them, everyone and their grandmother has one, lets just let them blow themselves up from within and take China and Russia on board for our new world leaders!

Oh, you crack me up!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It really come's down to BY PIECE OF METAL IS BIGGER THEN YOUR PIECE OF METAL. HERPA DERPA DEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRR....

*BANG*

No, what it comes down to "I don't want to learn how to be responible with a weapon so, i'm not going to own one."

**Poppabear**

I'm only taking the piss, I own like 3 'hunting' rifles and love to hunt, great sport.

Successful troll no?

**Ouze**

I wouldn't have a problem with requiring some safety courses and basic proficiency to obtain a gun license, similar to what you'd see with driving a car. I know a lot of states already require this. I don't see that making sure citizens know where the safety is as an onerous requirement.

There are also some hardware restrictions I'd like to see. I think the previous assault weapons ban was foolish and it was right to allow it to die - you shouldn't ban gun accessories because they look scarier. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem with some sane limitations on some specific parts. I find it hard to rationalize a civilian need for 100 round drum mags or 25 round extended pistol mags other then facilitating spree murder.

I'm also sort of on the fence on the .50 long - while I can see it's use when hunting water buffalo, we also generally don't allow civilian purchase of ordnance that can be used to down helicopters. Yes, I know there are no documented examples of that happening in the US from civilian ownership, but there are also no civilians blowing up police cars with Javelins, and they can't buy those, either. At some point I think there is a innate destructive power and capability that simply precludes civilian ownership; just not sure exactly where it is but my heart kinda says the Barrett and it's ilk are on the law enforcement only side of it.

**Melissia**

Honestly, you know... what I'd like to see is that a national gun license to allow people to own the guns and have them on their property. It would require you to take several safety courses, first on the safety features of the gun, then on actually handling the gun, and finally on safely storing the gun to prevent children and teens from getting it and doing stupid things with it. After that, a background check for mental illness and criminal record, and you're allowed to have a gun on your property. States would still get to make their own concealed carry, hunting, etc licenses.

I'm sure this would piss off some of the crankier liberals, mind you.

**SOFDC**

Yes, I know there are no documented examples of that happening in the US from civilian ownership, but there are also no civilians blowing up police cars with Javelins, and they can't buy those, either

Actually, as a private citizen...I can buy an rocket launcher or a freaking anti tank cannon a WHOLE lot easier (As in, at all.) than you can buy an brand new M16. Only question is money, or patience to deal with all the secondary regulations.

At some point I think there is a innate destructive power and capability that simply precludes civilian ownership; just not sure exactly where it is but my heart kinda says the Barrett and it's ilk are on the law enforcement only side of it.

I agree with this point in principle, however, i'd put that limit at things like: Nerve gas, radioactive material weapons, blistering agents, weaponized microbes.

**Jihadin**

I moved to Colorado about ten months ago. And though I am a native Texan, Colorado is my adoptive state. In my 31 years, 18 were in Texas and 12 were in Illinois, so that should tell you something. I love this state and the people in it. Just as the people of Texas are my people, the people of Colorado are my adoptive people.

Recently, my Colorado people have suffered through forest fires. And now they’ve suffered through an horrific tragedy. My upbringing has been between one of the most conservative states in the union and one of the most liberal, as far as gun laws go. So I have a lot of friends on both sides of the gun issue that want to share their thoughts. And you know what? You can shut up about gun control for a day or two.

You can shut up about gun regulations and gun bans

I own an assault rifle, two handguns and a shotgun. And, of course, I purchased them all legally. I have a college degree and I don’t have any criminal history beyond speeding tickets. If you’re looking at a background check, I’m no different than James Eagan Holmes. Compare resumes and you’ll pick him; he had a better GPA than I did and actually pursued a higher education than I have.

'I own an assault rifle, two handguns and a shotgun. And, of course, I purchased them all legally. I have a college degree and I don’t have any criminal history beyond speeding tickets.'

-

The difference between James Holmes and me is that one of us walked into a theater and murdered people. One of us wanted to make our home into a giant bomb to kill our neighbors. One of us values human life. There’s no law on the planet that will change how a man values the life of another. Outlaw online sales, assault rifles, guns, liquids over 3 ounces, and he still would find a way to murder.

You can shut up about how concealed carry fixes everything

Colorado isn’t much different from Texas as far as gun laws are concerned. In fact, Texas is the only state in the union where open carry is illegal (the ability to carry a gun in public for all to see). Concealed carry is legal and fairly easy to obtain in the state of Colorado. In fact, my wife and I went through the class. Our course was taught by a police officer and firearms instructor; he was rarely qualified to educated us on conceal carry rules and the actual gun laws in Colorado.

