Out of curiosity, how does this change the debate:

http://boingboing.net/2011/09/20/3d-printed-ar-15-parts-challenge-firearm-regulation.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed/312458/man-creates-working-ar-15-3d-printer

I guess we need government spy ware on all our PCs to make sure we don't have dangerous data files!!!

12/28/2012 4:55:21 PM

Quote :

"ask the folks in Australia"

Australia != The United States of America. "It happened somewhere else in the Universe" is not a compelling argument.

Quote :

"I guess we need government spy ware on all our PCs to make sure we don't have dangerous data files!!!"

Making most kinds of alcohol is currently illegal and we don't need to put government spyware on everyone's machine for the law to have an effect. This reductio ad absurdum is getting old.

[Edited on December 28, 2012 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/28/2012 4:59:43 PM

^

People tend not to suggest putting chemical sensors in pots to detect levels of alcohol and violating wire tapping laws by bugging your stove. The same is not true for digital intellectual property, just look at some of what the RIAA and MPAA have proposed to stop pirating of music and movies...

12/28/2012 5:06:45 PM

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sd4wx/

[Edited on December 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM. Reason : dfv]

12/28/2012 11:06:25 PM

Quote :

"Handguns aren't protected under the constitution. It may be unlikely to happen, but that doesn't make it wrong."

I believe this is false. the scotus ruled you can have handguns in your home even in chicago.

12/29/2012 7:39:22 AM

Quote :

"President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013."

Would have been nice of him to let voters know his stance on this BEFORE the election. There were at least 14 mass shootings in his first term.

Any law that has any chance in hell of passing would not take any guns off the street, it would just raise the price. plus more mass shooters use other types of guns.





[Edited on December 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM. Reason : a]

12/30/2012 11:27:46 AM

By assault weapons do they just mean rifles?

12/30/2012 1:14:15 PM

No, fancy rifles

Duh

12/30/2012 2:18:01 PM

I went to the Wikipedia and found that the term properly refers to military rifles capable of automatic or semiautomatic (selective-fire) operation; in common parlance it probably refers to a semiautomatic rifle with a high capacity, designed to be carried around to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time, as part of the ill-defined category of "assault weapons."

From my understanding, the distinction between automatic (or burst-fire, allowing usually 3 shots per pull) and semi-automatic is treated by gun-control advocates as immaterial, because if an automatic weapon isn't bolted down like a heavy machine gun, it kicks up too hard (leading to holes in the ceiling at many a firing range) as it shoots large numbers of bullets in a single pull, so assault rifles (properly termed) are more accurate in the same semi-automatic mode that many civilian weapons are always in.

12/30/2012 2:21:16 PM

They should roll provisions to curb gang shootings into gun control, it would make conservatives more likely to support.

12/30/2012 2:27:32 PM

Quote :

"They should roll provisions to curb gang shootings into gun control"

what do you suggest? legalizing drugs? i could support that

12/30/2012 2:32:28 PM

no, I think he's talking about building more prisons and allowing racial profiling until SCOTUS invalidates whatever law the Rethugs get through

12/30/2012 2:49:02 PM

^^^^ so much wrong, and its already been discussed

Next time take a browse through the thread before you race to be a google instant genius

12/30/2012 4:12:23 PM

I did browse through the thread already (I even posted on the previous page), and I'm sorry I didn't already bow in obeisance to the notion that the definition from the old Assault Weapons Ban must be the only definition that gun-control advocates use, and that by mocking it, you can just wave away anyone who advocates restrictions on firearms.

Also I saw the bit about semi-auto being more accurate than full-auto several days ago, not in a quick Google search right after seeing the thread: http://www.wbur.org/npr/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market


Anyway, I just did a Google Image Search on that graphic (OMG NOT TEH GEWGEL!!1!) to find the original story, and it didn't provide much info. on what "assault weapons" were for the purpose of the graphic: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Therefore, just as the first time I saw it, I assumed that because of the other labels on the chart, "assault weapons" must not have referred to any type of shotgun or revolver or any semiautomatic handgun, so they must have meant "assault rifles" and that's where my trip to Wikipedia began; now I'm not so sure about what was meant, because I now know that assault rifles are not "assault weapons" but I also know that many semiautomatic handguns are assault weapons, so you'd basically need to read all the cases mentioned in the story to figure out what they put in that category.


