OT: Arizona Coyotes Lounge XIII -- Summertime Blues

[XX]

Assault rifles are highly regulated, they cost like 20k+

You are thinking of legal, transferable 'machine guns' (the regulated term, not mine). You can go score one of the less desirable Ak-47s for about $400-500 from a shop or in a private sale.

 

[BlazingBlueAnt]

um...no. what do you consider an assault rifle?

https://grabagun.com/firearms/ar-15-ar10-and-other-ar/complete-ar-rifles.html?dir=asc&order=price

Thats not an assault rifle, it has to have select auto - semi auto fire in order to be classified as an assault rifle.

 

[MIGs Dog]

Thats not an assault rifle, it has to have select auto - semi auto fire in order to be classified as an assault rifle.

Good to know. Here are some "assault rifles" starting under $2k.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx?BuyNowOnly=1&Sort=4&Tab=2

 

[Matias Maccete]

Judas priest isn't in the rock and roll hall of fame already? Wtf. I guess it's not super surprising iirc rush wasn't in until a few years ago.

 

[BlazingBlueAnt]

Good to know. Here are some "assault rifles" starting under $2k.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx?BuyNowOnly=1&Sort=4&Tab=2

Those are only for Law Enforcement and certain, very restricted manufacturers

Anyways, i don't really want to argue this here, so eh

 

[MIGs Dog]

Those are only for Law Enforcement and certain, very restricted manufacturers

Anyways, i don't really want to argue this here, so eh

We're arguing?

I like to debate, and I'll take any side of an issue just for fun. (my wife hates when I do so )

 

[Dirty Old Man]

On a lighter note, here are the 2018 RnR HOF nominees

<list>

Heh, this might lead to arguments more heated than the gun control...

If I voted with my feet, I've seen The Cars and Moody Blues, owned albums from Kate Bush, Depeche Mode (damn, shoulda gone last week!), Dire Straits, Eurythmics.

 

[XX]

Thats not an assault rifle, it has to have select auto - semi auto fire in order to be classified as an assault rifle.

I hate to see people parrot this, especially as some sort of defense. They're identical in function and lethality apart from the selector switch. They're not hard to modify internally with an auto sear or by using slide/bump fire stocks like the Vegas shooter. In practice and to the lay person they are the same thing. The military doesn't even use the automatic or burst fire function all that often because semi is so effective. Pre 86 ban guns are expensive because they are transferable. There have been less than half a dozen incidents of NFA items being used to commit a crime at last check, and that is in nearly 100 years of enforcement. Rabbit's comment was in reference to AR style weapons which are commonly available and regulated in only a few states. You knew that and tried to deflect. My only question is why?

 

[BlazingBlueAnt]

I hate to see people parrot this, especially as some sort of defense. They're identical in function and lethality apart from the selector switch. They're not hard to modify internally with an auto sear or by using slide/bump fire stocks like the Vegas shooter. In practice and to the lay person they are the same thing. The military doesn't even use the automatic or burst fire function all that often because semi is so effective. Pre 86 ban guns are expensive because they are transferable. There have been less than half a dozen incidents of NFA items being used to commit a crime at last check, and that is in nearly 100 years of enforcement. Rabbit's comment was in reference to AR style weapons which are commonly available and regulated in only a few states. You knew that and tried to deflect. My only question is why?

Because most people who want to ban AR's are perfectly fine with something like a Mini-14, which is also a semi automatic firearm that fires the same round as an AR15.

Banning something because it's scary looking isn't a rational decision. The overwhelming majority of gun violence in this country occurs from handguns.

Also, I'd like to think that working to revoke part of the Bill of Rights in this country would go through official channels, IE, amending the Constitution like has been done in the past

 

[Jakey53]

The violent crime rate was cut in half in the 90s without any meaningful reform, gun control or otherwise. Crime is socioeconomic in nature. When people able to attain an education, have healthcare (including access to mental health resources), have social mobility, aren't incarcerated over minor offenses, are able to be gainfully employed etc... they tend to lead happy, peaceful lives. The focus needs to be on improving society as a whole. That has historically been the thing that produces the change we desire so much, not poorly thought out legislation targeting any one thing.



