Gun control

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

For the umpteenth time Disaffected Citizen, no one I know of is advocating for banning firearms. Though if they were banned throughout Europe at some point there's a good chance that gun would have been confiscated and taken out of circulation.
The call is controls to cut down on the number of firearms that get into the black market. Don't forget every black market gun was first sold by a registered dealer; that's how guns enter the market.

Someone said Americans have accepted the inescapability of gun violence. And most Americans have accepted that men are supposed to wear only pants or shorts ...

[Disaffected.citizen]

For the umpteenth time Disaffected Citizen,

Sorry for annoying you!

no one I know of is advocating for banning firearms. Though if they were banned throughout Europe at some point there's a good chance that gun would have been confiscated and taken out of circulation.

I doubt that. The UK is the only country in which handguns are banned, yet they are still in criminal hands and there are few cases where our "boys in blue" actually find them until a crime occurs.

The call is controls to cut down on the number of firearms that get into the black market. Don't forget every black market gun was first sold by a registered dealer; that's how guns enter the market.

Agree that better controls would help, but not necessarily correct that every black market gun was first sold by a registered dealer. Smuggling still occurs.

Someone said Americans have accepted the inescapability of gun violence. And most Americans have accepted that men are supposed to wear only pants or shorts ...

I don't think Americans have accepted the inescapability of gun violence; I believe the US to be extremely safe and peaceful, not withstanding all of the media hype at recent events.

[denimini]

We accept having to meet certain requirements to drive a car; soundness of mind, tests of knowledge and ability and get a licence to drive a car that is registered. We are OK about doing all this to use something that is suposedly designed to be safe and prevent death.
Why is there so much objection to have to do similar to use something that is designed to do harm to something or someone?

[Kirbstone]

Well put, Denimini. Succinct and to the point.

Tom

[oldsalt1]

I haven't fired a weapon since the late 60's I bought a shot gun a year ago. I haven't tried it yet I just wanted to have it in the house. The back round check for his type of weapon was a few questions and a computer search. I am in favor of a little more through check before you can get a gun.But lets face it the only people these checks and gun laws in general effect are the law abiding citizens. If you are a "BAD GUY" you are going to get your gun.

Having the gun gives me a small feeling of security, knowing that I have some protection in the ultimate situation. With very few exceptions most events where a gun could come into play start and are over before you realize you have a gun to use. The consequences of using a gun stay with you forever.

This posturing about stricter gun control is political bull.Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws and yet it has among the highest rates of gun violence.

New to this conversation sorry if I just rehashed some old ideas

[dillon]

There is a lot more involved in VIOLENCE than just guns, no doubt, but the fact remains undisputed that most homicides in the US are by firearm, and that our homicide rate is embarrassingly, and frankly astonishingly high; too, it is highly related to the poorest and most neglected segment of our economic society, while the mostly white and financially privileged upper and middle classes seldom experience lethal violence of any sort. It won't be solved by gun control alone, simply because of the vast numbers of firearms in circulation. But we can take a bite out of the problem. And we COULD HAVE thwarted the mass killings of late by simple commonsense regulation. Even a modest delay in keeping someone with mental issues from obtaining high capacity firepower could effect a positive outcome or completely avert the act. And, as I proposed, we should absolutely NOT be selling weapons with interchangeable high-capacity magazines PERIOD. If a mass shooter had to reload a low capacity weapon cartridge by cartridge, many would-be victims would have the chance to escape, and law officers would have the chance to arrive before the death toll became staggering. So tell me, old salt, how much inconvenience to a lawful gun buyer is too much, relative to the preventable loss of a human life? I am willing to put the gun industry through a good deal of inconvenience to their "business as usual" if it prevents one needless homicide, suicide, or accidental death.

[Judah14]

Most cases of gun violence in the Philippines are done with illegally-acquired firearms, as criminals won't make it through the requirements of getting a license. AFAIK no such mass shootings have happened here in places such as malls because guards at the entrance perform airport-style inspections on everyone who enters, and ask people with firearms to deposit them while they are inside. Also, security guards here are heavily armed (usually with shotguns and in some cases select-fire military AR-15 rifles) and would be able to respond to a shooting easily.

[oldsalt1]

Changing a clip takes seconds so low limit clips wont solve the problems. There was a push a while ago to limit all clips to 5 rounds. Seemed reasonable but then it would outlaw all six shooters. I have no problem with checks. The lawful need to buy a gun wouldn't be hurt if the process took a week or two to complete. I agree with banning gun sales to anyone with any history of mental problems.But that still wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns. by the way how many illegal aliens would use the proper channels to buy a gun .

[crfriend]

I agree with banning gun sales to anyone with any history of mental problems.

That'll have knock-on effects that are entirely undesirable as it'll keep people who need help, and can be helped, from seeking that out. Mental illness already carries a stigma that's too high and furthering that does no-one any favours.

by the way how many illegal aliens would use the proper channels to buy a gun .

I don't think much study has been devoted to that, but I suspect that by and large the illegals tend to try really hard to stay below the RADAR and simply work and get on with life.

[dillon]

Changing a clip takes seconds so low limit clips wont solve the problems. There was a push a while ago to limit all clips to 5 rounds. Seemed reasonable but then it would outlaw all six shooters. I have no problem with checks. The lawful need to buy a gun wouldn't be hurt if the process took a week or two to complete. I agree with banning gun sales to anyone with any history of mental problems.But that still wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns. by the way how many illegal aliens would use the proper channels to buy a gun .

