"Sensible Gun Laws"

[Fast Frank]

I'm all about sensible gun laws.

But Where can we find some?

Like, I can have a rifle with a long barrel, or a pistol with a short barrel...

But if I make my rifle short (But still longer than a pistol) I'm a felon.

Or if I put a rifle stock on my pistol and make it longer (But still shorter than a rifle) I'm a felon.

Or if I put a muffler on my target pistol (A safety device required in other places) I have to pay a ridiculous tax or I become a felon.

Let's face it- Our gun laws are Looney Tunes and need a serious overhaul.

I would LOVE to see some common sense gun laws.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Can you own a Stinger? What about an IED? Why not a field of Claymore mines?

The Second Amendment is already restricted, for good reason. A private citizen has no business owning some military-grade weaponry.

Red herring. Military controls those - except the IED of course, those you can make at home by definition - the "I" = improvised right?

So no need for more laws. For the rest, if you could get them I'd also imagine that there'd be some serious cost there as well, out of the reach of most people and other than criminals who can have them anyway, people with money have too much stake in society to be doing something stupid.

See? Accountability.

Learned early in my career writing complex technical contract docs (the tech side, not the legal side) that it is very hard to write something that covers every circumstance and if you try you usually don't wind up with the desired outcome.

And that's with good intentions. If the intention is to say one thing " we need reasonable gun laws" but really mean - we'd like you to be completely defenseless, only government can own weapons - - - then all bets are off.

Same holds true for laws. Even with good intentions you can't protect people from stupid, crazy or roll of the dice. That's life. Crawl in a bubble or live it, your choice (at least for now.)

Best approach is to make people personally accountable. Not a country of amateur lawyers.

There are way too many laws already and more coming every day - what happens when we all become lawbreakers because you can't go through the day without some infraction?

Corruption.

Heck that's probably the case now. (Wasn't that a science fiction novel?)

And on what planet, is your Grandpa's squirrel gun or your BB gun (yes - considered a fire arm in NJ even though no fire in the arm) an assault weapon?

How about this - if you are caught in NJ peeing in public, you are booked as a felon I believe (no guns) and to boot get to spend the rest of your life on the sex offender registry. Better go in your pants in NJ boys!

Hollow points are also a felony, not the cartridge, just the bullet - years ago they were busting folks in Newark airport for having those keychains.

I can go on.

Does any rational adult really think we don't have too many laws already and that more laws isn't the issue?

 

[gbw]

I've watched this debate(?) with interest. Lots of heat, little light.

Individual state laws are useless, it's silly citing them to show gun laws are ineffective. It's too easy to buy in the next state. All of us who go to gun shows have seen parking lot deals.

Politicians are going after guns because guns are nearly always the tools used in these slaughters. Usually now it's hi-cap semi-autos.

The pols know this. They know ARs and Glocks are used because they are the most effective way, easily available to the unskilled, to kill lots of people quickly. Guns are also the easiest and highest publicity target for them.

If the anti-politicians are really serious they will go for minimum of 2 things on Federal level:

Ban outright all semi-auto detachable magazine fed rifles and make it retroactive. Max internal capacity of 8 (Garand). Perhaps exempt existing .22RF tubular fed guns.

No detachable mags of any kind for any weapon over 10 rounds or 8 or whatever, also retroactive (not really a a reasonable way to make a fixed-mag pistol except for the old broomhandle mausers).

Strict penalties, no expections, no waivers and a deadline to comply. Police officers included except on duty with issued weapons.

Eventually these would have some hope of lowering the body count though they wouldn't eliminate it.

Over time nearly everyone would comply because it just would not be worth the risk - other types of guns would still be available. And, over time semi-auto hi-cap rifles and pistols would become rare.

Anything short of these and I think they are just blowing smoke like the old AWB / hi-cap "bans" which banned nothing and had no effect. Except Clinton et al. got to claim credit for an AWB, which they do to this day.

Now everybody's gonna yell and scream about about the constitution and 'confiscation without just cause and compensation'. Bull. That will be easy for them to finesse. Especially if any of the Heller 5 on the SC retire or die in the next 4 years.

How close they come to this and how hard they push for it will be a measure of their sincerity, I think

The NRA was sad - I've never been embarrassed to be a member before. I don't accept armed teachers will keep the kids safe - I know too many teachers. And this ain't Isreal. If LaPierre (and Boehner) are truly the best we have or can come up with for leadership then we deserve to continue to lose, and we will.

