Gun Control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2013, 04:46 PM
RE: Gun Control
In Massachusetts, I can sell a firearm only to someone with a valid firearms license. There is no background check on the transaction, but I have to file a form recording the sale, including the license number of the purchaser.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 04:46 PM
Re: RE: Gun Control
(11-06-2013 04:34 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(11-06-2013 02:38 PM)JAH Wrote:  Reasonable restrictions are a different story. Someone mentioned the AR-15, there are readily available parts that can convert the civilian model (at least the older ones, I think the newer ones cannot be) to full auto. Who needs a full auto gun for personal use and further since the AR-15 is designed strictly for killing it does to much damage to be a useful hunting rifle. Banning this and other potentially full auto weapons would be to my mind reasonable.

More thorough background checks on even rifle purchasers seems like a reasonable restriction. Regulation of sales at gun expos should also be considered.

Just a quick note, the idea that an AR-15 can be easily converted to full auto is a myth. It takes a skilled machinist to do it, requiring at minimum a lathe and several hours. This is already illegal to do and is covered by the National Firearms Act. There are autosears available for sale; but the vast majority are ATF honeytraps designed to catch people who want a full-auto AR. There are legal autosears for the AR-15, but they had to be ATF registered before 1986, so there's a limited supply and cost upwards of $1500, and they fall under the same restrictions as it takes to purchase any full automatic firearm.

Additionally, AR-15s don't do "to[sic] much damage to be a useful hunting rifle". The opposite is true. The AR-15 is on the lower end of what's needed to hunt deer, but for many people it does suffice. In some states it's legal to hunt with an AR-15, in others it's disallowed because the minimum calibre is 0.240". Not because it's "too powerful", but because it's too weak. And that's only for a standard AR-15 firing 5.56. There are also abundant rifles on the AR-15 platform firing a myriad of different cartridges, including handgun rounds like .22LR, 9mm and .40, and larger rifle rounds like 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 6.8mm SPC, 6.5mm Grendel, etc.


All new gun purchases require a background check. All of them. The only "loophole" is used guns, when you're selling from person to person without an FFL middleman. If I want to sell my rifle to my neighbor Joe, I can just go next door, take his $500, and give him the rifle. Done. The reason gun owners oppose putting restrictions or background checks on that is because it A.) would bring in a lot of paper work, hassle, and administrative fees to sell your gun, and B.) wouldn't stop people from buying guns illicitly anyway since the government has no way to track the sale of a used gun if you don't do the paperwork.







I'll get to you BeardedDude, cool your tits.

It's rainy and 70 where I'm at. I'm plenty cool. Drinking Beverage

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
11-06-2013, 04:52 PM
RE: Gun Control
(11-06-2013 04:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  In Massachusetts, I can sell a firearm only to someone with a valid firearms license. There is no background check on the transaction, but I have to file a form recording the sale, including the license number of the purchaser.

Right; and it varies by state. My example is of the default, for states that don't put additional restrictions on private sales.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 05:06 PM
RE: Gun Control
TBD, you clearly didn't read my OP or initial responses very well, and seem to be taking an adversarial stance simply because of the subject and our prior discussions. Knock it off.

I nowhere said that I made a cost/benefit analysis. I said that it was useful to look at it in those terms. Not a subtle difference. Like you pointed out, it's difficult, if not impossible, to do a fair numerical cost/benefit analysis because different people weight different factors differently. However, you can quite easily spot a relative difference between urban and rural populations, even if one cannot pin an exact number on them. If you can't grok that method of comparison, then I feel sorry for your limitation.

Bringing up alcohol and pools is not a tangent. It's the very point I'm making: these things have social costs and benefits which may be impossible to accurately numerically tabulate. But the magnitude of the costs can be grasped, at least, and is quite obviously greater than the magnitude of the benefits. But we allow and encourage those things anyway, because of their intangible benefits that cannot be numerically calculated; social interaction for alcohol, and fun for pools.

Guns have intangible benefits; the psychological reassurance of guns to those who feel they need them and the fun of shooting. And they also have quite concrete benefits like hunting and self-defense. For many people in rural areas, these things far outweigh the costs, which are also lower in rural areas.

That was my point as far as cost/benefit goes. As I said, TBD, if you want to do a numerical analysis feel free, but personally I think that it's a masturbatory exercise more than anything else, for reasons you yourself pointed out.



The latter half of my post is about the emotionally charged and unproductive basis for most anti-gun arguments. And before you say something redundant, I'm aware not all people opposed to guns want to ban them entirely. I'm not, contrary to some opinions, an idiot, and I'd appreciate you taking the time to actually try to understand what I say, instead of looking for the first cheap shot you can think of, like in your earlier posts in this thread.

Some people want to ban guns. They exist. They're idiots, but they exist.

Some people want to ban certain types of guns, and/or impose significant restrictions. You're one of these people, no? I don't know if you still believe in your ammo regulation idea (garbage, by the way, as I explained at great length), but I do recall you quoted the recent Feinstein bill pretty much verbatim a while ago, as what you think gun regulation should look like. I argue that the regulations proposed are entirely useless at preventing or mitigating crime or homicides. A pistol grip or a forward grip or a bayonet lug or a barrel shroud does not make a gun any more lethal, and yet you think that those features should be things for which firearms should be banned? And that AR-15s should be banned, but functionally equivalent guns should not? The ideas proposed are ridiculous.