Finally, look at the timestamps: I posted my reply almost 3 hours after the post I was replying to (the one with the graphic); as is usual with my posts, other people put in quicker replies before I finish my own, like your daft dismissal of the "assault weapons" category as being wholly without merit.
That's right, I didn't dash that off in 3 minutes of Googling, but 3 hours of...well mostly Googling to try to find the source for that bit about semi-auto being more accurate than full-auto again, because I had remembered seeing it a few days earlier, and also a WikiWalk starting with "assault rifle."

12/30/2012 9:34:31 PM

millions of shooters have proven that they can handle ownership of the AR-15 variants and other military-style rifles and their standard capacity magazines. i'm not sure why politicians like feinstein don't want to propose legislation that allows us to continue to spend our money on them and enjoy shooting them while preventing the handful of lunatics from getting them. am i the only one who believes that is possible?

if they really were concerned with saving lives, they'd go after cheap junky saturday night specials first. but

[Edited on December 30, 2012 at 9:58 PM. Reason : adf]

[Edited on December 30, 2012 at 10:01 PM. Reason : but a Raven P-25 doesn't look scary enough]

[Edited on December 30, 2012 at 10:02 PM. Reason : and no one cares about poor people in the hood getting killed]

[Edited on December 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM. Reason : because making them safer doesn't get you any more votes]

12/30/2012 9:57:30 PM

Actually there isn't much correlation between the price of a handgun and its likelihood to be used in crime, and I mean poor folk need to protect themselves too, and as for the notion of a "handful of lunatics"...

Quote :

"The NRA's point of view is that it's kind of a, well, people who use these guns in a bad way are bad people. Our point of view is no, these guns are available to people. People have moods, they have various emotional needs, they have moments of anger, they have moments of depression. So by putting these guns out in the population, it's not that good people are not going to use them in bad ways, it's that potentially, anybody can end up using them in a bad way. That's why we, in a more rational society, restrict access to lethal weapons."

-Tom Diaz: http://www.wbur.org/npr/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market

12/31/2012 12:45:48 AM

10 most frequently traced guns in 1994

Rank Manufacturer Model Caliber Type Number traced
1 Lorcin P25 .25 Pistol 3,223
2 Davis Industries P380 380A Pistol 2,454
3 Raven Arms MP25 .25 Pistol 2,107
4 Lorcin L25 .25 Pistol 1,258
5 Mossburg 500 12G Shotgun 1,015
6 Phoenix Arms Raven .25 Pistol 959
7 Jennings J22 .22 Pistol 929
8 Ruger P89 9 mm Pistol 895
9 Glock 17 9 mm Pistol 843
10 Bryco 38 .38 Pistol 820


i can't find more up-to-date data, but in 1994 the Mossberg 500 pump shotgun is the only firearm in the top 7 that i wouldn't consider a junk gun. do you have more recent data?

12/31/2012 8:05:41 AM

What percentage of total traces does that sample represent? How many in the top 10 are "junk guns"? How many in the top 20? etc...

12/31/2012 8:28:06 AM

Quote :

"The most frequently traced guns vary from year to year. The ATF publishes a list of the 10 specific guns most frequently traced annually. The total number of traced guns on the top 10 list was 18% of the total traced 1991-94. Most of the top 10 guns were pistols (over 30% were .25 caliber pistols), although a number of revolvers and a few shotguns and rifles were also included. The most frequently traced gun was a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver in 1990, the Raven Arms P25, a .25 caliber pistol from 1991 through 1993 , and the Lorcin P25 in 1994."

that's all i've got

12/31/2012 8:35:28 AM

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/29/local/la-me-1230-rocket-launcher-20121230

Quote :

"Rocket launchers turned in during L.A. gun buyback not functional Police say the launchers appear to be antitank weapons. Authorities collected more than 2,000 weapons in exchange for supermarket gift cards. December 29, 2012|By Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times LAPD Chief Charlie Beck handles one of two rocket launchers turned in at… (Jay L. Clendenin, Los Angeles…) Two rocket launchers turned in to the Los Angeles Police Department as part of the city's gun buyback event appear to be antitank weapons from the military, experts said. Police said the people turning them in at the buyback told officers they had family members who were at one time in the military and "they no longer wanted the launchers in their homes." Several military experts said one of the weapons was probably a version of the AT4, an unguided antitank weapon. It's a single-shot weapon that a soldier fires and then the tubing is discarded. The two launchers — long metal tubes that were once capable of propelling rocket grenades — were turned in along with 2,037 weapons at a gun buyback Wednesday, and exchanged for supermarket gift cards. Det. Gus Villanueva said the launchers were "stripped-down shells" without the technical parts needed to discharge a projectile. "They don't have capability to discharge anything anymore," he said. Los Angeles police gun experts will be checking the origins of these weapons with the U.S. military to see if they were ever stolen, he said. Villanueva said officers could not provide details on the models. Among the 2,037 firearms were 75 assault weapons, officials said. The total was nearly 400 more weapons than were collected in a similar buyback earlier this year."