I hear lots about 'personal accountablity', which sound good and means nothing. Lots of these people blow their own heads off - that's about as accountable as it gets, and ALL the rest are arrested. Accountability works for the law abiding and they aren't the problem. For the others it only works after the fact when its too late and people are dead.

The stinger / IED point is valid - these are never used because they are effectively banned. Same for dynamite, same for machine guns. So some bans do work, especially in the long run.

Everybody is saying forcing smaller mags will just result in more reloads, and how fast they are at it. Nope. Maybe so on the range to prove a point. But I'd like a dollar for every match I've seen blown by botched reloads, and this is by experienced shooters under mild match pressure. Wasn't the Giffords shooter taken while trying to reload?

Also lots of yakking about no restrictions on the 2A. Get real. There is no unrestricted right. None. There are no rights at except those society chooses to recognize.

I don't know the answers. But burying our heads in the sand, repeating the same tired fallacies over and over won't find any.

 

[BryanDavis]

I've watched this debate(?) with interest. Lots of heat, little light.

The stinger / IED point is valid - these are never used because they are effectively banned. Same for dynamite, same for machine guns. So some bans do work, especially in the long run.

I don't know the answers. But burying our heads in the sand, repeating the same tired fallacies over and over won't find any.

Ummm, what? The stinger / IED point is valid? What about Timothy McVeigh? Richard Reid? 9/11? Hell at Columbine they attempted to use propane explosives, it didn't work but the thought was there.

I also don't get how you can say "some bans do work" when crime rates don't seem to be influenced by them in the least. Columbine happened in the middle of the first AWB. The 1934 NFA didn't end the massive mob violence at the time. The 1968 GCA wasn't a panacea to any sort of crime.

Hell the only thing I can think of that did have a miniscule effect on crime was the new trend of concealed carry. An impossibility 50 years ago, now most states issue carry permits, and blood hasn't run red through the streets. It didn't devolve society into the "Wild West" as some predicted.

Gun control is a social experiment that has failed time and time again. Much like socialism (another social experiment) it has some very strong proponents but that doesn't change what it is, trying to shape society through policy instead of through leadership.

 

[gbw]

Hiding behind the fact that nothing's perfect, as an excuse to do nothing, isn't too helpful. But I see a lot of it here.

McVeigh did find a way, with dedication and a big truck, no one since. The Columbine cretins tried propane 'cause they couldn't get explosives. Some bans work. Stingers are banned and never used, nor RPGs, nor is dynamite, nor are machine guns - NFA did end them -eventually. 9/11 was a planned coordinated attack which isn't the issue here. Some bans don't - drugs are banned and widely available.

The first AWB/hi-cap mag didn't ban anything at all. Nothing. it was a political sham and everyone knows it. It did raise prices a little and made for som odd looking guns.

No one I know of thinks crime rate will go down, A lot here do keep trying to shift the talk to the crime rate so we can point to it. But thats blowing smoke. The crimes will be committed by the criminals.

The argument is that fewer will die if they have to use an 870 instead of an M4. That's probably true, but it's only possible, perhaps, in a nationwide retroactive ban - so that's what I'm using to judge how serious they are.

Had my say. Carry on.

 

[Onmilo]

"Sensible Gun Laws" is an oxymoron

 

[Highland Ranger]

Individual state laws are useless, it's silly citing them to show gun laws are ineffective.

Not silly - thread is about "sensible" gun laws and the point in that context is that there are too many laws already and in many places we've gone way past sensible. Nothing says that can't happen at the federal level.

Police officers included except on duty with issued weapons.

Hah - that's a laugh. Just like they are included in the ban on commercial flights right?

The NRA was sad - I've never been embarrassed to be a member before.

You haven't been a member long eh?

I don't accept armed teachers will keep the kids safe - I know too many teachers.

How often do police stations get shot up? And if you watched the video, I believe the primary suggestion is armed security, voluteers, etc. so the Bank Guard vs the Teller.

Accountability works for the law abiding and they aren't the problem.

Which is why more laws, aren't intended to solve anything other than to separate you from any form of weapon.

I don't know the answers. But burying our heads in the sand, repeating the same tired fallacies over and over won't find any.

Who's doing that?

 

[BryanDavis]

Hiding behind the fact that nothing's perfect as an excuse to do nothing isn't too helpful. But I see a lot of it here.

McVeigh did find a way, no one since. The Columbine cretins tried propane 'cause they couldn't get explosives. Some bans work. Stingers are banned and never used, nor RPGs, nor is dynamite, nor are machine guns - NFA did end them -eventually. 9/11 was a planned coordinated attack which isn't the issue here. Some bans don't - drugs are banned and widely available.