And then some people just argue vaguely for "stricter gun laws" without actually knowing what the current gun laws are. JAH appears to be one of these people. I can't fathom why they would think that an AR-15 can be easily converted to full auto. It may be because some people are just as willing to lie about guns as others are to lie about evolution.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 06:04 PM
RE: Gun Control
OK a couple of quick curiosity questions to those who know more about guns than I do.

I was taught in basic training that one of the advantages of the AR-15 was that the bullet tumbled on impact doing more damage to the flesh than a regular bullet would. I was a cook and a reservist so have little direct knowledge of what that weapon does, other than firing it a few times in training. Is the damage to flesh significantly higher than other bullets?

I was told when the first civilian AR-15's came out that it was quite easy to convert them to full auto. I also saw classified ads in magazines intended for gun enthusiasts that offered the parts necessary. Is that a myth or not.

I also see that even if that is a myth the methods to convert an AR-15 to full auto are known. I would not expect those who use the rifle for legal means to care, others might.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 06:24 PM
RE: Gun Control
The 5.56mm round is designed to tumble in flesh, causing a greater wound than weapons of that calibre generally do when shooting FMJ ammunition. It's a loophole to get around the Hague Convention ban on the use of expanding or hollowpoint rounds in warfare. It allows the relatively small 5.56mm round to achieve terminal performance comparable to the larger 7.62x39mm Soviet round. A 5.56mm FMJ round at close range, however, is still less immediately lethal than even a 9mm hollowpoint round since it just goes straight through. And it still isn't as powerful or deadly as rounds like .243, .308 (aka 7.62x51mm), or other common hunting rounds. Basically, the 5.56mm is designed to more lethal than bullets of that calibre usually are, but in the grand scheme of things it is not exceptional.

AR-15 autosears (the part needed to make it act--almost--like a full automatic) are, and have always been, considered "Machine Gun Parts" by the ATF, and so require the same paperwork to own as an actual full-automatic M16. Here's a good primer: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPage...ediaid=159 Additionally, AR-15s require a hole to be precision milled into the receiver for the autosear to be installed (requiring a skilled machinist and a lathe), plus the "upper" part of the receiver needs the proper sear hooks. Legally transferable autosears cost >$1500, more than the cost of many AR-15s, and the combined cost of the gun, autosear, and machine work likely exceeds the black market price of an illegally imported automatic rifle from Mexico.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 06:33 PM
RE: Gun Control
My stupid computer had a hiccup and I could not edit my above post, so I offer this.

Maybe you gun proponents should read more closely. I did not suggest that more strict gun control laws were an absolute necessity, I in fact suggested that there were so many guns in existence in the US that stricter laws would have little effect.

I might ask if more reporting on the sale by private parties of used guns would be a useful device.

I might also ask what is the benefit of large capacity magazines for the lawful use of semi-auto pistols. Should there not be a restriction on those and if so why not.

Anytime this subject comes up gun enthusiasts get their knickers in a knot. I would suggest to gun enthusiasts that a better approach would be to search for more common ground on what are and are not useful ideas that might decrease the gun violence in this country. If nothing can be done OK.

I have been around gun enthusiasts all my adult life. Some of them used their guns for subsistence hunting and I have had many a delicious piece of pork or deer because of that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 06:50 PM
RE: Gun Control
If I might be able to ask a question (keep in mind I am about as far away from a gun-culture or a real need of guns as one can get, so please excuse my ignorance here)...

But why exactly would a person need an assault rifle (for example, the AR-15 so commonly mentioned)? Or a weapon even similar to that. I think I can understand small things like pistols, but the need of an assault rifle confuses me.. surely that would be overkill for self defence.. unless of course you should make it a habit to take the fight to the bears and I have doubt that it might be effective in a fight against a bear if you really are defending yourself from it...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 06:51 PM
RE: Gun Control
Private sales is a complicated subject, and opinions will depend on the exact proposal. If done reasonably it could help. If done unreasonably it would likely be ignored. In any case, responsible gun owners already keep bills of sale on private sales; it's just common sense, so you can demonstrate that the firearm no longer belongs to you, if it is connected to a crime.

Define "large capacity" magazines. Is 10, 13, 15, 17, 20 rounds "large capacity"? The Browning Hi-Power came standard with a 13 round magazine all the way back in 1935. The Glock 17 has always come with a 17 round magazine. The Beretta 92FS has always come with a 15 round magazine. These are the standard capacities the guns are shipped with.

One thing I come across with non-gun-owners is the lack of perception of how fast ammunition is used. It takes about one minute to load a 10 round magazine; and ten seconds or less to empty it.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 06:54 PM
RE: Gun Control
(11-06-2013 06:50 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  If I might be able to ask a question (keep in mind I am about as far away from a gun-culture or a real need of guns as one can get, so please excuse my ignorance here)...

But why exactly would a person need an assault rifle (for example, the AR-15 so commonly mentioned)? Or a weapon even similar to that. I think I can understand small things like pistols, but the need of an assault rifle confuses me.. surely that would be overkill for self defence.. unless of course you should make it a habit to take the fight to the bears and I have doubt that it might be effective in a fight against a bear if you really are defending yourself from it...

An AR-15 makes more sense for, say, defending a home or business against a burglary than a shotgun does. It has low recoil, is accurate, and if used with appropriate ammunition will penetrate fewer walls and cause less collateral damage than buckshot will. And if you miss you have three or four times as many rounds backup than you would with a Mossberg 500.

But really, most AR-15s are never used off a gun range. For legal, or illegal purposes. An AR-15 is above all else a range gun, used for putting holes in paper. The AR-15 is the modern version of the .22 lever gun. It's just a fun gun that you can hang a lot of guff off of to make it look cool or shoot more comfortably.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: