[CosmosMpower]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

I've always felt that a magazine that holds 8 bullets is enough. I can't think of a scenario where you fire that many bullets, need more, and don't have time to reload. If 8 was good enough for our boys on Omaha beach (M-1 Garand), it's probably enough for the common guy (or gal).

You realize that people miss more than hit in high stress situations. 2-3 guys break into your house you think you're going to hit each one twice perfectly with your 8 shots?

Police accuracy rate for shootings 0-6 feet (two yards) in distance was only 43%, less than half the time and that's basically point blank. Factoring in all shots fired in NYC in 2006 they hit 103 out of 364 shots (28.3%). These are trained people that carry a gun every day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/we...w/09baker.html

[fravel]

Originally Posted by Haywood

You're quoting dictatorships or communism where people don't have rights to protect themselves. This doesn't apply to the US nor is 2nd amendment ever going to get taken away. While I am for the 2nd amendment, I don't agree "that nothing can be done". It was just 1 1/2 years ago that the deadliest shooting happened in Orlando. Nothing was done. We will send our thoughts and prayers and move on and then this will happen again. The cycle continuously repeats itself. The bottom line the NRA has too much power in this country. I don't believe ANY lobby group, including the financial ones that brought down the economy, should have that much power and influence on Congress. They completely control people's votes based on how much money they give to support said representatives. Both sides of Congress agree we need stricter gun laws. Guess who keeps making it more difficult? The NRA. Sorry, this is not the way it supposed to work. You can't tell me that we can't do a better job of restricting access to guns to the mentally disabled, closing loopholes at gun shows, and limiting/restricting sales of certain automatic weapons? I just don't see how anyone needs a M16 for "hunting".

I'll tell you a secret: I'm not an NRA-member, and I'm not alone.

I'm cool with restricting access from mentally ill people, but how do we do it without violating privacy laws?

As has already been mentioned, the 'gun-show loophole' is a myth. It doesn't exist.

Again, automatic weapons are already heavily regulated by the NFA and they are prohibitively expensive. A legal M16 will run you about $20k and 6+ months of waiting for the paperwork to be processed.

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

I've always felt that a magazine that holds 8 bullets is enough. I can't think of a scenario where you fire that many bullets, need more, and don't have time to reload. If 8 was good enough for our boys on Omaha beach (M-1 Garand), it's probably enough for the common guy (or gal).

How about 1 vs. 3?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/27...-burglars.html

[SMiGGs]

Originally Posted by Flyingscotsman

He used firearms because they are easily accessible!

I agree, but take for instance the boston bombing, everything they used to make the bombs were things from home depot.

Originally Posted by CosmosMpower

Not much aiming or compensating needed when you're shooting into a 22 acre area packed with people.

Youre right, and a lot of the people didnt run and just laid there not knowing the shots were coming from above.

[Haywood]

Originally Posted by CosmosMpower

So is a box truck and a knife. 84 people run over in France and 29 stabbed to death in China.

Pay no attention to the UK folks that come on here who bitch about how many guns we have, but forget about their open borders and ISIS plotting how to kill their citizens on a daily basis. While both are serious problems, I prefer to have ours.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by Haywood

Pay no attention to the UK folks that come on here who bitch about how many guns we have, but forget about their open borders and ISIS plotting how to kill their citizens on a daily basis. While both are serious problems, I prefer to have ours.

exactly. I think UK (and other foreigners) commenting on unique US domestic policies are completely taken out of context, bc they're viewing it from a 3rd party perspective.

I see this on facebook all the time too. Lots of bots and foreign "actors" commenting on US domestic policy articles and generating a lot of conspiracy theories. Not sure if intentional or not.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by fravel

I'll tell you a secret: I'm not an NRA-member, and I'm not alone.

I'm cool with restricting access from mentally ill people, but how do we do it without violating privacy laws?

As has already been mentioned, the 'gun-show loophole' is a myth. It doesn't exist.

Again, automatic weapons are already heavily regulated by the NFA and they are prohibitively expensive. A legal M16 will run you about $20k and 6+ months of waiting for the paperwork to be processed.




How about 1 vs. 3?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/27...-burglars.html

again the loophole is very real. Not all states have universal checks. A private party can sell to another at a show or online without running a check. That's a real loophole.