The first AWB didn't ban anything at all. Nothing. It did raise prices a little and made for som odd looking guns.

No one I know of thinks crime rate will go down, although too many of us keep trying to shift the talk to the crime rate so we can point to it. The crimes will be committed by the criminals.

The argument is that fewer will die if they have to use an 870 instead of an M4. That's probably true, but it's only possible, perhaps, in a nationwide retroactive ban - so that's what I'm using to judge how serious they are.

Had my say. Carry on.

Using singular events and then claiming a pattern when there is none (as evidenced By the crime rate) is deceitful.

McVeigh found a way? What about Richard Reid? What about the underwear bomber? What about zip guns in general? They're a "serious problem" in the UK.

You do think the crime rate will go down. Rest assured you do, as evidenced by you saying "fewer will die" thereby dropping the homicide rate by however many. Now as to whether or not that'll actually happen? We can look at the same crime rate you claim won't be affected and see that it won't. We can use examples like the less mathematically inclined among us can do and we can see that that's a no-go too, seeing as the Columbine kids used a shotgun.

(As long as we're commenting on the nature of various sides of this...) On the anti-gun side I see lots of emotional rhetoric, Piers Morgan screaming at his guests, etc. I do not see Reason. I do not see Reasonable people. I see fear, and I see Hate. I do not see good.

 

[gbw]

Really didn't get the singluar event comment - I didn't bring up McVeigh if that what was meant.

The focus for the time being is on gun violence, so all the 'what about this or that' really isn't the issue, just more smokescreen. But it's a fact nothing will lead to nirvana. On the other hand, none of the guys cited were able to get any quantities of high explosives.

I said what I meant. The crime rate doesn't change. The same number of people will likely commit the same number of crimes. The idea is to reduce the death rate. For most of us, for example, the recent slaughter is a single crime with a high death toll. Perhaps the statisticians will argue otherwise but that's how most of us think.

But think what they could have done with ARs.

The argument from the antis with any sense (few for sure) is that less available firepower means a lower death toll. That simple.

We can agree on the character of most of the most vocal of the liberals. They are vile.

Now I really am done.

 

[wacki]

Look up Joseph Goebbels argumentum ad nauseum.

i.e. If you don't have a leg to stand on, just tell everyone it's "sensible" or "common sense". If 1,000 people say it millions will follow.

 

[hershmeister]

How is that drug ban working out?

 

[Onmilo]

Tim Mcveigh didn't use a gun and committed his murderous deeds AFTER the 1994 AWB.
Josef Goebbles was a Master of Propaganda.
Extreme Gun Control is working so well in Mexico the country has become the Murder Capital of the Americas.
There.
I said it.

 

[CZ223]

we tried a 10 year experiment called the AWB

and that didn't seem to work. I don't see it, or anything like it working any better this time. So why don't we try something a little different for the next ten years. Lets get rid of gun free zones alltogether. After all, isn't it there where most of these mass shootings happen. Let every law abiding citizen who wants to carry a gun, carry a gun. Lets face it, if the goverment were to do what GBW suggest they should do, and it had the effect of lowering the death count by a small percentage wouldn't the next "reasonable" step be to ban revolvers and lever actions. Heck those guys can put a lot of lead down range in a short amount of time. The fact of the matter is that the government can't protect you. Why then take away the means to protect yourself. Also, if you are a violent fellon, drug dealer etc. your rights to legally own a weapon should be forfeited.

 

[Onmilo]

Felons do not have rights to own a firearm now.
I see them in the local paper over and over being arrested in possession of a firearm yet the local Attorney General rarely pursues charges because the state cannot afford to lock them up.

 

[Pilot]

"Sensible Gun Laws" is an oxymoron

Look up Joseph Goebbels argumentum ad nauseum.

i.e. If you don't have a leg to stand on, just tell everyone it's "sensible" or "common sense". If 1,000 people say it millions will follow.

Very true statements "Sensible" is code speak. Unknowing people hear that word, then tend to tune the rest out because "what can be wrong with sensible?". However, like the word "reasonable" it means different things to different people. To Goebbels and Nazi Germany, extermination of the Jews, and disarming the populace was "sensible".

Sensible and/or reasonable are just other words for destroying legal, law abiding citiznes abiltiy to own firearms. How about we make it really sensible and reasonable and prosecute criminals that use guns illegally to the fullest extent of the law?

