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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It won't kill private gun sales unless there are criminal charges associated with you, a private citizen, selling a gun to another private citizen without a background check. And even then only if the gun sale gets reported to the government somehow.

And an anti-armor piercing ban only protects Cops. And AP bullet will kill an unarmored person the same as a regular bullet.

If I am not mistaken, an AP bullet may be worse against an unarmored opponent than a regular bullet. Because of the nature of an AP bullets design, it won't tumble inside the target as much causing less tissue damage. Hypothetically meaning its more survivable.

Minor issue. But if you think about it it does mean that, in the event of needing to resist an oppressive government, those resisting the government would be at a disadvantage due to not having AP bullets when the government has body armor.

Again, what armor piercing ammo? I don't know of ANY armor piercing ammunition available for commercial sale. What EXACTLY are you referring to?

Um... depleted uranium rounds? Which aren't exactly available either...

I suppose people could make their own AP bullets. From my understanding, bullet moulds arn't all that expensive.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It won't kill private gun sales unless there are criminal charges associated with you, a private citizen, selling a gun to another private citizen without a background check. And even then only if the gun sale gets reported to the government somehow.

And an anti-armor piercing ban only protects Cops. And AP bullet will kill an unarmored person the same as a regular bullet.

If I am not mistaken, an AP bullet may be worse against an unarmored opponent than a regular bullet. Because of the nature of an AP bullets design, it won't tumble inside the target as much causing less tissue damage. Hypothetically meaning its more survivable.

Minor issue. But if you think about it it does mean that, in the event of needing to resist an oppressive government, those resisting the government would be at a disadvantage due to not having AP bullets when the government has body armor.

Again, what armor piercing ammo? I don't know of ANY armor piercing ammunition available for commercial sale. What EXACTLY are you referring to?

Um... depleted uranium rounds? Which aren't exactly available either...

Or an excuse to ban all ammunition outside of shotgun pellets. Nearly every rifle can penetrate armor at close range. Any "magnum" and several regular pistol calibers can too depending on the grade of the armor.

But the fact this keeps being brought up is troubling. the feed the MsM doesn't even ask about it is also troubling.

 Grey Templar wrote:


What I was trying to say is that the weapon doesn't matter. The reason the murder is commited is the real issue that needs addressing.

Leaving aside the motivation, the murder rate depends on the lethality of the weapon employed. Thus, reducing the number of guns available would reduce the murder rate by converting murders to attempted murders.

I am sure you will agree it is preferable for people who are attacked to survive rather die.

Reducing the number of attempted murders is another factor, of course, which must depend on other social factors.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


What I was trying to say is that the weapon doesn't matter. The reason the murder is commited is the real issue that needs addressing.

Leaving aside the motivation, the murder rate depends on the lethality of the weapon employed. Thus, reducing the number of guns available would reduce the murder rate by converting murders to attempted murders.

I am sure you will agree it is preferable for people who are attacked to survive rather die.

Reducing the number of attempted murders is another factor, of course, which must depend on other social factors.

What is your plan for reducing the millions of guns already out there?

How do you reduce guns available to criminals who don't rely on legal gun sales?

Gun amnesty.

Gun registration and penalties for unregistered guns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


What I was trying to say is that the weapon doesn't matter. The reason the murder is commited is the real issue that needs addressing.

Leaving aside the motivation, the murder rate depends on the lethality of the weapon employed. Thus, reducing the number of guns available would reduce the murder rate by converting murders to attempted murders.

I am sure you will agree it is preferable for people who are attacked to survive rather die.

Reducing the number of attempted murders is another factor, of course, which must depend on other social factors.

Thats not exactly the case. It make some attempted murders. It makes a lot of potential self defense cases by women and old people murders of said women and old people. Additionally it increases the level of violence. Lots more beatings of the weak. no thanks.

And the slaughter in Rwanda was done with machetes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Gun amnesty.

Gun registration and penalties for unregistered guns.

thats not worked where its been tried (California, NY etc.)

Your detailed research has definitely refuted my suggestions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Your detailed research has definitely refuted my suggestions.

Well I was shot at in a state that regularly has buybacks and banned guns. Does that count?

Chicago which has some of the toughtest laws in the nation is again going to try for their personal record and break that 550 homicides barrier. I'm sure with enough willpower they can do it.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Leon Panetta's a tool in general and has informed congress that if Obama wants to start a war they'll get permission from the UN. Not the congress. Don't expect him to know what he's talking about.

I never really understood all the noise about that comment. He basically said that the Administration would seek permission from the international community, inform Congress that they had this permission, and then decide whether or not they would seek Congressional permission (read: seek authorization for the use of military force). I don't see how that's a problem in anyway, except that his choice of words enabled the exchange to be used as a misinformation tool. I guess people might be upset that the Administration wouldn't go to Congress first, but why waste Congress' time if you won't act without international assent, and Congress hasn't been pushing for military action?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

I was confused as to why armor piercing ammo was brought up by the president too, it looked like a copy paste of the Brady cop killer ammo BS from the early 90s. There's no such thing as bullet proof, just bullet resistant so it's not like cops are dying from magic bullets that rend kevlar like a man in a romance novel rips corsets.