So here’s a few things you should know:
It is perfectly legal to conceal a firearm in a movie theater in Colorado if you have a license
Colorado concealed-carry classes aren’t required to be taught by law enforcement
Colorado concealed-carry classes don’t require that you demonstrate proficiency with a fire arm
Colorado concealed-carry classes don’t require that you even shoot a firearm

You can shut up about how things would have been different if someone had a gun

I’ve fired and used guns my whole life. I don’t claim to be an expert or even overly proficient. And though I have shot a few thousand rounds in my life, I don’t think that would matter for me or others in this situation. So here’s what you soon-to-be heroes with conceal weapons permits should know:
You’re not Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer, or Bruce Wayne. Situational awareness takes training that you don’t get as a civilian. You won’t recognize a threat until it’s too late.
Unless you’ve trained with the exact weapons system you’re carrying, you’ll miss. It takes hundreds of hours with a firearm to really be proficient. Do you know what you’d do if it jams? Can you reload before the last round leaves your chamber? How many rounds in your magazine? Have you even practiced drawing your weapon if it’s concealed?
Proficiency deteriorates without practice. When was the last time you fired your gun? Police and military practice regularly for their jobs. You do it irregularly for fun.
A thousand hours on the range aren’t the same as a hundred seconds in a real shootout. Can you recognize the threat, obtain a site picture, and neutralize the target with a gun pointed at you? Police and military don’t just learn how to do this once, they actually train in these situations.
There’s a solid chance you won’t even pull the trigger. There is huge psychological trauma associated with taking a life. Estimates are that between 1/3rd and 1/4th of guns on the battlefield in WWII were never shot. There are even police officers and soldiers who have been killed because they didn’t have what it took to kill.
Even if you train with your gun, you do it until you get it right. Police and military do it until they don’t get it wrong. You’re just not ready like they are to use your gun.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/26/why-own-assault-rifle/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz22IcmReuY

Food for thought

**GalacticDefender**

Poppabear wrote:Guns kill people.... simple as that.

Don't know why it is so hard to understand, every country should just outlaw guns completely (I'm sure we can hunt in other ways) BUT accept for the states, it's WAY to late for them, everyone and their grandmother has one, lets just let them blow themselves up from within and take China and Russia on board for our new world leaders!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It really come's down to BY PIECE OF METAL IS BIGGER THEN YOUR PIECE OF METAL. HERPA DERPA DEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRR....

*BANG*

No, for me it comes down to "That gun is more historically interesting than that one". The way I collect guns at least is more akin to a coin collection. One that you can shoot inanimate objects with. And we do have bow hunting season, but that translates more to "deer wounding season". (yeah I know its a troll post but this is addressed to the many people who actually think that way. Minus the China and Russia bits)

And guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people

Seriously, I don't think it is a problem with the guns. I think it is a problem with the American public. Guns are legal to own in Canada and Britain, but they don't have anywhere near as many gun deaths as the paranoid anti-immigration racist nuts over here cause every year.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with requiring some safety courses and basic proficiency to obtain a gun license, similar to what you'd see with driving a car. I know a lot of states already require this. I don't see that making sure citizens know where the safety is as an onerous requirement.

There are also some hardware restrictions I'd like to see. I think the previous assault weapons ban was foolish and it was right to allow it to die - you shouldn't ban gun accessories because they look scarier. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem with some sane limitations on some specific parts. I find it hard to rationalize a civilian need for 100 round drum mags or 25 round extended pistol mags other then facilitating spree murder.

I'm also sort of on the fence on the .50 long - while I can see it's use when hunting water buffalo, we also generally don't allow civilian purchase of ordnance that can be used to down helicopters. Yes, I know there are no documented examples of that happening in the US from civilian ownership, but there are also no civilians blowing up police cars with Javelins, and they can't buy those, either. At some point I think there is a innate destructive power and capability that simply precludes civilian ownership; just not sure exactly where it is but my heart kinda says the Barrett and it's ilk are on the law enforcement only side of it.

Unless the drum mags in question are for .22s. That would be the most awesome thing ever for plinking.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Honestly, you know... what I'd like to see is that a national gun license to allow people to own the guns and have them on their property. It would require you to take several safety courses, first on the safety features of the gun, then on actually handling the gun, and finally on safely storing the gun to prevent children and teens from getting it and doing stupid things with it. After that, a background check for mental illness and criminal record, and you're allowed to have a gun on your property. States would still get to make their own concealed carry, hunting, etc licenses.

I'm sure this would piss off some of the crankier liberals, mind you.

Now why would that piss off the Liberals?