Assault weapons ban

[M14 Shooter]

I own "assault" weapons, I have no issue with background checks at gun hsows etc etc ..
But, what do you do when say, a father gives his 30 year old son a pistol, or a bushmaster? have him run a background check?

Not just that, but complete the transfer thru a dealer.

 

[KissMy]

I own "assault" weapons, I have no issue with background checks at gun hsows etc etc ..

but, what do you do when say, a father gives his 30 year old son a pistol, or a bushmaster? have him run a background check?

Just send the state a bill of sale or transfer just like you do a car. The state should maintain a list of weapons banned people on their website just as they do sex offenders.

 

[Ava]

I own "assault" weapons, I have no issue with background checks at gun hsows etc etc ..


but, what do you do when say, a father gives his 30 year old son a pistol, or a bushmaster? have him run a background check?

Right! I like the "idea" of background checks, but what good would they do and at what cost? There is no evidence to support background checks will stop mass murderers that I have seen.

I do know this: I would choose to be in a "gun legal" mall, than a gun free mall.

 

[Spoonman]

I own "assault" weapons, I have no issue with background checks at gun hsows etc etc ..

but, what do you do when say, a father gives his 30 year old son a pistol, or a bushmaster? have him run a background check?

Just send the state a bill of sale or transfer just like you do a car. The state should maintain a list of weapons banned people on their website just as they do sex offenders.

why? 99.9999% of all gun legal gun owners have commited no crimes? why treat them like sex offenders? I mean really, how absurd is that?

 

[jtpr312]

Yes. You do realize what is a fundamental right here is not in most of the rest of the world right?

OK, the answer to your question is that people are better off living under governments that recognize fundamental rights for their citizens and bind themselves to them. Examples where that wasn't the case--Cuba, Russia, etc--tend to be examples of gov't tyranny and oppression.
Yes, most of the world does not enjoy rights of freedom of religion (Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc), free speech (China etc), assembly, security from unreasonable searches and seizures etc etc. I woudl never want to live in a place where gov't tyranny is the order of the day. If you are fine with it, North Korea would like to hear from you.

that makes no sense. There are plenty of places around the world where people live in relative freedom and do not take owning an arsenal as a fundamental right.

So if there are plents of places you won't mind giving us some examples right?

 

[Underhill]

But it isn't. Many more people are killed by cars. But we dont regulate cars like that. We dont call for banning SUVs.

Of course we regulate cars. That's nonsense.

We have safety regulations, police check points, safety inspections, speed traps and a hundred other rules and regs that mandate what you can drive, how fast and in what condition you can drive in.

Not to mention we regulate who can drive....

We dont regulate cars like that, I said. In that sense we regulate guns the same way. There are oodles of laws about how to manufacture guns etc. But we dont look at cars and say "This model is involved in a lot of accidents. Let's ban it." Or, This model is a favorite of drug dealers. We'll ban it.

No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course we regulate cars. That's nonsense.

We have safety regulations, police check points, safety inspections, speed traps and a hundred other rules and regs that mandate what you can drive, how fast and in what condition you can drive in.

Not to mention we regulate who can drive....

We dont regulate cars like that, I said. In that sense we regulate guns the same way. There are oodles of laws about how to manufacture guns etc. But we dont look at cars and say "This model is involved in a lot of accidents. Let's ban it." Or, This model is a favorite of drug dealers. We'll ban it.

No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.

I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
Apples tro apples, please.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We dont regulate cars like that, I said. In that sense we regulate guns the same way. There are oodles of laws about how to manufacture guns etc. But we dont look at cars and say "This model is involved in a lot of accidents. Let's ban it." Or, This model is a favorite of drug dealers. We'll ban it.

No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.

I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
Apples tro apples, please.

Hell you don't need a drivers license to drive a car on private property, you don't even need liability insurance

 

[M14 Shooter]

No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.

I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
Apples tro apples, please.

Hell you don't need a drivers license to drive a car on private property, you don't even need liability insurance

You do not need a license to buy, own or store a car either -- and when you lose your driver's license, absent it being impounded for evidence or whatnot, you keep your car.

There are a gazillion reasons why those who want more gun control don't want to use cars as an example as to how we shoucl/could regulate guns; they don't realize it until it is explained, and they you don't hear anything else from them.

 

[Underhill]

We dont regulate cars like that, I said. In that sense we regulate guns the same way. There are oodles of laws about how to manufacture guns etc. But we dont look at cars and say "This model is involved in a lot of accidents. Let's ban it." Or, This model is a favorite of drug dealers. We'll ban it.

No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.

I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
Apples tro apples, please.

I didn't bring up the example. And no it isn't perfect. But clearly the point is valid. We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain. Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.

That is obviously a form of regulation. And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns. And of course, we do.

 

[Underhill]

I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
Apples tro apples, please.

Hell you don't need a drivers license to drive a car on private property, you don't even need liability insurance

You do not need a license to buy, own or store a car either -- and when you lose your driver's license, absent it being impounded for evidence or whatnot, you keep your car.

There are a gazillion reasons why those who want more gun control don't want to use cars as an example as to how we shoucl/could regulate guns; they don't realize it until it is explained, and they you don't hear anything else from them.

Kinda like when you guys used Norway as an example of a gun filled society with extremely low crime...

 

[M14 Shooter]

No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.

I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
Apples tro apples, please.

I didn't bring up the example. And no it isn't perfect. But clearly the point is valid. We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain.

Which has nothing to with, and has no bearing on, private ownership and use of firearms outside the public domain.
The example here is relevant only in regards to use of firearms on public property; it does not in any way carry over to the regulation of fireams that are NOT used on public property.