Political showmanship. Its an appeal to the type of people that believe armor piercing ammunition is a significant problem. There may also be a strategic element as well, if that type of language makes it into a proposed bill. Much as "The Obama Administration won't seek Congressional approval for action in Syria!" is an appeal to people that believe Obama's use of Executive authority is significant problem.

 Frazzled wrote:

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.

That's not what it says. The relevant section only prohibits the mandatory collection or disclosure of such information under the guise of wellness and prevention programs. This does not mean a physician or program official cannot ask the question.

 Frazzled wrote:

11. Nominate an ATF director.

THATS HIS JOB! HE"S MAKING AN EO DIRECTING HIMSELF TO DO SOMETHING. THAT BORDERS ON DERANGED.

He's pushing the Senate to confirm an ATF director, which hasn't happened since 2006. I imagine he would have made that an EO, if it were within his power to do so.

Has he nominated anyone for the ATF?
EDIT: looks like he nominated someone yesterday. Also looks like it will be a real fight. So much for that.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22386238/obama-drops-denver-atf-nominee-national-gun-control

 Frazzled wrote:

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.

It doesn't, sorry you didn't read what you are complaining about.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.

It doesn't, sorry you didn't read what you are complaining about.

Fraz... he's right... ACA doesn't stop docs from asking you those sort of questions...

It only prevents the Feds from using that data to create a national "registry" database. Which... really is prevented by certain Hippa laws too... I think.

Sure, the Doctors can ask. Am I legally required to answer?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, the Doctors can ask. Am I legally required to answer?

Nope... lie all you want.

I'm not going to lie. I just won't answer the question.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.

It doesn't, sorry you didn't read what you are complaining about.

I never read what I'm complaining about. Did you not know that? But yes its collection, my bad. I still think its sneaky bs, turning owning guns into some sort of social disease.

"Do you have any guns in the house?"
"Does a turkish cannon from the siege of Constantinople count?"
"Er I guess so. Is it safely stored"
"If by safely stored do you mean double loaded with grapeshot and pointing out the window, with a wiener dog and a lit match by the breech?"
"Er...I'll put yes."



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Actually it does. Its plain language. Sorry you didn't read what you signed.
Also, sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question OR ANY QUESTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH YOU SNITCH. Lecture me and I'll work to insure you lose half your patients. This is Texas and no dillweed is going to lecture me. Thats my wife's job.
Now of course my doc wouldn't ask such asinine questions.

It doesn't, sorry you didn't read what you are complaining about.

Fraz... he's right... ACA doesn't stop docs from asking you those sort of questions...

It only prevents the Feds from using that data to create a national "registry" database. Which... really is prevented by certain Hippa laws too... I think.

mea culpa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm not going to lie. I just won't answer the question.

No just start listing firearms from the French and Indian war and sort of trail off.

I'm going to predict we get a lot of silly answers to that question

"Yeah, I got fully functioning BAR my granddad left me from his days in WW2. Also got about a dozen pistols. And a bunch of unassembled AR-15 and AK-47 parts, not quite sure how many guns I could get if I put them all together though."

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm going to predict we get a lot of silly answers to that question

"Yeah, I got fully functioning BAR my granddad left me from his days in WW2. Also got about a dozen pistols. And a bunch of unassembled AR-15 and AK-47 parts, not quite sure how many guns I could get if I put them all together though."

Well there is this big thing in the shed my granpappy called a "field howitzer" does that count?

Something about a guy named Abrams?

I dunno if they're covering it nationally but another part of the BRILLIANT new gun law here in NY is that there is a 100 dollar fine for anyone caught with more than 8 rounds in their gun. That means if you're popping off rounds in quick succession on your private land and a game warden or state police hears you, you'll most likely be getting a fine. fething ridiculous.

And precisely as I feared the blame shifting from the NRA calling for "mental health reform" instead of meaningful gun reform has had disastrous effects. I should have gotten my pistol permit when I had the chance seeing as I highly doubt I'll be able to now.

As I understand it, the can look over HIPAA laws and check if anyone has ever had any mental health issues, ie. counseling, therapy, etc. And I can't think of a single doctor, anywhere, that will under any circumstances actually say one of their patients presents no dangers to background check for a gun. Talk about liability charges.

And this donkey-cave governor is still going to sell land rights to fracking industries.

 Seaward wrote:
No one, so far, has shown us what those "sensible" solutions would look like. 75% of Americans in Gallup polling just after Sandy Hook said they were absolutely in favor of keeping handguns legal, yet handguns do the killing. People not convicted of a felony can pass background checks all day long, and they're not felons until they decide to murder someone. If they don't want to go that route, getting hold of a firearm illegally isn't terribly difficult in this country.

Exactly. Nonsense conclusions that are the result of debate leaders failing to focus on relevant issues.

