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.

Threaded barrels are a big no-no in the list, has there ever been a rash of crimes with people using silenced semi automatic rifles? I don't understand how a threaded barrel makes an impact on a weapon becoming "assault" style.

Tompson weapons are cited, is this the roaring 20's? Do we seriously have lots of murders being committed with 90+ year old vintage Tommy guns? Can we also outlaw wearing pin stripes and fedoras?

I think a lot of it comes from the rifles posing a greater threat to law enforcement than the average citizen. Pistols are what typically work very well in mass shooting as they are easier to use in confined spaces and they can be concealed much easier, however if you are facing people in body armor like the cops then rifles have the extra ability to penetrate that armor.

Regardless of what laws are passed the average citizen is a sitting duck, completely unarmed and unarmored so it makes very little difference what weapons the criminals employ as handguns and shotguns will kill pretty much on par with semi auto rifles (and in some situations better rifles) but rifles scare law enforcement as it beats their tactic-cool gear.

When the two guys in LA robbed the banks with fully automatic AKs wearing body armor it wasn't to deal with unarmed bank employees or citizens, it was done so they could fend off the cops and ultimately that's what the government wants to maintain control over. They cite it being for the "protection of the people" but that's never going to happen effectively as criminals won't obey the laws or limit themselves on what firearms they use, because criminals have no regard for the laws. But the government want to put hurdles in place that help limit the average person's access so that they maintain the upper hand in the police out gunning the general population. It's not really about protecting the population but rather protecting the law enforcement officers.

The most effective mass murder weapon is bombs, they are popular with terrorist because they are so effective both in terms of lethality and the general inability to counter them.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Did I say annual occurance? I guess I should have said daily. The individual's rights. How many individuals lost their right to life? A culture that perceives any personal loss as unacceptable, while hundreds die for that "right". You have my pity.

Thousands of people die every year from car crashes. At what point will they outlaw cars? They kill a lot of people on a daily basis and by your standard we should still trample over the rights of everyone who responsibly owns a car and doesn't manage to kill anyone.

 Ashiraya wrote:
A great question. Why do you draw the line where you do? Why is the 'right to own a gun' more sacred than, say, the 'right to go out sailing alone while drunk'? Both are unlikely, but possible, to cause harm to another, yet one is illegal and the other is not.

It's no more sacred than the right to free speech, protection against illegal imprisonment, or the right to trial by jury, should we also get rid of all the other sacred cows?

It was written into the foundation laws of our country so that we'd have the ability to protect ourselves, be it from other people, wildlife, or invading armies. Depending on our personal views It's something that we can opt to exercise or not, but under law we are at least given the option to choose. When you take away the option of choice then it is not freedom. Those that choose to use their freedom of choice to pursue ill will against others and do harm are dealt and punished by laws against such actions. As a free society we don't punish people for what they "might" do or "might' have the capacity to do.

If they want to go after criminal use of guns then they should make the penalties stiffer for the criminal use of a firearm, not use a blanket punishment on people that own and use their firearms in a responsible manner. Commit a crime with a gun? Automatic life sentence, it provides a much bigger legal deterrent and doesn't impact law abiding owners one bit.

 Peregrine wrote:


This is simply wrong. Criminals might use illegally acquired guns, but where were those guns manufactured? Are there a lot of illegal gun factories making illegal pistols and AR-15 copies for criminals to use, or are those illegal guns legally-manufactured guns that are stolen or sold illegally? If you eliminate 99.9999999% of the demand for legal gun manufacturing then you make it a lot harder to get a gun illegally.

Whenever something has been outlawed and made illegal it only deepens the criminal involvement and violence associated with it. Criminalize booze? prices went through the roof as did gang related violence. When it became legal again all that violence disappeared. When they outlawed pot same effect, prices went up and the criminal and violent elements increased. Nobody was killing people over stuff they could grow in their backyard but once it was criminalized it fuels criminal violence. Attempting to eliminate guns will have a similar, if not worse impact. The price on them will skyrocket which attracts criminals and unlike drugs or booze anyone dealing in illegal guns will by default be armed so it's a perfect storm of creating a high black market ability and having the ability to kill others with the very item they are smuggling.

If you criminalize all guns (or anything else) then somebody will always move in to supply the demand and then only criminals will have them, sounds like good times.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would be easier to take gun control proponents seriously if they could actually use the correct terminology and weren't targeting entirely the wrong types of weapons for a problem which actually doesn't exist.

It would be easier to take gun control opponents seriously if they could actually address the substance of the "how many bullets can a gun hold" argument instead of nitpicking over the fact that the commonly-used term for the thing that holds bullets is not technically correct. You know exactly what was meant by "clip" in this context and nitpicking at definitions just comes across as trying to show off your superior gun knowledge.

Why not make suggestions on how to impose gun control elements that punish criminals while not chipping away at the rights of law abiding citizens? I can't take the control side seriously when they can't accept anything other than "all guns are bad and should be gone" mantra. This bill is choke full of things that would ban weapons simply on the cosmetics features and does absolutely nothing to impact the actual criminal usage of guns.

Firearms are a tool and just like every other tool they are nothing without the will of the user being applied. The foundation of the problem isn't the item but it's the criminal will of the user (or the user being carelessness) There are millions of people who own firearms and use their tools in a completely responsible and legal fashion, ownership is simply not the problem. Where we need to be focused lies with the human criminal element.