Your military friend (if he exists) is an idiot and not a good example of responsible ownership. A safety engages a mechanical disconnect in most firearms that makes it several orders of magnitude safer to handle. To the point where most everyone in the military is trained to engage the safety when not actively engaging a target or sweeping through an area where the fastest possible reaction is required. Negligent and accidental discharges are a thing, even among the highly trained, especially under duress. I question his existence because you basically just paraphrased the movie Blackhawk Down.

We don't regulate firearms anywhere near as much as we do cars. It's pathetic. Go to your local range and witness how many people are totally unqualified to be handling firearms, then realize there's nothing stopping them from buying one (or many) in most states beyond a simple background check. There's no licensing requirement, no requirement that you have proper storage, no handling training and ongoing skills maintenance requirement, no training on the laws and use of force scenarios etc... We don't even track transactions of firearms as well as we do cars. It's a compete joke. I despise the NRA as a gun owner and I absolutely hate that the loudest, dumbest owners whine so fiercely over 'muh freedums' anytime basic measures - many of which have proven successful in several states - are proposed by legislators. I fear nothing will change because both sides are so entrenched in their binary ideals that there's no real chance for compromise at this point.

To address RT's point: In a free society, nothing guarantees safety. But you can improve your odds. Let's do that.

Your last paragraph hit the nail on the head.

 

[XX]

Because most people who want to ban AR's are perfectly fine with something like a Mini-14, which is also a semi automatic firearm that fires the same round as an AR15.

Banning something because it's scary looking isn't a rational decision. The overwhelming majority of gun violence in this country occurs from handguns.

Also, I'd like to think that working to revoke part of the Bill of Rights in this country would go through official channels, IE, amending the Constitution like has been done in the past

I tend to agree, but your defense of ARs as being 'heavily regulated' was and is incredibly dishonest. That line is straight out of the NRA playbook. I would know.

The AWB was ineffective legislation, of course. And tens of millions own 'AR' style weapons without incident. We generally don't punish tens or hundreds of millions for the action of one person. It's only plausible because AR's are scary to the average person and generally don't serve a sporting purpose beyond target shooting.

Regulation is distinctly not revocation, however. You already have varying degrees of private ownership at the state and federal level, each with their own licensing requirements. If you look at other countries or even just the NFA framework, there's a lot there that can and should be enforced. None of it revokes your 'right' to own a firearm. Do you think someone with a demonstrated history of mental illness should be able to own a gun? A criminal record? I hope not. If we extend that to people who have no ability or willingness to properly handle and store the firearm, what's the fuss? Nowhere is it written in the constitution that you need access to AR style weapons. We've already revised that amendment several times over because small arms technology and the realities of living in close proximity to each other in a modern society demands it.

The idea that our freedoms are under attack because you might have to wait 7 days to get your gun, pass a more thorough background check, and only be able to buy one a month is both sad and hilarious.

 

[BlazingBlueAnt]

I tend to agree, but your defense of ARs as being 'heavily regulated' was and is incredibly dishonest. That line is straight out of the NRA playbook. I would know.

The AWB was ineffective legislation, of course. And tens of millions own 'AR' style weapons without incident. We generally don't punish tens or hundreds of millions for the action of one person. It's only plausible because AR's are scary to the average person and generally don't serve a sporting purpose beyond target shooting.

Regulation is distinctly not revocation, however. You already have varying degrees of private ownership at the state and federal level, each with their own licensing requirements. If you look at other countries or even just the NFA framework, there's a lot there that can and should be enforced. None of it revokes your 'right' to own a firearm. Do you think someone with a demonstrated history of mental illness should be able to own a gun? A criminal record? I hope not. If we extend that to people who have no ability or willingness to properly handle and store the firearm, what's the fuss? Nowhere is it written in the constitution that you need access to AR style weapons. We've already revised that amendment several times over because small arms technology and the realities of living in close proximity to each other in a modern society demands it.

The idea that our freedoms are under attack because you might have to wait 7 days to get your gun, pass a more thorough background check, and only be able to buy one a month is both sad and hilarious.