On privacy law:
No single law or right trumps another law or right of more importance. We all know that. You don't have 1st amendment rights all the time. It's up to the legislature and judicial branch to interpret it that way, and I sure hope they do.

On the $20k M16...but it's possible isn't it? I mean, you may not justify your disposable income on buying one, but what about others? And why should it be allowed?

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

Rolling Stone wrote a good opinion article on what the gun lobby has left in their argument for more sensible gun control.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...excuse-w506851

I'd like to hear people thoughts on why gun-show loopholes or assault weapon bans aren't needed today, in addition to other common-sense legislation like large magazine bans, putting an end to sale of illegal modifications, etc.

Also, please read the damn article before commenting. Try not to fall into the nonsensical mindset that the "tyrant will get me otherwise".

The solution is to make sure people who are dangerous do not get their hands on guns. As soon as those who are against guns can articulate a law which will prevent this then I think everyone would agree.

I personally am open to any idea which will stop what has been happening over and over again. I am about fixing the problem not putting Band-Aids on the symptom. Every time someone is against guns and want more laws to limit guns, when ask to describe the law which would have prevent all previous events, and they can not come up with anything other than to say take away all guns.

To your point the NRA agreement of good guys with guns can stop a bad guy with a gun. This is no better a solution than taking away all the guns since it still does not stop a person coming up with a means to cause destruction.

What happen in Vegas, does not meet any of the stereotypes on both side of this argument. Good guys with guns could not stop this guy, and no law would have stop him either. Now what do you do.

My personal view is both side have made the situation worse, We now in a situation where a person who is hell bent on destruction has to drive it up a notch so he stand out more than the last person. We have an continue escalation which is being fuel by both sides.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by Maestro

The solution is to make sure people who are dangerous do not get their hands on guns. As soon as those who are against guns can articulate a law which will prevent this then I think everyone would agree.

I personally am open to any idea which will stop what has been happening over and over again. I am about fixing the problem not putting Band-Aids on the symptom. Every time someone is against guns and want more laws to limit guns, when ask to describe the law which would have prevent all previous events, and they can not come up with anything other than to say take away all guns.

To your point the NRA agreement of good guys with guns can stop a bad guy with a gun. This is no better a solution than taking away all the guns since it still does not stop a person coming up with a means to cause destruction.

What happen in Vegas, does not meet any of the stereotypes on both side of this argument. Good guys with guns could not stop this guy, and no law would have stop him either. Now what do you do.

My personal view is both side have made the situation worse, We now in a situation where a person who is hell bent on destruction has to drive it up a notch so he stand out more than the last person. We have an continue escalation which is being fuel by both sides.

you bring up very valid points. The laws that will be needed are politically very difficult, mostly due to the gun lobby.

I had mentioned active enforcement of illegal modifications, loopholes in sales and others that I mentioned is needed. There will be no single law that can address all issues.

That said, I for one also want to put a financial perspective on this. Why not treat gun ownership like car ownership? Force insurance onto owners. It's at least one way to force responsible ownership. The only way to have this way is to modify tort laws and allow nearly unlimited (at least initially) liability on firearm sellers and owners.

And to your point, currently, this shooting doesn't fit the mold on either side of the argument. But saying "people will kill because people suck" isn't a valid argument against restricting the way and the ease of how this guy particularly killed people. I'm sure more info will come out eventually. There's also talks on illegal mods of his guns. I haven't seen a mass shooter recently who hasn't made his intentions known to others. There SHOULD be liability on enablers and indifferent people involved.

[Haywood]

The one thing I'm completely against is restricting all rights to guns for law abiding citizens like what's happened in Chicago and other large cities. It's the main reason Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country. All the criminals have all the guns and people can't protect themselves. This is just plain stupid and it's not the answer. Sorry to be political here, but that's liberal thinking. Lets not let anyone have access to guns and it will all be better. These issues are not that black and white.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by Haywood

The one thing I'm completely against is restricting all rights to guns for law abiding citizens like what's happened in Chicago and other large cities. It's the main reason Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country. All the criminals have all the guns and people can't protect themselves. This is just plain stupid and it's not the answer. Sorry to be political here, but that's liberal thinking. Lets not let anyone have access to guns and it will all be better. These issues are not that black and white.

exactly, and no apologies needed for being a moderate on your end. That's the problem with the country today. Social media is allowing to amplify parts of the extreme right and left to impart their minority opinions on the majority. Along this conspiracy theories, half truths and things taken out of context is allowed to be propagated as the majority opinion or facts.

