Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

Youtube gun enthusiast millerusaf talks about the proposed "assault weapons ban" and why he thinks it's misguided. He points out that most of the homicides committed by firearms are done mostly by handguns not rifles or shotguns.

I've avoided coming back here, but some things are being thrown out as facts but they are clearly wrong.

1. EVERY firearm sold in a non-private transaction (ie used guns sold face to face privately between citizens) in the United State today has a FBI NICS background check including firearms purchased over the internet even if it is a private sale. These laws are a combination of the Gun Control act of 1968 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1993, neither of which have expired.

2. EVERY dealer in the United States must possess a Federal Firearms License to sell guns legally. Gun Control Act of 1968.

3. Automatic weapons (aka Assault Weapons, selective fire weapons) which are capable of firing more than one round when the trigger is depressed, not to be confused with semi automatic rifles that resemble their full auto cousins (AR15 and M16 respectively) are illegal to own without a tax stamp which requires a more in-depth background check and registration with the BAFTE. - National Firearms Act 1934

4. In accordance with the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986, no new fully Automatic, Assault, Select fire weapons can be manufactured for civilian purchase or ownership. This means that currently in the United States, only those Automatic weapons produced before 1986 are legally owned by civilians and only when approved and registered by the BATFE after purchasing a NFA tax stamp.

5. There exist no empirical data to support that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 - which only limited magazine capacity and cosmetic features of certain firearms - positively affected violent crime in the US.

6. There has been a rise in gun ownership the last decade which seems to coincide with the decrease in violent crime according to the FBI; however, I have not read any document or study that has linked these two facts to be closely related.

7. It is known that in that most spree shootings, the perpetrator will take his own life when confronted by armed resistance - law enforcement or citizen.

8. The deadliest school massacre was perpetrated with explosives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Consolidated_School - It is fair to say, that currently, firearms are easier to obtain legally than dynamite.

It is irrefutable, in my opinion, that firearms are a tool that make it easier to kill or destroy things than nearly anything else that is legal to own by ordinary citizens in the US.
It is irrefutable, in my opinion, that these tools are continually designed to make hunting, defending oneself by stopping threats, and/or killing enemies in combat comparatively easier to the weapons available before it.

The residents of Newtown are tired of the media that has flooded their town.

So I want to take a little sidetrack here, if I may. Let's take a look at another not too long ago massacre that was incredibly tragic, incredibly messed up and sick. People were murdered, by legalled owned/obtained guns, most likely AR-15 style rifles, and were done by most likely mentally ill or unstable or just plain f'ed up people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings

So my question is as follows: What sort of gun control can we enact on the U.S. military to prevent such atrocities from happening?

And please, I only mean to bring up this one incident, or incidents of pure cold blooded murder. I have absolutely no ill feelings towards the U.S. military and am not one of those people that considers our soldiers murderers or anything silly like that.

You... actually think that was a clever post, don't you?

That's kind of sad. I feel bad for you now.

Just sayin, similar circumstances, near impossible ways to prevent it by gun control alone. You have some sicko that decides to do a group of people harm with a firearm. I still see people screaming "more gun control!" left and right, but not a SINGLE realistic option that could have prevented Newtown's tragedy.

My still only suggestion, is an armed and well trained security guard. I really don't care for the idea of random teachers having guns in their desk. That's alot of responsibility for a mere teacher that doesn't get paid crap, and alot of liability for everyone involved.

So scream gun control all you like, yell it to the top of the mountains. But for the love of all American rights, don't enact some bullshit useless ban that isn't going to solve or prevent anything. Infringing upon the rights of people should not be some kneejerk reaction to make us "feel better" about ourselves and "act" like we are actually doing something.

People are stocking up on guns (or just the lower receivers), ammo, and magazines with the threat of the looming "Assault Weapon Ban."

I'm reading that Magpul PMag AR magazines that normally go for around $15 are now selling for $50.

CheaperThanDirt.com is selling a box of 1000 62-grain 5.56mm NATO for $699.97. I had bought a case of 1000 rounds of 55-grain .223 a month ago for $380. (Mind you that the 5.56mm NATO rounds are military spec and are heavier).

A great deal of the thread you presumably skimmed acknowledged the fact that anything short of Japan levels of gun control is unlikely to come close to "preventing" spree killings. "Routine" improvements to gun control / gun regulation bear a lot more directly on routine gun violence; a horrific mass shooting just reminds people that even quite basic gun regulation is lacking in the US.

GIven that that sort of nuance is already present here, making - if you can call that making - an argument about the impossibility of preventing spree killings... because... a war crime happened? - doesn't bear on this discussion. Maybe go comment on youtube videos?