I didn't know how he defined assault weapons, for all I knew he was talking about fully automatic rifles. I know plenty of people who think you can just go to a gun store and pick up a machine gun.

If you've been deemed mentally unfit or have criminal convictions you are not allowed to own firearms, so i don't know what more we can do at that point. I do think NICS should be open to private sales, but thats been attempted to be put through and rejected by both parties I believe.

I don't know how adding a waiting period will help either. All that does is make a potential shooter wait a couple of extra days and make things more annoying for legal gun owners.

I don't disagree with ensuring people who own firearms are safe, but stuff like poll taxes and literacy tests before elections were deemed unconstitutional and regardless of your views, owning guns in the US is considered a human right that the government cannot infringe upon, so adding on additional charges or requirements to owning a firearm will be viewed in the same way.

 

[MIGs Dog]

...wait 7 days to get your gun, pass a more thorough background check, and only be able to buy one a month...

Allow me to play devils advocate for a moment. Why would some oppose what you suggest? It's the slippery slope theory. If we impose the restrictions you suggest, some events like Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc. will still occur. There may be fewer...hopefully there will be fewer, but some will still occur. Since they will still occur, and the possibility exists of an even more horrific event, what will then be the response of government?

Some fear such severe restrictions would ultimately result in very limited private ownership and/or possession, even for the few of us that are law abiding and still sane.

If you ask many on the left, they are in favor of a complete ban on private ownership.

I am in favor of more regulation, just pointing out the argument against your proposal.

 

[MIGs Dog]

I didn't know how he defined assault weapons, for all I knew he was talking about fully automatic rifles. I know plenty of people who think you can just go to a gun store and pick up a machine gun.

If you've been deemed mentally unfit or have criminal convictions you are not allowed to own firearms, so i don't know what more we can do at that point. I do think NICS should be open to private sales, but thats been attempted to be put through and rejected by both parties I believe.

I don't know how adding a waiting period will help either. All that does is make a potential shooter wait a couple of extra days and make things more annoying for legal gun owners.

I don't disagree with ensuring people who own firearms are safe, but stuff like poll taxes and literacy tests before elections were deemed unconstitutional and regardless of your views, owning guns in the US is considered a human right that the government cannot infringe upon, so adding on additional charges or requirements to owning a firearm will be viewed in the same way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any way for a background check to uncover mental illness.

 

[XX]

Allow me to play devils advocate for a moment. Why would some oppose what you suggest? It's the slippery slope theory. If we impose the restrictions you suggest, some events like Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc. will still occur. There may be fewer...hopefully there will be fewer, but some will still occur. Since they will still occur, and the possibility exists of an even more horrific event, what will then be the response of government?

I don't know how you leap from minor inconveniences designed to cut down on aggregate gun violence (not spree shooters specifically) to total elimination and repossession of all privately held firearms (which will never happen). That's not really a slippery slope, it's falling into the Grand Canyon. The world didn't end for gun owners in CA and NY because they have a couple more hoops to jump through.

There's a super loud, obnoxious minority of owners that will never allow for any regulation whatsoever. They're the NRA's biggest fans. The rest of us get to suffer for it.

 

[BlazingBlueAnt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any way for a background check to uncover mental illness.

If you've ever been in an mental facility you are ineligible. Of course there are so many other mental things that you aren't admitted for, but where do you draw that line and deny someone their rights?

I also think there'd be a long more willingness from a lot of gun owner into banning stupid things like binary triggers and bumpstocks if they got something back in return, like suppressors which shouldn't be on the NFA

I don't know how you leap from minor inconveniences designed to cut down on aggregate gun violence (not spree shooters specifically) to total elimination and repossession of all privately held firearms (which will never happen). That's not really a slippery slope, it's falling into the Grand Canyon. The world didn't end for gun owners in CA and NY because they have a couple more hoops to jump through.

There's a super loud, obnoxious minority of owners that will never allow for any regulation whatsoever. They're the NRA's biggest fans. The rest of us get to suffer for it.

But I'm curious, what good does a waiting period do?

 

[XX]

If you've been deemed mentally unfit or have criminal convictions you are not allowed to own firearms, so i don't know what more we can do at that point. I do think NICS should be open to private sales, but thats been attempted to be put through and rejected by both parties I believe.

The person who has a mental illness has committed no crime, yet the state still finds them unfit to have a weapon. We impose these restrictions on people all the time for the betterment of society. Rights can be modified and limited. You have the right to free speech but you do not have the right to yell bomb on an airplane or fire in a theater, as an example. You can own a gun, but you probably shouldn't own one without demonstrating at least some fitness and purpose.

I don't know how adding a waiting period will help either. All that does is make a potential shooter wait a couple of extra days and make things more annoying for legal gun owners.

Waiting periods are endorsed by the FBI, which would go hand-in-hand with more thorough background checks. People generally shouldn't have immediate access to firearms, especially those that are suicidal. Again, this isn't aimed at eliminating all violence. Regulations are not an all or nothing business. It's meant to cut down on the overall level of violence. Having a cooling off period for people helps with that. If you think a 7 day waiting period is "annoying" then you aren't ready for the responsibility of owning a firearm.

I don't disagree with ensuring people who own firearms are safe, but stuff like poll taxes and literacy tests before elections were deemed unconstitutional and regardless of your views, owning guns in the US is considered a human right that the government cannot infringe upon, so adding on additional charges or requirements to owning a firearm will be viewed in the same way.

We modify and limit rights afforded to us all the time. I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards the regulation of firearms, to include free training if so required. The alternative is a bunch of idiots with guns that aren't familiar with them, don't know how to store them, and don't know when they're legally able to use them. How is that a better outcome for society than regulation?

 

[MIGs Dog]

I don't know how you leap from minor inconveniences designed to cut down on aggregate gun violence (not spree shooters specifically) to total elimination and repossession of all privately held firearms

I didn't say "total elimination and repossession" I said many fear "severe restrictions...resulting in very limited private ownership and/or possession..."

44% of Americans are not in favor of increased gun regulation. http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Most of those vote R, which is why it's tough to pass legislation. It's not just the NRA.

 

[XX]

44% of Americans are not in favor of increased gun regulation. http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Because they generally hear talk of bans from equally ignorant people on the opposite side of the issue.

A majority of gun owners support increased regulation, like me. Imagine that. It's mostly loud, obnoxious people that get involved in the conversation. Reasonable folks get left out on both sides.

 

[Jakey53]

The problem is that if training is to be required it needs to be completely free and extremely easily to access, which means someones gotta pay for it. Having it not be free will be shot down because it will be seen as akin to a poll tax. You can't be charged money in order to exercise your constitutional rights, that's been established in the past.

How is charging for training against your constitutional right?

 

[MIGs Dog]

...7 day waiting period...

What if I provide a good reason that I need it now? Like, my estranged husband has said he's going to kill me?

How is charging for training against your constitutional right?

The argument is that it's like a poll tax.

 

[XX]

What if I provide a good reason that I need it now? Like, my estranged husband has said he's going to kill me?

Then, like current implementations of the law, you can get it in writing from your local law enforcement official that you have demonstrable need and the period gets waived.

Ideally, we'd copy NYC's laws nationwide, minus the stupid type restrictions.

 

[HerrDonut]

Maybe, but that only applies when it's in their hands. How many kids shoot themselves or someone else when they pick up mommy or daddy's gun?

I was actually under the impression that "training and experience" covered that subject. A responsible person of that sort ought to be expected to take measures that ensure 100% certainty that their guns aren't going to end up in the wrong hands of any age. If that isn't the case... train better.

 

[Coyotedroppings]

Tough, tough subject here - I believe the citizens need to be able to access weaponry that can accommodate defense against it's own government, if need be. But mostly, I'm a firm believer in a compulsory military service, like Switzerland.

 

[RABBIT]

As much as i love the Ak47 and AR15, i will go on record saying i don't need much more than my 9mm (public & home) and my pump action (home) to protect myself and my family. In my mind, the bump-stock that is used to turn semi-autos in to basically full autos should be banned, no reason for gen-pop to have access to it.