A successful ban

[MrWonka]

Where people have WANTED to get them and use them for illegal purposes, they have been able to.

Do you have real statistics on this or are you just pulling **** out of your ass? Sounds like you found an example or two. Clearly I would think the columbine kids, the recent Walmart Shooter or the idiot who shot up the Batman movie would have all loved to use one yet... nope.

 

[Lutherf]

Sez who, self proclaimed patriots who decide on their own when it's time?

So for you, why is banning machinguns quite disturbing? Do you believe citizens should have access to the small arms our military is issued and/or vest, suppressors, bump stocks, etc.?

Preserving the Constitution, the document which lays out the form government we will have and the limitations on that government is not "revolutionary". It is anti-revolutionary.

 

[SoCal]

Preserving the Constitution, the document which lays out the form government we will have and the limitations on that government is not "revolutionary". It is anti-revolutionary.

You sound like Lewandowski when he testified before Congress this morning. Just answer the question please,

Do you believe citizens should have access to the small arms our military is issued and/or vest, suppressors, bump stocks, etc.?

 

[Rickeroo]

This is a photograph not a link to any kind of story that could confirm it's authenticity. It's also one example.

My bad, story here:

A former student was arrested after she bought an AK-47 and threatened her old school - CNN

AK-47's are supposed to be machine guns.

 

[VanceMack]

And can you easily purchase one to take home with you?

Sure. Fill out your Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm (form 5320.4) and pay your $200.00. Once you have had your background check and your license to transfer the firearm to you you drop down your cash and walk out the store with it.

As I have shown...there are already a half a million fully automatic gun owners plus the weapons stocks at Gun Stores used for demos.

 

[VanceMack]

Do you have real statistics on this or are you just pulling **** out of your ass? Sounds like you found an example or two. Clearly I would think the columbine kids, the recent Walmart Shooter or the idiot who shot up the Batman movie would have all loved to use one yet... nope.

Actually all you are doing is proving that where there is a will there is a way. The Columbine shooters werent legal to purchase the weapons they bought. Did the laws stop them?

 

[MrWonka]

Once you have had your background check

As I have shown...there are already a half a million fully automatic gun owners

There are approximately $393 million guns owned by Civilians in this country and less than half of 1 million have a fully automatic. That seems like a pretty big success to me and we did it without a fully fledged ban.

I like it. A $200 tax on the purchase of all guns, a required background check and a special license. Combine that with a 200% tax on the sale of all ammunition and we could do a ton of good.

But ultimately you're dodging the real question. Roughly a half million of these weapons are owned by civilians, yet how frequently do criminals get their hands on them. Turns out it's exceedingly rare.

 

[MrWonka]

Actually all you are doing is proving that where there is a will there is a way. The Columbine shooters werent legal to purchase the weapons they bought. Did the laws stop them?

Because the guns they used are readily available. All they had to do is steal them from their parents or a relative. If you shut down production of them altogether though...

 

[Lutherf]

You sound like Lewandowski when he testified before Congress this morning. Just answer the question please,

Do you believe citizens should have access to the small arms our military is issued and/or vest, suppressors, bump stocks, etc.?

Small arms - Yes
Vests - Yes
Suppressors - Yes
Bump Stocks - Yes, though I'd never own one. They're more a novelty
Etc? - Probably. I really don't know everything that "etc" includes.

 

[MrWonka]

My bad, story here:

A former student was arrested after she bought an AK-47 and threatened her old school - CNN

AK-47's are supposed to be machine guns.

Are you certain this wasn't a semi-automatic version of it? It seems that you're required to fork over a $200 tax and pass a background check to legally purchase one of these.

 

[VanceMack]

Heres some food for thought...