Over 2,000 weapons in one buy-back in LA, we need a federal buy-back program that is ongoing and open. Reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of gun crimes, a buy-back program provides an incentive for people to voluntarily reduce the number of guns.

12/31/2012 8:43:49 AM

what's keeping folks with unwanted guns from just turning them in to police right now?

12/31/2012 8:51:55 AM

fear of prosecution?

12/31/2012 9:22:27 AM

What's the incentive? Its a task, a chore, it takes work and there is just no reason for them to make the effort. Some people do, and will continue to, turn in guns without any programs, but its not going to happen on a large scale. Plus they might worry about what questions will be asked, if they can be charged with a crime, etc...

I mean I know that you understand all of this and are asking the question because you can't see any logical objections...

12/31/2012 10:12:50 AM

And out of all these guns that get turned in, many are rare and collectible models that many gun owners would like to add to their collection...that have been handed down from fathers and grandfathers.

They get sent to be destroyed just like the other cheap guns that get turned in. As a gun collector, it hurts my heart to see so much history get destroyed just for a $50 gift certificate.

12/31/2012 10:57:27 AM

12/31/2012 10:58:01 AM

^So is destroying historical or collectible guns not a logical objection?

12/31/2012 11:05:25 AM

I think he is instructing you to cry him a river. If you want to save those guns, then go try buy them back, don't complain about other people buying them back because you want them first. So no, not a logical objection.

[Edited on December 31, 2012 at 11:12 AM. Reason : ]

12/31/2012 11:11:37 AM

i support controlling guns

i do not support banning them...

and i would agree that if someone is going to trade in a gun for $50.... go for it.
We should make a website "trade your guns for >$50"

12/31/2012 11:35:04 AM

Oh wait, I forgot that I was trying to share some insight from the pro-gun side to the anti's on tdub.

My mistake.

12/31/2012 11:57:53 AM

I guess I was rude, but, if it's a fair exchange of buying guns, some third party not liking the transaction is not a valid reason to me.

12/31/2012 12:03:48 PM

Quote :

"Brandon1 All American 1168 Posts user info edit post ^So is destroying historical or collectible guns not a logical objection? 12/31/2012 11:05:25 AM "

They are already not being discovered by any collectors or doing anything except being held by an owner who wants it less than the incentive to turn it in

If you want those guns, hold your own gun buy-back charit auction or something, because those guns currently are not on the market being discovered so your concern is the least important, most statistically insignificant concern. You posting this concern is funny, go cry a river.

Basically, if you want them find them and buy them just like any other purchaser (the buy-back program being just another purchaser)

[Edited on December 31, 2012 at 1:25 PM. Reason : WHY DO YOU HATE FREE MARKETS]

12/31/2012 1:24:12 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=8C-CLsMRcA0&feature=endscreen

Limiting magazine capacity isn't going to reduce the danger.


[Edited on December 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2012 1:54:07 PM

^^My concern isnt that they are turned in for $50 gift cards. Its that they have to be destroyed after the fact. It may not be the most important part of a gun discussion, but for serious collectors it is a point of contention.

Also, posting "go cry me a river" is childish and immature. Next time, as least give some consideration to what people say before you insist on coming back with childish banter.

12/31/2012 2:33:03 PM

No one is going to turn in fucking George Washington's musket. And if they did maybe they could make an exception and put it in a museum instead.

12/31/2012 4:49:12 PM

i don't have a problem with buybacks as long as no taxpayer money is used

[Edited on December 31, 2012 at 5:50 PM. Reason : let the sheep forfeit their rights. fuck em.]

12/31/2012 5:49:35 PM

Quote :

"Only idiots are arguing that, the courts and Supreme Court are clear that reasonable restrictions and controls are okay"

I don't particularly give a rat's ass what 9 men and women in black robes who clearly can't read have to say about anything. If you take the words "shall not be infringed" and magically turn that into "reasonable restrictions," then you clearly can't read, or at least have trouble comprehending whatever you are reading. I would LOVE to hear a cogent argument for how "shall not be infringed," as in "zero restrictions" means "reasonable restrictions are allowed."