You misunderstood. First, NO clips...fixed magazines that can only be loaded cartridge by cartridge. Any weapon that can utilize a clip can be modified to have a low capacity fixed magazine at negligible cost to the manufacturer. I suggest six rounds. Second, a waiting period on top of the background check period; I'm thinking maybe six weeks. If someone is mature and intelligent enough to own a gun, then they're mature and intelligent enough to plan ahead, knowing it will be a lengthy process. That weeds out a few of the ones ready to "go postal" tomorrow. Third, what makes you think illegal aliens are the main committers of gun violence? Do you have a source for that? You might want to try a little research before implying something unsubstantiable; folks might think you simply pulled some unsupportable you-know-what out of your Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/ ... nts-crime/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... der-stats/

[Judah14]

Even with fixed clips, using a speedloader would allow (relatively) fast reloads.

[crfriend]

Even with fixed clips, using a speedloader would allow (relatively) fast reloads.

This is correct. I have (or, more precisely used to; thanks Sapphire) two pistols of roughly the description that Dillon postulates, save that they have eight-round internal -- non-removable -- magazines [0], and using a slide clip for loading I could get very similar reload-times as guys using ejectable magazines. Both are pieces of history dating back into the early years of the 20th century, one of which may never have been fired, and certainly wasn't by myself nor my father, ammunition for it not having been made since the late 1930s.

The problem is not the tool, it's the person using it.


[0] The faces on the police officers when I surrendered the pieces were priceless as they struggled, in vain, to eject the magazines to make sure they weren't loaded. Even with the slides locked back they felt the need until I told them what they were looking at. They'd never seen anything like that before, so their confusion was entirely understandable.

[dillon]

I think you totally failed to grasp the point. The idea is to provide the opportunity for "fight or flight".

The device Judah showed would definitely NOT work on fixed magazines. The clip being loaded has been removed from the weapon. It had to be, since spring operated under-action magazines have to be loaded from the top. Also, please recall that the fixed magazines I proposed are 6 rounds max; that is derived from revolver capacities, normally six or seven rounds.

My clips on my carbine are standard GI 10 round clips, but there are 30 round clips available. I can change a clip, potentially 30 rounds, in under 5 seconds without taking the rifle from my shoulder. Not even a speedloader can do that. There are even clamps available that fasten 2 clips together in opposite directions so that all that is needed to change one is release - flip - insert, and draw the bolt to chamber the first round. 60 potential victims, perhaps schoolchildren, in a few seconds.

Plus, it seems obvious that defeating speedloading is no more than one additional step in fixed magazine technology, and not at all high-tech. It could be as simple as a loading bolt that requires a manual action between the insertion of each round. And who ever suggested this has to be yesteryear's technology, anyway?

[Judah14]

I think you totally failed to grasp the point. The idea is to provide the opportunity for "fight or flight".

The device Judah showed would definitely NOT work on fixed magazines. The clip being loaded has been removed from the weapon. It had to be, since spring operated under-action magazines have to be loaded from the top. Also, please recall that the fixed magazines I proposed are 6 rounds max; that is derived from revolver capacities, normally six or seven rounds.

My clips on my carbine are standard GI 10 round clips, but there are 30 round clips available. I can change a clip, potentially 30 rounds, in under 5 seconds without taking the rifle from my shoulder. Not even a speedloader can do that. There are even clamps available that fasten 2 clips together in opposite directions so that all that is needed to change one is release - flip - insert, and draw the bolt to chamber the first round. 60 potential victims, perhaps schoolchildren, in a few seconds.

Plus, it seems obvious that defeating speedloading is no more than one additional step in fixed magazine technology, and not at all high-tech. It could be as simple as a loading bolt that requires a manual action between the insertion of each round. And who ever suggested this has to be yesteryear's technology, anyway?

Here is a speedloader for a rifle with a fixed magazine:

[Tor]

Interesting timing that I should read here again, though why is it that interesting topics always seem to come when I'm busy?

Plus, it seems obvious that defeating speedloading is no more than one additional step in fixed magazine technology, and not at all high-tech.

Plus, it seems obvious that defeating a speedloader defeater is no more than simple machining, and not at all high-tech. I have the tools required, as does a substantial percentage of the population. They are cheap, though more expensive tools shorten the time required considerably.

On "your" trying to somewhat limit the carnage caused by mass shooters through limiting magazines, here is the/an unspoken message I hear in it, that is said to the nearly universal majority of gun owners who are responsible:

Even though criminals who pose a threat sufficient to warrant shooting are regularly known to walk under their own power to the ambulance when it arrives after taking several bullets, even up to 15, and despite that you might find yourself facing more than one bad guy at once, you may not own or carry a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds or being rapidly reloaded. This is in the hopes that the delays thus caused will perhaps save a few lives per year by giving slightly more time for people to stop or flee from mass shooters. This, despite that mass shooters regularly carry multiple guns so that they needn't stop to reload as it is. And despite that prohibition has never been demonstrated to work, and despite that guns with standard (10,15,30,n round magazines) will be smuggled or manufactured on the black market. Not to mention the millions of such guns already in existence. Oh, and by the way if you ignore this edict, 'we' will send armed men to destroy your life, lock you in a cage, or if you resist, kill you. And yes, I know you have never really threatened anyone and would never do so. That doesn't matter, because this will make me feel like 'something has been done'."

I know not how to describe this other than "morally reprehensible".

By the way, AFAICT, the overwhelming majority of mass shooters stop or are stopped when they meet effective resistance. Usually someone or several someones with guns.

See this article for details on all the above.


You say if it saves one life? How many rapes prevented is one life worth? How many muggings with beatings, possibly resulting in death is that life worth? Last I checked, life is terminal, and it isn't possible to foam pad life.

A study of the murder rate in Europe over the past eight centuries certainly is interesting. I've followed this one as far as I can without putting a great deal of time into it, but it certainly seems to show rather clearly that guns save far more lives than they take. See the article here.