Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Near Future & Gun Control

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
Author
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 December 2012 at 11:07pm
I agree with impulse. Holding people responsible for someone stealing their gun is completely different than holdinb them responsible for keeping them away from kids in my opinion.

Let's use the same logic different scenario-you leave your meds laying on the counter and your kid swallows them. Same thing as if some teenager breaks in to your house and sells them to his buds?

The law protects us from stolen weapons by making it illegal to steal them and then to carry them stolen. It's not always effective but neither are DWI laws, drug laws, etc.

How about not being able to own a gun if a mentally disabled person is under your care?
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 December 2012 at 11:19pm
I wonder if the U.S. will adopt similar gun laws to Canada. Up here you have to have a license and training to own regular long guns that include shotguns and hunting rifles and other bolt-action rifles. That includes a background check with the RCMP, as they are the ones granting the license. After that, you can apply for further restricted weapons training for handguns and assault rifles which you can only get if you can prove you are a member of a gun club, are a knowledgeable collector, or if it is for your job. You also have to apply for a permit to transport your restricted firearms. Also, the maximum amount of cartridges that rifles can hold in the magazine is 5. It's 10 for handguns, and 3 for shotguns. Depending on the rifle, you can have more like if it's a M1 or a Lee-Enfield or Mauser ect.

Oh, and most .50 cal weapons and anything that isn't semi-auto is prohibited, meaning you cannot own one.

Come to think of it, I doubt the U.S. would ever be that strict.
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 December 2012 at 11:21pm
I'm saying hold them responsible for not taking precautions. If someone really wants to, they can get into a safe. Why make it easy? Unlike a car, if someone steals your gun, they aren't going to sell it for parts. If you want to say it's absurd for you to have to make it more difficult for someone intent on committing a crime from acquiring the means since it's already illegal to kill someone, why not sell untraceable poisons, or  dynamite, or flamethrowers without restrictions. If laws against murder, or basic morals are sufficient, why bother at all? Why make it difficult for Iran to get nukes if nuking a country is already a war-crime?
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 December 2012 at 11:26pm
It shouldn't be difficult for Iran to obtain nukes. They should be able to defend themselves from a US occupation.

Rofl-Mao: The only thing I envy about Canada, when it comes to guns. You guys have lots of SVT-40's for cheap.
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:03am
If you want to keep playing with the nuke argument (which I'm not sure is a bad analogy)what about restrictions nations place on them? We have safeguards in place as to who can authorize a launch, monitor technology transfers and materials, with the goal of keeping those weapons away from those who would use them in cases other than self-defense in cases of immediate existential threats. NPT nations have their rights to peaceful power production upheld in exchange for oversight and swearing off weapons production. 

Canada's laws seem slightly less scary to me now if you can still have a Garand with an 8 rnd clip. I really don't have a problem with training, licensing, safe-storage, background checks, or registration, providing there isn't arbitrary denial of a license. The main opposition to any of these measures, as far as i can tell, is that they would make a potential future ban more easy to implement. Honestly, I'd bet the major reason people buy hi-capacity weapons, and that so many new gun sales and first-time gun buyers purchase handguns and hi-cap rifles is the threat of a ban.
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:16am
And, who has the authority to tell a nation, who and who cannot obtain nuclear weapons? The US? That's ironic. NATO and the UN do not like countries obtaining them, because it makes it a hell of a lot harder for them to manipulate foreign policy.

What is a hi-capacity weapon?
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:22am
Let's use the 1994 ban as an example if you want to get into it, but call it detachable magazines of over 10 rounds for pistols and rifles. Do you honestly think that nuclear materials or technology shouldn't be controlled or have any type of oversight? 
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:33am
There was an explosion of "assault weapon" sales before the ban went into effect. People will always want something that is unique, taboo etc. We need to remove the mystique of these firearms. And of course people will buy them when they think there is a ban. Along with all the other "evil" accessories that get lumped in. (Did you know a PS-90 with 16 inch barrel, and 10 round magazine, didn't fall into the AWB ban) They are designed to shoot a lead projectile accurately, the most comfortably, and most effective. I'm sorry firearm technology is always progressing. Lever guns and 6 shooters are for people who grew up on them, or historians.

Who should govern it, and why are they right candidate?
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:49am
I'm well aware of the 1994 ban and its provisions, and a PS-90 doesn't have a pistol grip, flash-suppressor or vertical forward grip, bayo-lug etc. I think banning semi-autos that can take detachable mags is going to be a messy debate (especially since Feinstein is calling fora posession ban) but I can understand that there's probably no justifable cause to have a 75 or 100 round drum magazine besides screwing around, even for legitimate self-defense.

Registration, background checks for private sales, and safe storage, even safe storage with inspection, would make a difference since they would help keep guns away from people who can't legally own them. It wouldn't be restricting what guns can be owned, whether they could be kept, or carried. If there's anything the NRA should cave on, those areas are it. Those along with better information-sharing with the NICS could do a lot.

EDIT: and just maybe, limiting ownership for hi-cap firearms to those over 21.




Edited by rednekk98 - 18 December 2012 at 12:54am
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:55am
Didn't the Aurora shooter run a drum magazine? Which jammed, which they are notorious for. People who buy drums, have more money than brains. If he would of brought a vest full of P-Mags, who knows how many people he would of harmed.

You know what. How about this. We propose a bill that outlaws cash. Everything purchased must be done by credit/debit cards. If anything is bartered, life in prison. That way nothing get's by the NSA.

Edit: Limit sales of "hi-caps" to those over 21? Worked well with alcohol.

I rather see the driving age be raised to 18. To when you know, they are an adult.