Most Americans as do I agree with your point. And with all laws written in this country and with how we function as a society, it's all about compromise and being reasonable.

[1MOREMOD]

The problem with mental health is its not a black or white issue. You aren't crazy all your life or not. We all are varying degrees of good and evil and it changes all the time. What if I already have bunch of guns then lose my shit who comes in and makes the decision to take them now? No easy answers.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

again the loophole is very real. Not all states have universal checks. A private party can sell to another at a show or online without running a check. That's a real loophole.

The universal check by FFL-dealers is a federal law that applies to all 50 states and the private party seller is still obligated to ensure that their buyer is not on firearms disability. Failure to do so is already a crime.

Unfortunately, private parties do not have access to the NICS system which would facilitate conducting such research. I would be on board with opening up that database for use by private sellers and requiring it's use. My personal policy when selling firearms privately is to ask to see a valid concealed carry license - no license, no sale.

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

On privacy law:
No single law or right trumps another law or right of more importance. We all know that. You don't have 1st amendment rights all the time. It's up to the legislature and judicial branch to interpret it that way, and I sure hope they do.

No arguments here, I'm just pointing out an obstacle. HIPAA seems to be an insurmountable challenge to restricting firearms based on mental health.

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

On the $20k M16...but it's possible isn't it? I mean, you may not justify your disposable income on buying one, but what about others? And why should it be allowed?

Why shouldn't it? I'll counter - why should anyone be allowed to own a car that can go faster than the speed limit?

And it's not like one can just go to the gun store and drop $20k on an M16, they still have to go through all the effort of applying for a tax stamp on an NFA item, which is a 6+ month process.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by CosmosMpower

You realize that people miss more than hit in high stress situations. 2-3 guys break into your house you think you're going to hit each one twice perfectly with your 8 shots?

Police accuracy rate for shootings 0-6 feet (two yards) in distance was only 43%, less than half the time and that's basically point blank. Factoring in all shots fired in NYC in 2006 they hit 103 out of 364 shots (28.3%). These are trained people that carry a gun every day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/we...w/09baker.html

True, not everyone is William Munny. But if you have 2 or 3 guys coming for you, 8 shots should be enough. You will either scare off the bad guys, or your 2 or 3 guys against you ends with you (probably) getting killed, whether you have 3 or 30 bullets in your magazine. Plus, I would think defending your home with a shotgun would be far preferential than any kind of rifle or pistol, and those typically hold 3+1 shells.

[cliverman]

People who acquire them may not be crazy at the time of acquisition but may go nutz after sometime. That's the tough one. Perfectly nice guy owns a couple guns, and one day gets pissed off (beyond all of our normal) and decides to tank a neighbor. Impossible to regulate that. Hell, he could grab a knife and stab him - can't ban knives. He could hit him with a rock....see my point.
No matter of laws will control crazy - just can't fix crazy or stupid.

Later boys - go enjoy your cars.

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

mostly due to the gun lobby.

I had mentioned active enforcement of illegal modifications, loopholes in sales and others that I mentioned is needed. There will be no single law that can address all issues.

That said, I for one also want to put a financial perspective on this. Why not treat gun ownership like car ownership? Force insurance onto owners. It's at least one way to force responsible ownership. The only way to have this way is to modify tort laws and allow nearly unlimited (at least initially) liability on firearm sellers and owners.

And to your point, currently, this shooting doesn't fit the mold on either side of the argument. But saying "people will kill because people suck" isn't a valid argument against restricting the way and the ease of how this guy particularly killed people. I'm sure more info will come out eventually. There's also talks on illegal mods of his guns. I haven't seen a mass shooter recently who hasn't made his intentions known to others. There SHOULD be liability on enablers and indifferent people involved.

There are many problems, not likely to be solved in OT on a car forum...but we try!

The 'gun lobby' as it is often called is about half of the voting population or it would have no power. People like to vilify the NRA, but the NRA is a group of several million people who pay a membership fee and get a sticker, there are 10's of millions of non-members who hold similar beliefs/values or the 'gun lobby' would have no power.