Quote :

"Tax owning them."

Fine. But we also tax voting and any form of speech.

Quote :

"Ok, don't. My recommendation would be that if you need such a weapon, don't walk down that street."

So, in addition to cowering in fear everywhere I go, I am also supposed to have precognition about every single street in America. And if some nutjob does start firing, I better just hope everything goes swimmingly. See how absurd your "solutions" are?

Quote :

"What about requiring weapons to have individual trigger locks when being stored, and punishing owners if someone in their household acquires and misuses their weapon?"

Prepare to have your mind blown, but I am 100% OK with the second idea. I think that's a great fucking idea. I might think that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to possess any and all types of weaponry, but it in now way grants immunity from the misuse of the exercising of that right, much less negligence in exercising it. If you fail to secure your weapon, you might as well have pulled the trigger yourself.

Quote :

"Handguns aren't protected under the constitution. It may be unlikely to happen, but that doesn't make it wrong."

Only to those who don't know how to read. Just curious, what part of "shall not be infringed" makes you think handguns aren't covered?

Quote :

"Please, give me some evidence that the police are going to take away all of your freedoms like the red coats did?"

Are you not even remotely paying attention? You do realize that the POTUS can declare you a terrorist and drop a fucking bomb on you now at the drop of a hat now, right? Habeus Corpus? Gone.

12/31/2012 9:21:50 PM

What constitutes an "infringement" on the right to keep and bear arms? Is it any restriction at all on arms, or would it need to go so far as to practically keep people from bearing arms for self-defense?

Remember, to take an example of another cherished right (freedom of speech), that it doesn't go so far as to invalidate the common-law tort or state-level crime of slander or provide protection for "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.); our Constitutional rights are not absolute.

12/31/2012 9:40:59 PM

an infringement would be any act by the gov't that prevents a person from owning or purchasing a weapon he otherwise would have been able to own or purchase. Also included in this would be any gov't imposed requirement that, if not done, would prevent purchase or continued ownership of a weapon. The only thing that I would think isn't covered as an infringement is when the actual ownership or possession poses risk to others through simple existence, and not necessarily misuse (think stockpiling of DURAC rounds).

Quote :

"Remember, to take an example of another cherished right (freedom of speech), that it doesn't go so far as to invalidate the common-law tort or state-level crime of slander or provide protection for "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.); our Constitutional rights are not absolute."

I think that is a misunderstanding. The right, itself, is absolute. Protection and immunity from misuse is not. It's the same reason that I can't go out and shoot anyone I want, even though I have the right to keep and bear arms. To use your example, you certainly have the right to "yell fire in a crowded theatre," as that is most certainly speech and is thus protected (else, how would you ever inform people in a crowded theatre that there was a fire?), and you wouldn't be prosecuted for that speech. You would, however, be prosecuted for causing a panic, inciting a riot, or any other number of things, none of which are Constitutionally protected.

12/31/2012 9:53:45 PM

Quote :

"The NRA's point of view is that it's kind of a, well, people who use these guns in a bad way are bad people. Our point of view is no, these guns are available to people. People have moods, they have various emotional needs, they have moments of anger, they have moments of depression. So by putting these guns out in the population, it's not that good people are not going to use them in bad ways, it's that potentially, anybody can end up using them in a bad way. That's why we, in a more rational society, restrict access to lethal weapons."

police officers have moods, emotions, and moments of anger and depression. why are we cool with them having guns?

12/31/2012 10:00:50 PM

because they have to do a hell of a lot more training on weapons that joe blow does

because they got through psychological screenings and reviews as a part of the job

because their weapons and ammunition are under strict control

because a lot of things that make your strawman stupid

but if what you're trying to say is that everyone who wants to own a weapon should have to pass, at a minimum, the psych tests and training/re-quals LEO/military have to do just to be able to own a weapon, that's a good starting point I'll agree with. I'm also a big fan of having to check your weapon and ammo in and out of an armory every time you want to use it and have daily/weekly/monthly reviews of the logs at said armory

i mean if you think you can compare civilians and cops so easily

[Edited on December 31, 2012 at 10:16 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2012 10:03:36 PM

^I would be fine with having to undergo a psych test and a safety/training test that allowed me to own weapons, as long as it was made easy to access and reasonably affordable. Maybe a renewal period every 5-10 years.

After that however, I would be allowed to own any weapon I wanted. Shotgun, rifle, semi or fully automatic, suppressors or short barreled rifles.

12/31/2012 10:17:16 PM

lol 5-10 year renewal. why even bother.

shit's gotta be at least yearly. that's how often regular watch standers had to qualify

for my anti-terrorism unit, we had quarterly certifications

12/31/2012 10:18:27 PM

i think you grossly overestimate the training and quals of a lot of LEOs

12/31/2012 10:22:08 PM

^^^^ most ccw permit holders undergo more training by choice than the average LEO does.
A LEO's firearms are under the same strict control as mine. They're in my possession and if I use one outside of training/shooting range then there's an investigation. Finally, the psych evaluation is pretty easy to pass for any regular LE position and the very large majority of citizens would have no problem with it. The fact that ccw permit holders are less likely to commit a felony than an LEO makes me wonder if you even realize what you're arguing.

[Edited on December 31, 2012 at 10:25 PM. Reason : Carrots and peas]

12/31/2012 10:24:47 PM

Quote :

"most ccw permit holders undergo more training by choice"

therein lies your problem

until there is serious training and certification requirements for EVERYONE, you argument is invalid. not to mention the fact your ccw gambit conveniently ignores all those other gun owners out there

[Edited on December 31, 2012 at 10:41 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2012 10:37:09 PM

^ the point was that you (and others) don't actually have any idea what you're talking about. You want more restrictions on us that are similar to those on LEOs when many of us far exceed those and ALL ccw holders set an example for the US as far as behavior goes as one of the absolute lowest groups likely to commit serious crimes. All of this shows the lack of understanding by the "omg ban guns" groups. The GUNS are not the problem and neither are the vast majority of owners (especially those of us that many of you label as nuts with hero complexes). The vast majority are law abiding citizens that have never hurt anyone and never will. Those of us that you label as having hero complexes often hope and pray that we never have to use our firearms.

Instead of going after the real issues and causes of gun violence like the drug war, light punishment, the demand that everyone be given a pass in society because they're just misunderstood, people jump on tragedies like the school shooting as a chance to do absolutely nothing to reduce gun crime. In fact, you all seek to INCREASE it by denying law abiding citizens the protection that is given to them hundreds of thousands of times a year (at minimum) when those law abiding citizens use their firearms to STOP crime. Women that would have been raped, people that would have been beaten, people that would have been robbed (and who knows what else), and people that would have been murdered are all just told to fuck off because "we're doing this for the good of the country and the <100 people that were killed in mass murders last year".

The absolute willful ignorance by those that want to ban guns astounds me. It's like nobody can actually think about any consequences rationally. "Let's just have a national buy-back that's paid for by all of the legal gun owners that haven't committed crimes and the companies that employ thousands of Americans. Obviously all the gang bangers, drug traffickers, robbers, and other criminals would love the chance to turn in their guns for a $100 gift card to IHOP! The world will be a much safer place and everything will smell like rainbows!"

How about this, you want to get rid of all of the guns in the US? Start with those in the hands of criminals FIRST and THEN we can start talking reasonably about disarming the law abiding citizens that are protected by the 2nd Amendment of the constitution. Until then, quit treating inanimate objects as if they're evil incarnate and those that own them as if they're some sort of retarded freak with too many Rambo videos.

1/1/2013 12:19:04 AM

CC people aint shit. for the most part they have no military/combat experience, which is what you need to have before you pull out your weapon in public.

1/1/2013 12:20:12 AM

^ says who? What branch of the military is it that trains for school/theater/workplace shootings again?

1/1/2013 12:22:18 AM

^^^ truth being dropped in here, folks

1/1/2013 12:25:27 AM

Quote :

"he GUNS are not the problem and neither are the vast majority of owners (especially those of us that many of you label as nuts with hero complexes). "

Insane that people still don't think that Guns are not a problem. I totaly get the counter argument of "oh, no it is just dumb people that do it, don't worry" They are just too dangerous for that. I am sure that there are people that are dedicated to using them correctly, but all it takes are one or two idiots to make a mistake or be angry and kill people. We just can not continue to blame the idiots, when they have this wonderful device that allows them to point and pull a trigger and destroy.

Bombs and knives take patience and training. If some idiot picks up a knife and rushes at me, I will be able to just out run them. Can't do that with a gun.


[Edited on January 1, 2013 at 12:31 AM. Reason : ^^ ohh, let's see.. the branch of military where you see live combat]

1/1/2013 12:27:31 AM