Missing Pieces: More Than 350 Firearms Lost or Stolen From DC-Area Police Since 2011 - NBC4 Washington
Unaccounted For: Hundreds of Guns Lost or Stolen From Bay Area Police Agencies Since 2010 - NBC Bay Area
Military weapons add to enforcement woes
This is fun from that story:
Security has been tightened at Camp Murray since an August report by the U.S. Army Audit Agency said 50,000 bullets, 116 machine guns, 58 rifles and 150 riot-control gas grenades were recorded improperly or not at all. Col. Jerry Wilkins, guard chief of staff, said no weapons were actually lost.
Security was tightened at the Army base after the 1990 theft of 240 pounds of plastic explosives, federal auditors found.
"They really couldn't tell me currently how many were missing," Knabel said.
Law Enforcement’s Lost and Stolen Gun Problem
ballistics analysis determined the gun had been used in the attack, which killed a 23-year-old man and injured a 93-year-old woman whose head was grazed by a stray bullet. The Glock was a big break for investigators in the case, but a check of its serial number led to a chilling revelation: The gun belonged to one of their own. Two months earlier, a Baltimore police officer had reported the pistol stolen from his car.
Such thefts are not uncommon. The Trace examined records from more than 100 law enforcement agencies and found that they had collectively reported the loss or theft of at least 1,781 guns between 2008 and 2017. The vast majority were department-issued handguns, but the count also included hundreds of rifles and shotguns, as well as four fully automatic submachine guns. The firearms were stolen out of glove boxes and closets, left in airports and on the roofs of cars, and in one case, forgotten in a high school bathroom. Some were later involved in crimes ranging from aggravated assault to homicide.

 

[VanceMack]

Because the guns they used are readily available. All they had to do is steal them from their parents or a relative. If you shut down production of them altogether though...

Well...no...They bought them. Illegally. Straw purchases. Illegal purchases. Laws didnt stop them. Bans didnt stop them.

 

[VanceMack]

There are approximately $393 million guns owned by Civilians in this country and less than half of 1 million have a fully automatic. That seems like a pretty big success to me and we did it without a fully fledged ban.

I like it. A $200 tax on the purchase of all guns, a required background check and a special license. Combine that with a 200% tax on the sale of all ammunition and we could do a ton of good.

But ultimately you're dodging the real question. Roughly a half million of these weapons are owned by civilians, yet how frequently do criminals get their hands on them. Turns out it's exceedingly rare.

:lamo

I think you need to recalculate the meaning of the word 'ban'.

You keep dancing around the point. You think a ban that isnt a ban is successful because it is a ban..but it isnt really a ban. Yet that doesnt explain why the vast majority of shooters use handguns, and not rifles.

 

[vesper]

I don't think most folks have a clear understanding of the Second Amendment and why it was so important to the Founders that it made its way to the top of the Bill of Rights as #2. They didn't just see the right to bear arms as a means for personal defense, or against foreign invasions but they saw it as an essential tool in the worst case scenario of a tyrannical domestic government.

Those who are proposing bans and politicians that are promoting bans are people who think the Federal government should be in charge of just about everything in our lives. Just listen to the Democratic candidates running in their primary. They are all proposing even stronger Federal government control over healthcare to what we can eat and what we can drive to banning guns to silencing free speech. All their proposals involve massive Federal government control.

I don't know about the rest of you but that scares the heck out of me. And when I start hearing calls to ban a type of gun because some who obtained them or had access to them were mentally ill with troubled pasts, or just evil were able to perform acts of carnage somehow that is enough for them to ban them? Well it is not. All the proposed background checks would not have stopped one of the recent mass shootings.

The focus should be on mental illness

 

[Casper]

Well, when something has been banned for several decades there isn't much of a black market left. If they did something as broad as ban semi-autos, it would likely take a similar amount of time to recoup enough that they were as rare. Criminals would be able to get them for a good amount of time after a full ban.

But we need to keep something in mind: the gun rights crowd has made a decision to not give one single inch. And in service of that, they have talking points but I don't think they actually believe their talking points. It's just about shutting down discussion and trying to demoralize anyone who wants to talk about even very limited gun control. The message is "nope, we're not going to agree to anything." Hence the same-old set of regurgitated talking points. When they say "banning semi-automatic rifles won't work" or the same about "assault weapon" (which would have to be defined in the statute), it's just to signal they're not going to be listening to anything you have to say.



Their strategy is great for the short term, but demographics dooms it in the long run.

Please define limited gun control?

 

[Casper]

I don't think most folks have a clear understanding of the Second Amendment and why it was so important to the Founders that it made its way to the top of the Bill of Rights as #2. They didn't just see the right to bear arms as a means for personal defense, or against foreign invasions but they saw it as an essential tool in the worst case scenario of a tyrannical domestic government.

Those who are proposing bans and politicians that are promoting bans are people who think the Federal government should be in charge of just about everything in our lives. Just listen to the Democratic candidates running in their primary. They are all proposing even stronger Federal government control over healthcare to what we can eat and what we can drive to banning guns to silencing free speech. All their proposals involve massive Federal government control.