 

[The Rabbi]

No but we do say, for example, that trucks with a high bumper are a danger to small cars, so they regulate that bumpers have to be under a certain height.

I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
Apples tro apples, please.

I didn't bring up the example. And no it isn't perfect. But clearly the point is valid. We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain. Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.

That is obviously a form of regulation. And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns. And of course, we do.

We do not regulate cars the same way. that is obvious. If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced. If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced. But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers. Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents. But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it. Or whatever.
They are not alike at all.

 

[Underhill]

I need follow no such regulation to buy that truck, own that truck or keep that truck in my garage.
I also need follow no such regulation to drive that truck on private property.
Apples tro apples, please.

I didn't bring up the example. And no it isn't perfect. But clearly the point is valid. We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain. Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.

That is obviously a form of regulation. And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns. And of course, we do.

We do not regulate cars the same way. that is obvious. If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced. If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced. But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers. Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents. But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it. Or whatever.
They are not alike at all.

Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements. You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips. You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

Now there are differences obviously. But the goal is the same. The cause is the same. No example is perfect.

It just doesn't matter. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything on the issue. Both sides have legitimate complaints and defenses. And both sides think the other is off their rocker. It's a matter of perspective.

I am on the fence.

I don't think anyone should take away guns. Even if it has worked in other places (and the evidence is murky either way) I doubt it would here. There are too many of them.

On the other hand I think there are ways to make them safer. Mandatory gun locks. Mandatory training. Taking the handcuffs off those who are supposed to enforce current laws. These things could be done without infringing on anyone's rights. And while I'm sure many would still be against them, I couldn't care less.

These are things all gun owners should be doing anyway.

Things like limiting clip sizes to 10 are fine by me, but would have a negligible impact so I'm not going to get too worked up about them either way.

I would love to see a push by the people for less fear based reporting, less sensationalist news coverage. But it seems unlikely. The most watched news channel by a wide margin is among the most guilty. It seems to attract viewers so of course they all do it.

But everyone needs to calm the fuck down. The world probably isn't going to end tomorrow and chances are, if it does, your fucked anyway.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I didn't bring up the example. And no it isn't perfect. But clearly the point is valid. We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain. Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.

That is obviously a form of regulation. And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns. And of course, we do.

We do not regulate cars the same way. that is obvious. If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced. If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced. But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers. Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents. But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it. Or whatever.
They are not alike at all.

Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements. You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips. You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

Now there are differences obviously. But the goal is the same. The cause is the same. No example is perfect.

It just doesn't matter. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything on the issue. Both sides have legitimate complaints and defenses. And both sides think the other is off their rocker. It's a matter of perspective.

I am on the fence.

I don't think anyone should take away guns. Even if it has worked in other places (and the evidence is murky either way) I doubt it would here. There are too many of them.

On the other hand I think there are ways to make them safer. Mandatory gun locks. Mandatory training. Taking the handcuffs off those who are supposed to enforce current laws. These things could be done without infringing on anyone's rights. And while I'm sure many would still be against them, I couldn't care less.

These are things all gun owners should be doing anyway.

Things like limiting clip sizes to 10 are fine by me, but would have a negligible impact so I'm not going to get too worked up about them either way.

I would love to see a push by the people for less fear based reporting, less sensationalist news coverage. But it seems unlikely. The most watched news channel by a wide margin is among the most guilty. It seems to attract viewers so of course they all do it.

But everyone needs to calm the fuck down. The world probably isn't going to end tomorrow and chances are, if it does, your fucked anyway.

Should cops also have locks on their service weapons?
Should cops be limited to magazine capacity

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't bring up the example. And no it isn't perfect. But clearly the point is valid. We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain. Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.

That is obviously a form of regulation. And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns. And of course, we do.

We do not regulate cars the same way. that is obvious. If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced. If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced. But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers. Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents. But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it. Or whatever.
They are not alike at all.

Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements. You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips. You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

.

That's a foolish analogy. If the bumper is too tall, the car won't be made. The issue is problemmatic to the car, no matter who is driving it. With the gun, the gun poses no danger at all. The person operating it poses the danger. When a person operating a car poses a danger, we take away his license. We don't ban the type of car he drives.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't bring up the example. And no it isn't perfect. But clearly the point is valid. We do restrict vehicles used in the public domain. Yes you can own whatever you like, you just can't use it.

That is obviously a form of regulation. And that was the claim, that we do not regulate cars which kill people more than guns. And of course, we do.

We do not regulate cars the same way. that is obvious. If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced. If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced. But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers. Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents. But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it. Or whatever.
They are not alike at all.

Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements. You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips. You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

Now there are differences obviously. But the goal is the same. The cause is the same. No example is perfect.

The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.

 

[The Rabbi]

We do not regulate cars the same way. that is obvious. If the car is unsafe, it cannot be produced. If the gun is unsafe it cannot be produced. But we do not restrict cars because a certain model is used by gangbangers. Or statistically a certain model is more involved in accidents. But people do want to say, Well an AR rifle was used in some high profile shootings so we're going to ban it. Or whatever.
They are not alike at all.

Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements. You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips. You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

Now there are differences obviously. But the goal is the same. The cause is the same. No example is perfect.

The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.

One also deals with the fitness of the item for service under normal operating conditions, and the other with misuse of the item. Why blame the item if someone misuses it? We don't do that with any other good that I am aware of.

 

[Snookie]

Assault rifles are for killing people. They are a weapon of warfare.

Only congress can declare war.

 

[The Rabbi]

Assault rifles are for killing people. They are a weapon of warfare.

Only congress can declare war.

Hell, you couldn't define what an assault rifle is.