The point really is that basic gun control does not curb gun related violence (if we throw out suicides and defensive gun usage). Please find me an unbiased study that shows that the AWB from 94-2004 affected gun violence.

Illinois has some of the most stringent laws for firearm ownership, they have all the Federal laws plus:
- You cannot purchase a firearms without a Firearm Ownership Identification card.
- No CCW, currently. Open carry is illegal.
- Restriction on magazine capacity.
- Waiting periods of 72 hrs on handguns, 24 hrs on rifles/shotguns.
- Air gun caliber limit of 0.18 inch or larger and/or if the airgun is capable of 700 feet per second are expressly prohibited.

Now take Chicago - Cook County which adds:
- Registration on all firearms.
- Handgun ban - means you are not even allowed to own one.

Chicago has 488 homicides so far in 2012: 75% of which involved firearms. Gun Control creates more victims. This is merely one example, but I think if we look at Oakland, LA, Washington DC (before the Heller decision), NYC, and Detroit we would see a pattern.

Gun Control works in Japan because they have a different culture now. Japan also has over 2x the suicide rate per 100,000 people than the US.


CheaperThanDirt.com does this nearly every time an election or tragedy rolls around. It is despicable profiteering at it's worst. They create a false inflation before there is an actual surplus of demand. While there is no doubt that with all the panic buying prices will flex and maybe stay that way until something is decided.

Honestly though, where does the regulation or "routine" improvements end?

What about "Routine" improvements to our vehicles? Say, any car made before seatbelts were invented is thus banned and crushed if you own one. Then any car made before airbags were standard is banned and thus crushed. Any vehicle over a certain size (looking at you big duallie truck driving and hummer and escalade drivers) is regulated and can only be purchased if you fill out a form that gives you reason for owning such a large vehicle (aka if you haul loads of dirt or something for a living). Oh, and super fast cars should be regulated and only sold to licensed drivers that pass a racing spec test. Because let's face it. No one "needs" to have a 200+ horsepower vehicle. Nor does your common man "need" a duallie wheeled longbed pickup truck. But these vehicles could be seen as being "more dangerous" than your run of the mill Honda Accord. Or more risky to the owner (small sports cars). And more lethal when a drunk driver or careless driver is behind the wheel.

How about "Routine" alcohol regulation? Does anyone really "need" to drink alcohol? Doesn't drunk driving accidents account for quite a fair amount of deaths in the nation? Let's go to the root of the cause. Hard Liquour, yeah, that's a good way to start our "Routine" regulation of alcohol to prevent these atrocities of some jackass getting drunk behind the wheel of his SUV and plowing into a family of 6 and killing them all. Hmm, after Hard Liquor, let's go ahead and nix beer. Because beer doesn't really serve much purpose than to get people drunk and have them murder people. Maybe, just maybe we will let Wine and Champagne stay, because those are meal drinks and don't have the same stigma that beer and hard liquor do when it comes to people getting too drunk to control themselves.

Hmm what's next. Aha! Food! New York has a wonderful start on this. Heart Disease, such a leading killer amongst men (and pretty high up there for women too!). So, let's only allow soft drinks to be sold under a certain size (good job New York!). So no soda's beyond 16oz. Wait whats that? You will just buy 3 12oz. sodas instead of one 30oz? Well that's totally fine with us, so long as you don't get one single 30oz! Hmm and back on heart disease, saturated fat and cholesterol. Let's limit the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol that is allowed to be served in a "single meal". Yeah, that's the ticket!

You all don't get it do you? Why would you want to open pandora's box on limiting, destroying, and regulating the rights of americans?

Want to know why gun owners might get up in arms about even the slightest new gun control regulation? Because of that wonderful and oh-so-appealing word you just used above "Routine". First they will ban certain magazine capacities. Then a handful of years later, it will be semi-automatic rifles. Oh and why stop there, let's hit semi-automatic pistols while were at it. Hmm, handful more years have passed, let's go ahead and nix all gun ownership and strip americans of the guns they already own.

Whether legitimate or not, gun owners and the NRA are fighting to keep every single shred of gun ownership right they can, so things like "Routine" cleansing of our rights does NOT occur.

Maybe you should take "Routine" and go comment on 4chan or something. :P

US private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management is selling gunmaker Freedom Group, whose Bushmaster AR-15 rifle was used in the Newtown school massacre last week. They're doing this after the California State Teachers' Retirement System, the second-largest pension fund in the US, threatened to dump its $740 million investment in Cerberus.

Got it. Anything we do isn't perfect and won't solve every problem, so we shouldn't do anything.

I wonder if private actions like this will have a bigger effect than any legislation. Assuming, of course, that they don't just pick it back up in six months when the news cycle moves on.

Well then, I'm certainly convinced. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

The AWB sucking does not mean gun regulation is impossible.

Doesn't prove anything about the effectiveness of regulation, you can easily get weapons from out of jurisdiction.

Uh yeah Chicago has a lot of murders. That's why they implemented gun control in the first place. You've just confused cause and effect. Places with a lot of murder are often interested in gun control; gun control doesn't cause murder.

E: here's a link on gun control in chicago

I mean seriously, chicago was violent as fuck long before gun control. It's like you never saw the Untouchables or something!

We are not talking about criminals are we? We are talking in Gun Control laws in broad strokes that affect law-abiding citizens. Of course a criminal can get firearms from outside the city/state and regardless of laws will always be able to. A law abiding citizen who wishes to remain a law abiding citizen cannot bring in guns from outside the jurisdiction. Currently, you bring a handgun into Chicago, you are instantly carrying out a felonious act.

Okay lets look at that. The Chicago handgun ban has been in effect since the late 80s. Since 1990 there has been been homicides in ranging from over 400 to under 950 per year. I do not have the statistics on hand to say what percentage were with firearms for every year. Gun Control and the handgun ban has not greatly impacted gun related violence in the last 22 years in Chicago. Sure the rate has dropped on average from the late 90s until now, but a ban on handguns did not have an instant effect. Criminals will always find a way to have guns and cops will almost never be there in time to protect you. According to SCOTUS as of 2005, the Police have duty to protect you. You are your own first line of defense and your own first responder.

Also remember we are talking about homicides and these statistics do not include those that are wounded by these guns that are so controlled.

Don't be a dipshit, you know damn well what we're talking about. A criminal can easily get firearms in the US when different jurisdictions have different rules, but they can't when there's a uniform federal rule. Getting automatic weapons is very, very difficult in the US for that reason.

Nate Silver takes a look at gun ownership along political party lines.

Assumption (wrongly mind you) of strong religious beliefs and stockpiling of ammunition and/or guns. Pass the Koolaid

A white male Republican thing. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

I have a general question, which I realize may not have a clear or comprehensive answer.

If, say, my husband was a convicted felon (or had some other record or whatever that would prohibit him from passing a background check and thus be unable to purchase a weapon), would I also be prohibited?

Basically, I'm wondering if people sharing a household with people who aren't supposed to be able to acquire firearms can still get them.

I am not being a dipshit. I am correcting your erroneous statement about bringing guns from an out side the jurisdiction. The point was that if you do that, you are a criminal regardless if you were before doing so.

As far as automatic weapons, sure criminals cannot import automatic weapons like they cannot import drugs like heroin, cocaine, etc because they were made illegal.

If this helps at all. I'd say your best answer is "no" and if anything happened with regards to a felonious husband then there would be trouble.
http://www.lawqa.com/qa/can-i-own-gun-in-house-if-my-husband-has-felonies

Unless you have some ability to control for other factors that impact the homicide rate, then you literally have no reason to conclude anything about the effect of gun control on the homicide rate in Chicago. It may have some effect, it may not, but unless you can control for other factors then pointing to the homicide rate in Chicago as compared to other places in America is really fucking stupid. Like, you don't understand how numbers work level of stupid.

Great, has anyone in the history of gun politics ever said that banning handguns would have an instant effect? If not, then what's your point?

I'm confused. Most of the lawyers are saying technically yes I could get one but it's a dumb idea for me to do so (which I don't disagree with). But you're saying I can't?

Edit: Nevermind, I misunderstood your reply.

So despite my husband's alleged felony status, I could still get a weapon. I think that's incredibly stupid considering how easy it would be for someone I live with to get access to a weapon I own, even if it were locked up. ("Can I borrow your keys? I locked myself out of the house." etc.)

It is illegal for a felon to own/possess/access firearms.

So if your husband is a felon and you make your legally owned guns accessible to him? Yes that is illegal thus both of you would be felons once convicted then neither of you would be able to own guns.

Here is the FBI check list:
Sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act[3] prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:[1]

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
• Is a fugitive from justice
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

If you reasonably deny access to him, you are okay, but if you do not take measures to prevent it, you will be held liable criminally.

Basically you need a gun safe that he has no access to legally.

...erroneous? I don't even see how your semantic reframing of the issue made what he said erroneous. Debating the merits of more gun regulation while holding up "less regulated area next door and open movement" as an eternal condition is setting more gun regulation up to fail. Which is the point, I'm sure, but it's a leading argument.