I don't know about the rest of you but that scares the heck out of me. And when I start hearing calls to ban a type of gun because some who obtained them or had access to them were mentally ill with troubled pasts, or just evil were able to perform acts of carnage somehow that is enough for them to ban them? Well it is not. All the proposed background checks would not have stopped one of the recent mass shootings.

The focus should be on mental illness

Well said!

 

[Mr Person]

Please define limited gun control?

Eh? "Limited" already has a definition. Are you asking for examples? Examples are easy:
- Things like the bump stock ban
- Controls aimed at super-high capacity magazines, like a 100 round magazine
- Ideas along the lines of beefing up background checks, getting rid of so-called "gun show loopholes"

I mean, there's a lot that would fall under "limited", but the bottom line is gun control that is not some huge imposition on lawful gun owners.


The only gun control I didn't hear much noise about from the gun rights crowd is banning bump stocks, though I suspect that's largely explained by the fact that people on the right tend to be much more rigidly protective of gun rights than those on the left, and it just so happens that a GOPer was president when the bump stock ban went through. Go look in the gun control forum. Any and every idea is opposed as being some kind of first step on a slippery slope to confiscation and cannot be allowed. They generally do not want to give an inch.

 

[Casper]

Eh? "Limited" already has a definition. Are you asking for examples? Examples are easy:
- Things like the bump stock ban
- Controls aimed at super-high capacity magazines, like a 100 round magazine
- Ideas along the lines of beefing up background checks, getting rid of so-called "gun show loopholes"

I mean, there's a lot that would fall under "limited", but the bottom line is gun control that is not some huge imposition on lawful gun owners.


The only gun control I didn't hear much noise about from the gun rights crowd is banning bump stocks, though I suspect that's largely explained by the fact that people on the right tend to be much more rigidly protective of gun rights than those on the left, and it just so happens that a GOPer was president when the bump stock ban went through. Go look in the gun control forum. Any and every idea is opposed as being some kind of first step on a slippery slope to confiscation and cannot be allowed. They generally do not want to give an inch.

Thanks for the reply. In what you suggested i, as a 2nd A Left leaning Firearms owner, I only would point out that very large capacity mags really play no part in criminal use. So where do we really disagree? I understand very well why some on the right are not willing to "compromise" because up to a point I agree with them. We both know through history that often when one gives an inch the other side takes a mile, the proof is in what some politicians and posters here are saying. I am more than willing to discuss solutions but only when they are based on the Facts and Common Sense and will have a Real effect on solving where we are, and that means objectively looking at the big picture.

 

[Mr Person]

Thanks for the reply. In what you suggested i, as a 2nd A Left leaning Firearms owner, I only would point out that very large capacity mags really play no part in criminal use. So where do we really disagree? I understand very well why some on the right are not willing to "compromise" because up to a point I agree with them. We both know through history that often when one gives an inch the other side takes a mile, the proof is in what some politicians and posters here are saying. I am more than willing to discuss solutions but only when they are based on the Facts and Common Sense and will have a Real effect on solving where we are, and that means objectively looking at the big picture.

In general, I would embrace Heller's definition - that the core of the 2nd is self-defense - and ask just how useful a given feature of a given type of weapon is for that purpose. If it's not particularly useful for self-defense, it's at least discussing whether it somehow makes crimes worse or lends itself to mass shootings and go from there.

The problem is that "never give an inch" thinking means we never get to truly have those discussions. It all gets shot down before anyone is discussing specifics. And then you get people like Beto trying to grab attention by talking about taking all semi-automatic firearms, which simply is not helpful.



I only occasionally post in the gun control forum because as a pragmatic matter, there's no point.

 

[apdst]

I hear gun nuts tell us all the time that if you ban guns the bad guys will still get their hands on them and only the good guys will be disarmed.

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned Machine guns. A machine gun is considered a gun that can fire multiple successive rounds with one individual pull of the trigger or any gun that is easily modifiable to allow for that to happen.

Since 1934 I can't say that I have ever heard of anybody using a true machine gun in a mass shooting. The Las Vegas shooter managed to modify an AR with a bump stock, but you generally don't hear about a lot of crimes committed with Tommy guns anymore for some reason. What happened?