Yeah, except it actually is a big deal, aside from the fact that we should never be comfortable with the government passing laws simply because it makes an overemotional section of society feel better. Lower estimates on legitimate defensive gun uses per year range well into the tens of thousands, and higher estimates take us into the hundreds of thousands or even millions.

We went over this. I demonstrated quite clearly those numbers and their methodology are crazy pants nonsense. Pretending there's any credibility to those numbers is choosing to be ignorant.

It's a public safety issue that goes both ways, and people who think one gun's as good as another are just as bad as people who think absolutely nothing should be banned.

Absolutely agreed.

In the end, I'm less than interested in the people who cry foul over the NRA after spending the last month shrieking about automatic weapons, cop-killer bullets, and the utter insanity of anyone who owns more than one flintlock musket.

Both groups are as bad as each other, and both need to be removed from the debate before any sensible solutions can begin to develop.

I believe the 90% figure doesn't reference criminal-on-criminal gun homicides, but rather gun homicides involving drugs and/or gangs.

It doesn't reference anything. It's just a made up number passed around certain circles because it has truthiness to them, and lets them pretend the 10,000 firearm murders each year aren't a genuine social issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Does anyone else think the President's cost estimate of $500M seems low, given everything on his to do list?

Cost estimates are always low. If you say it's going to cost $500 million, well then it'll be budgeted for initially at $500 million, and start to grow from there. If you cost it at a billion, well then it'll be budgeted for initially at a billion, and grow from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I seriously hope you are being sarcastic. Taking away guns doesn't solve the issue that causes murders in the first place was my point, which at least I had one.

And the simple fact is that point is utterly ludicrous. Guns are a tool, and tools are valued by humanity because they make tasks easier. When something is easier it gets done more often.

As such, the US has a murder rate that many times higher than other politically stable, developed countries. With most of those murders carried out with firearms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Crimes of passion by otherwise law-abiding citizens would probably stay at about the same levels.

Utter nonsense.

For every 100,000 people, the US has 4.8 murders per year. Canada has 1.6. The UK has 1.2. Australia has 1.0. France has 1.1. Germany has 0.8.

Now, you can hypothesise that the USA is somehow a culturally more murderous collection of lunatics, or you can accept reality, and realise that a nation with a proliferation of tools that make killing easier are going to do more killing.

What everyone overlooks in the gun control debate is that the majority of our firearm homicide numbers come from drug/gang violence.

In this very thread I pointed out that just wasn't true. You even responded to that post. Come on man.

Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.

 Frazzled wrote:
And the slaughter in Rwanda was done with machetes.

Yeah, once the targets surrendered due the AK47s carried by the attackets.

I mean come on, this is just so ridiculous.

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.

Huh?

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.

Maybe if the ATF actually focused on law enforcement instead of selling guns to the cartels and locking up innocent people they wouldn't need the help to make a difference.

 Frazzled wrote:

11. Nominate an ATF director.

THATS HIS JOB! HE"S MAKING AN EO DIRECTING HIMSELF TO DO SOMETHING. THAT BORDERS ON DERANGED.

Obama has submitted a director for the ATF at least 3 times. He simply cannot get them confirmed, due to heavy NRA lobbying. There is an article here with some backstory you may find illuminating. That being said, I'd rather not have an ATF director because, much like the TSA, I'd rather not have an ATF at all. In my opinion they simply have no responsibilities that aren't already well within the purview of other law enforcement agencies such as the FBI; and the general competence of the ATF inclines me to think they couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions to do so were printed on the heel.

 Frazzled wrote:
ronically San Francisco just pushed through a ban o hollowpoints. You can only purcahse hardball now. hardball has much better pentration characteristics. er....

You sure this has actually happened? I know it was considered about a month ago, but I haven't seen anything to indicate they actually passed a ban. If so, it would be very odd, since in these hypothetical home defense or police shooting scenarios they are the safer choice for bystanders and noncombatants.

 Seaward wrote:
I don't think, "Does this violate the Constitution?" is the only necessary check that needs to be performed on potential legislation before we decide to balls-out do it. "Is this going to accomplish anything, including our goal?" is a pretty good one to run through the ol' filter as well.

Especially since that first sentence I think would be a rather surprisingly large umbrella. I'm fairly confident a total ban on AR-15s would be constitutional, for example. Not practical, not effective... but constitutional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.

Huh?

Man, perfect timing! Read that link I dropped for Frazzled.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.

Maybe if the ATF actually focused on law enforcement instead of selling guns to the cartels and locking up innocent people they wouldn't need the help to make a difference.

They are not allowed to keep actual records on background checks, they are not allowed to keep records on guns used in crimes, they are not allowed to inspect a business more than once a year.

I am almost willing to turn my guns into scrap metal just so I don't have to associate with the stupitidy that is the NRA and the foaming-at-the-mouth gun idiots that are out there.

 Ouze wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe if Republicans stop inserting laws that prohibit the ATF from actually enforcing the laws that we do have, we might see a difference.

Huh?

Man, perfect timing! Read that link I dropped for Frazzled.

 whembly wrote:
Really? Mother Jones?

Which one of the facts in that article is incorrect?