Edited by impulse418 - 18 December 2012 at 1:00am
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:10am
3 gun matches. 60 and 100 round mags that work give you an advantage over guys using 30's. Just because YOU don't see a need for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'll put it clearly and type slowly because you all seem to be hard of learning. IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO MURDER PEOPLE.

What part of the tool isn't the issue do people not get? I'm going to start sounding like FE here but people only think guns are a problem and laws about them are the solution because of the popular media. Sometimes people who are messed up do messed up things. Look at that guy in China who attacked a bunch of kids with a knife. It isn't the weapon, it is the person using it.

I've grown too with safe storage laws. I. find it hard to believe people don't lock their guns up. From many perspectives. I don't wasn't unauthorised people getting to my guns. They were an investment, they can be used in crimes. and it happens to be the law here. I agree letting unauthorised people get it should be an offence. I don't think you should be responsible for the use thirty get put to afterwards. That is as silly as sue img the manufacturer.

You can't control what others do. But you should not make it easy.for them.

Forgetting to put a gun away? Are you sure you're a responsible gun owner? What next? forgetting it in a public place?
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:23am
Impulse, where do you draw the arbitrary age line with alcohol or guns then? Restricting access or requiring supervision for certain age groups seems fine to me, just like age of voting rights. The voting age was 21 until the the Vietnam war. Age restrictions in that range don't seem at all draconian or unprecedented. It's a lot easier to brew beer than to build a firearm from scratch, and nobody sells a 30-pack of Glocks. A beer to ammo comparison would make more sense.

EDIT: magazine restrictions, while I'm not a fan, would somewhat limit public danger. You can get a machine gun in most states, but you could probably count on one hand how many have been used in crimes in the last 50 years. If to fire 100 rounds you needed to own 10 magazines and change them 10 times, it would take a lot longer than firing and changing 3.3 or fewer mags. Especially in a rifle in a defensive situation, I can't imagine that being too much of a handicap, even if I had 3 armed people breaking into my home. Certainly 30 would be enough per magazine.


Edited by rednekk98 - 18 December 2012 at 1:28am
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:23am
3 gun lol.

Responsible gun owner? Pretty sure as long as I don't shoot someone who is not threatening my life, or have a negligent discharge. I have responsibly handled a firearm. Now if someone wants to commit a crime of stealing my property, and using it in a illegal manner. I cannot see why I am responsible.

Back to the cashless society. That would solve a lot of our problems. Illegal drugs, prostitution, political bribes... Imagine it. I'm starting a petition.
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:25am
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

Impulse, where do you draw the arbitrary age line with alcohol or guns then? Restricting access or requiring supervision for certain age groups seems fine to me, just like age of voting rights. The voting age was 21 until the the Vietnam war. Age restrictions in that range don't seem at all draconian or unprecedented. It's a lot easier to brew beer than to build a firearm from scratch, and nobody sells a 30-pack of Glocks. A beer to ammo comparison would make more sense.


18 across the board. Once you are an adult, enjoy the privilege of adult responsibilities. That's why I think the driving age should be 18 also. And we need to quit charging minors as adults.
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:33am
I'd say 21 across the board, the only reason we allow 18 year olds to vote is because they're capable of being in the military, and should be able to vote for who sends them to war,  and military service has a pile of other restrictions. From a cognitive development perspective, you could say 21 for women and 23+ for men, and for weeding out psychos, why not 30 across the board?
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:44am
If you want to make it 21 across the board, then the legal age of adult status needs to be 21.
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:14am
I'm not sure a graduated system is a bad idea at all. I needed to wait to be 18 to buy any gun here, but at age 15 I could be in possession of a non-high cap long gun for hunting, provided I got my first firearms license, which required a class and parental signature. Age 12-15 I needed to hunt with an adult. I have had my fingerprints on file with the FBI for the last 11 years because of this rule, and I am fine with this. My state has different classes for and restrictions on firearms use and ownership. Class C allows non high capacity long-guns, uually for hunting and target shooting, class B allows non high capacity long guns or pistols, class A allows high capacity, and can have restrictions from "hunting and target shooting" to carrying large sums of cash, to "unrestricted/ all lawful purposes" dependent on what your local law enforcement agency will issue. I'm not a fan of the way this  "may issue" system works since licenses can be restricted for any or no reason according to the police chief (no guns for minorities, people with ear gauges, people without prior licensing, whatever) but different classes for different firearms types make sense to me. Not every person of any mental ability, training level or criminal background should be granted the same access to all types of firearms.

Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:18am

On the one hand: Tools explicitly designed for murder.

On the other: But it's real fun shoot things go pew.

Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:28am
While I'm at it, I might as well throw out "Stand your ground" laws, and other self-defense laws that allow you to shoot someone fleeing from you, anybody if they're on your property, or don't require you to retreat if reasonable. These are fairly new, and IMO, stupid.

Let's use the car analogy for Stand your ground type laws and say I'm driving on the highway, and somebody is driving like an ass, possibly drunk, texting, or experiencing road-rage. Can I attempt a pit-maneuver to get them off the road? Must I first call the police, give a warning via horn or flashing my high beams? They're clearly a threat to public safety if they drive poorly. What if they drive and leaning back in their seat and almost touch the white solid(and happen to be black)? Can I then start honking at them, flashing my lights, demand they pull over and then aggressively ram them if they honk back?
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:30am
Sorry Rednekk. I would never accept having to acquire than many permission slips.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html

Why do we let teens, who aren't legally liable for their actions, have drivers licenses. Something that isn't even protected under the Constitution.

Could money be motivating this decision?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.