I mean if I was a mass shooter I'd rather use an automatic riffle than an semi-automatic one wouldn't you? They're still manufactured, but only for sale to the military

If criminals will find ways around these gun bans why aren't criminals having an easier time getting their hands on Fully Automatic Weapons?

You haven't been paying attention...

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia

 

[apdst]

Is that not an infringement on the right to bear arms?

It absolutely is.

 

[apdst]

Well, when something has been banned for several decades there isn't much of a black market left. If they did something as broad as ban semi-autos, it would likely take a similar amount of time to recoup enough that they were as rare. Criminals would be able to get them for a good amount of time after a full ban.

But we need to keep something in mind: the gun rights crowd has made a decision to not give one single inch. And in service of that, they have talking points but I don't think they actually believe their talking points. It's just about shutting down discussion and trying to demoralize anyone who wants to talk about even very limited gun control. The message is "nope, we're not going to agree to anything." Hence the same-old set of regurgitated talking points. When they say "banning semi-automatic rifles won't work" or the same about "assault weapon" (which would have to be defined in the statute), it's just to signal they're not going to be listening to anything you have to say.



Their strategy is great for the short term, but demographics dooms it in the long run.

Cocaine was outlawed in 1914. Did the black market dry up, or blow up?

 

[apdst]

So you're telling me that all it takes is a simple tax, and poof they virtually disappeared from existence? Sounds like we should just tax the AR-15.

Or better yet, put a 500% tax on bullets. Give hunters a coupon that allows them to purchase a limited number at a discount with the purchase of a hunting license.

Automatic weapons didn't disappear, nor did murders with automstic weapons...

Access Denied

You cats reeeeally need to do some historical research before making wild claims to support useless laws.

 

[TurtleDude]

I hear gun nuts tell us all the time that if you ban guns the bad guys will still get their hands on them and only the good guys will be disarmed.

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned Machine guns. A machine gun is considered a gun that can fire multiple successive rounds with one individual pull of the trigger or any gun that is easily modifiable to allow for that to happen.

Since 1934 I can't say that I have ever heard of anybody using a true machine gun in a mass shooting. The Las Vegas shooter managed to modify an AR with a bump stock, but you generally don't hear about a lot of crimes committed with Tommy guns anymore for some reason. What happened?

I mean if I was a mass shooter I'd rather use an automatic riffle than an semi-automatic one wouldn't you? They're still manufactured, but only for sale to the military

If criminals will find ways around these gun bans why aren't criminals having an easier time getting their hands on Fully Automatic Weapons?

so much wrong there. The NFA was imposed before there were almost any automatic firearms on the market. The "tax" was designed to be a ban, and the cost of the tax plus the economic conditions in the Depression meant almost no one was able to buy such things. Similar sized semi auto carbines are in US circulation in numbers above 50 million and yet, few are used in crime.

Machine guns also prove that crime control has nothing to do with the Democrat party's schemes to ban guns. Dems-in a fit of spite and dishonest legislative machinations, tried to derail a pro gun bill by attaching an innocuous amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act that Rangel claimed passed a voice vote-yet he refused to do a role call. The language was then interpreted by the ATF to ban the sales of automatic weapons made after May 19, 1986. Crime control had nothing to do with this because there hadn't been a private citizen killing anyone with a machine gun in over 50 years/

Alan Berg was murdered by the silent brotherhood using an illegally possessed Mac 11 Machine gun. The FBI agents killed in Miami were shot by felons using illegally converted machine guns. A bunch of gangland killings have used machine guns-mainly stolen or Lost from government arsenals or smuggled into the USA

Yes the 1934 is unconstitutional.

 

[TurtleDude]

I mean maybe there's some kind of underground market, but realistically you just can't find them on the streets anywhere. They're very hard to come by. Certainly the kids who are getting these guns can't steal them from their parents to use.

Here's the thing, it might be possible to find one on the black market, but the price would be astronomical. A regular AR-15 is already over $500. An illegal fully automatic version? You're looking at $30k or more. The type so of people that have that kind of money laying around to spend on a gun aren't generally the types of people you need to worry about committing crime.

AK 47s were dumped on the world market by the millions when the Soviet union and its client states converted to the AK 74, and then again when many of the former SSRs became independent. Those can be had for as little as 100 dollars.

AK 47 style rifles are usually not popular with criminals, for the same reason the semi auto versions of these rifles are not either