Actively enforcing illegal modifications, what does that even mean, its a nice thing to say, but meaningless. I don't know how deep into the gun world you are (based on your posts I think, not very, I am not intending to be condescending here, just observing) but nobody with an illegally modified gun would take it out in public, there are very harsh laws about such things. Furthermore I would say that about 95% of people, law enforcement included would not be able to tell a legal gun from an illegal one. In the case of a gun modified to be full auto you would either have to see it function, or take it apart and know the difference between a select fire/full auto/semi auto fire control group. This is ignoring state laws.

All of the other gun control ideas have one fatal flaw, something that is absolutely necessary for ANY of them to work, but will not be tolerated by the American people, and it is illegal on the federal level. It is a National Firearm Registration Database.

You can't close the 'gun show loophole' without one because you can't prove who sold what to who.

No law will stop criminals from getting their hands on guns. Period. Just like no laws will stop drugs from getting into the hands of drug users.

I do think we can use technology to 'tighten' the so-called loophole without infringing. The NICS check (federal background check that you must pass to buy a gun from an ffl) can be done immediately by a vendor, or we can issue a NICS card that needs to be renewed every year and you can't leave a gun show with a gun if you don't have a card. This could step on the federal law a little bit (registry or gun owners), but it doesn't say you are a gun owner, just that you are not excluded from gun ownership, and it doesn't tell the govt what you bought, if anything. In this scenario it may cost a little bit more to have a gun show because you would have to police the exit door, but I would be ok with it.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by cliverman

People who acquire them may not be crazy at the time of acquisition but may go nutz after sometime. That's the tough one. Perfectly nice guy owns a couple guns, and one day gets pissed off (beyond all of our normal) and decides to tank a neighbor. Impossible to regulate that. Hell, he could grab a knife and stab him - can't ban knives. He could hit him with a rock....see my point.
No matter of laws will control crazy - just can't fix crazy or stupid.

Later boys - go enjoy your cars.

Sandy Hook shooter used his parents guns.

[cliverman]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

Sandy Hook shooter used his parents guns.

Good point. How about all the random "street" shootings? Criminals will acquire guns by illegal means. Again - no laws will help.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by fravel

The universal check by FFL-dealers is a federal law that applies to all 50 states and the private party seller is still obligated to ensure that their buyer is not on firearms disability. Failure to do so is already a crime.

Unfortunately, private parties do not have access to the NICS system which would facilitate conducting such research. I would be on board with opening up that database for use by private sellers and requiring it's use. My personal policy when selling firearms privately is to ask to see a valid concealed carry license - no license, no sale.



No arguments here, I'm just pointing out an obstacle. HIPAA seems to be an insurmountable challenge to restricting firearms based on mental health.



Why shouldn't it? I'll counter - why should anyone be allowed to own a car that can go faster than the speed limit?

And it's not like one can just go to the gun store and drop $20k on an M16, they still have to go through all the effort of applying for a tax stamp on an NFA item, which is a 6+ month process.

Well good to see that there're gun owners and hobbyist who agree some type of checks need to happen for private transactions.

The problem with your analogy on owning a fast car is that the car doesn't have a primary purpose of killing people/animals.

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

Well good to see that there're gun owners and hobbyist who agree some type of checks need to happen for private transactions.

The problem with your analogy on owning a fast car is that the car doesn't have a primary purpose of killing people/animals.

Guns have only one purpose, sending a projectile downrange, 99.99999999999 percent of rounds fired go into targets. Statistically guns are made to punch paper.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by cliverman

Good point. How about all the random "street" shootings? Criminals will acquire guns by illegal means. Again - no laws will help.

of course no law or set of laws will eliminate criminal intent. No reasonable person with the power that can actually make an impact is saying to ban guns.

Just like no single law can prevent drug trafficking. But a set of laws and tool available can certainly minimize the impact and proliferation.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by KenB925

Guns have only one purpose, sending a projectile downrange, 99.99999999999 percent of rounds fired go into targets. Statistically guns are made to punch paper.

Great point, so if basically the primary use of guns today is to punch paper, what's with all the "theories" of tyranny and taking away your right to "punch paper"?

Any person with a brain knows, a gun is a weapon with a primary purpose of killing things that are alive.

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by KenB925

There are many problems, not likely to be solved in OT on a car forum...but we try!

[/B]

I disagree--OT in car forums is monumental to how things get done in this country.