...It'd be a lot easier to get cocaine and heroin if they were legal. It's a lot easier to get firearms in the US than in Canada which is easier than in Denmark which is easier than in Japan; the regulatory regimes make a big difference to how hard guns are to get for criminals. This quote, to put it bluntly, is a punchline from moronic cartoons in the political cartoons thread.

If your point is that gun control in New York or California will be at the mercy of both a 300-million-weapon pool of firearms in the US and relaxed gun laws in neighbouring states, well, you're talking to Jason M,, who's made most of those points a lot better in previous pages.

Sorry if I've offended you with statistics.

I do not understand what other factors come into play. You say we need Gun Control, I show you one place that has stringent Gun Control for law-abiding citizens, yet you come back with "other factors". The statistics I laid out are from a Anti-gun news organization and these are homicides predominately inflicted with firearms. I am not sure where other factors need to come into play at all? Which factors do you speak of? Race, Politics, culture, and/ or the large financial difference between salaries? The burden of proof of these other factors are is in your hands not mine.



I am saying that even in 22 years, Chicago with it's handgun ban hasn't impacted firearm related violence that much. I picked Chicago because they have some of the toughest laws in one of the toughest states for Gun Control and regulation.

@Jason, Automatic Weapons ARE illegal in the US except those that have grandfathered ones from before 1986 and I cannot recall the last time one of those was used in the commission of a violent crime.

AFAIK everyone in the thread is au fait on the legal status (and functional irrelevance to both ordinary crime and spree killing) of fully automatic weapons. I replied to the quoted section because of the "criminals can't import cocaine and heroin" analogy being unfortunate.

Oh you actually don't understand how numbers work. Now I feel bad for yelling at you.

Basically, lots of things go into the homicide rate. Everyone knows that. The homicide rate is dependent on many different variables, which may or may not include gun control. If you see the homicide rate go up or go down, it could be due to a change in any of the many variables that affect homicide rates. It could be gun control, it could be the broader crime rate, it could be the unemployment rate, it could be many different things. Some of these factors might be raising the murder rate and simultaneously others might be lowering it. You cannot conclude anything about the relationship between gun control and the homicide rate unless you can control for these factors.

So, if I saw that city A had more guns, and that when city A got more guns the homicide rate also went up, I could not conclude that the homicide rate went up due to the availability of guns because there are other factors that must be controlled for.

In a more concrete example, the murder rate in Chicago has gone down since the 1980s. Gun control in Chicago has also increased (generally speaking) since the 1980s. That information alone is incapable of telling you anything about the relationship between gun control and the homicide rate, unless you are capable of controlling for other factors that impact the homicide rate.

Oh good, brettmcd has two brothers.

Does not matter one way of the other. We can argue all day if it is the person, the tool, or the access to the tool that cause the horrific events that happen in our country. We can argue about against or for our Constitutionally protected rights all day on an internet forum, but it won't change any thing. The elected officials will determine the fate of our rights because we, the People, have given them the unchecked power to do so.

I am not good at arguing or debating, I have no passion for it. I know why I want to keep my right to own a firearm like the AR15 and you know why you want to freely give that right away. We are free to have different beliefs and opinions, until we give up that right too. I am not going to change any minds here that are anti-2A and you are not going to change my mind about being pro-2A, I came back because I read some things being misrepresented as facts. I've done that and before I let my beliefs or emotions get the better of me, I am going to try to stay out of the Gun Control debate.

Everything you showed up to "correct" either hadn't appeared or had already been corrected.

If you live in that situation and are that concerned you cannot reasonably control the access of your firearms, then give them up or store them somewhere else. I, for one, would not think ill of you for abstaining from your own rights in that case. In fact I would most likely do the same.

Perhaps, but in the last few pages I did not see the misconceptions about background checks and what is required in the US to legally own a firearm go uncorrected. I apologize if I reiterated anything that was already covered correctly by another user.

Calling me names for it is rather childish.

I'm not, it was just a hypothetical. I just could see people intentionally circumventing the background check by having a roommate/spouse/significant other obtain the weapon instead.

I'm curious why you're asking this question. There are many things wrong with American laws, but "don't go far enough to make felons and their families second-class citizens" isn't one of them. Is there a significant problem of this kind where broad laws regulating straw purchases or gun show loopholes or, the holy grail, private sales wouldn't address? It seems to me that concern about felons is misplaced, unless it's just a thought experiment that interests you.

EDIT

Ah, I see. I guess it just seems to me that there are so many straightforward ways to get around this that the felon worry in and of itself just bothers me, as it almost always seems the target audience on which we pioneer ridiculous laws.

I happen to live in a house with two convicted felons as roommates and I can tell you that I had no issues when my brother sent me a gun and I had to pass a background check before I could take custody of it.