 

[BogBabe]

I'm all about sensible gun laws.

But Where can we find some?<snip>

I would LOVE to see some common sense gun laws.

Believe it or not, there are some common-sense gun laws. Kennesaw, Georgia, has two. One says that "every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore." That's sensible, IMO.

The other exempts from that requirement people with physical or mental disabilities, those too poor to own a firearm, convicted felons, and religious & conscientious objectors. That's also sensible, IMO.

And Kennesaw has an extraordinarily low crime rate.

So there we have two sensible gun laws in one place. I'd like to see more like that.

I most definitely do not want to see new "common sense gun control" laws based on some gun-grabber's idea of "common sense." Those are typically not based on anything but emotion and fear.

 

[Onmilo]

"Those too poor to own a firearm"
One of the first purchases freed slaves made was a gun.
If a person is truely that poor, they are a ward of the state and don't need a gun
The state will protect them,,, right?

 

[BogBabe]

"Those too poor to own a firearm"
that is about as unsensible as unsensible gets.
One of the first purchases freed slaves made was a gun.
If a person is truely that poor, they are a ward of the state and don't need a gun
The state will protect them,,, right?

The poor are exempted from the requirement to own a gun. They're not prohibited from owning guns. Big difference.

 

[Crashbox]

The ONLY "sensible" gun law I can think of is one that would OUTLAW gun-free zones.

 

[2ifbyC]

I just sat down at the computer after having a sensible breakfast and my eyes sensed upon a nonsensical topic: Sensible gun laws.

Sensible is a conclusion reached by an individual after passing through his own reasoning and judgment. Such laws are dangerous since they are subject to interpretation. Such stuff as dreams are made on (for lawyers).

The 2A has been honed with 20K+ “sensible” addendums and in the view of anti-gun advocates, ripe for more. Nonsense!
Just by two sense (malapropism for those with a sense of humor).

 

[BryanDavis]

I said what I meant. The crime rate doesn't change. The same number of people will likely commit the same number of crimes. The idea is to reduce the death rate. For most of us, for example, the recent slaughter is a single crime with a high death toll. Perhaps the statisticians will argue otherwise but that's how most of us think.

But think what they could have done with ARs.

The argument from the antis with any sense (few for sure) is that less available firepower means a lower death toll. That simple.

27 Homicides occurred in Newtown that day, not one large murder with a very high "death rate". To think otherwise belittles the situation. So yes, the crime rate is affected. I'm no statistician but that's how it will be recorded in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. Which is generally the go-to resource for this sort of thing.

Many countries have tried the sort of thinking where they limit "firepower". In China and Japan they now have mass knifings. Such as in Osaka Prefecture, Japan, where a single individual killed 8 children and wounded many others.

Their response? A security guard.

To put it simply banning the weapons involved is like NYC's banning of Big Gulps. It leads to a dark road of confiscation, intimidation and a state very similar to China's where the freedoms we enjoy are gone, but the problems they supposedly created remain.

 

[BogBabe]

The ONLY "sensible" gun law I can think of is one that would OUTLAW gun-free zones.

+1 to this. (And is exactly why I like Kennesaw's "sensible" gun laws -- no one can call Kennesaw a gun-free zone.)

I'm more and more in favor of allowing and encouraging teachers to CCW at school. Even if there's only a handful at any given school on any given day, that's more armed defenders than there would be with one armed LEO or private security guard posted at every school. It would either cost nothing extra and require no new bureaucracies or additional funding, or would involve a very minimal cost. And it wouldn't have the feel of turning the schools into police states.

I'm adamantly opposed to any new gun control laws or any further erosion of any of our Constitutionally enumerated rights. That particularly includes the 1st, the 4th, and the 5th, as well as the 2nd. No new gun control laws. No locking people up because of what they might do. No banning of video games or movies.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

It would seem that gbw is espousing the Australian model for oncoming firearms restrictions in this county. He appears to be posing as a firearms enthusiast, putting forth what he sees coming.

I've seen this same set of arguments on another forum, with the single difference that the advocate of the Australian system was, and remains virulently anti firearms and anti-American. He was an Australian, and gbw is allowing us to believe that he's an American. And he may very well be, but he's no friend of RKBA in my book.

900F

 

[Bohemus]

Very true statements "Sensible" is code speak. Unknowing people hear that word, then tend to tune the rest out because "what can be wrong with sensible?". However, like the word "reasonable" it means different things to different people. To Goebbels and Nazi Germany, extermination of the Jews, and disarming the populace was "sensible".

....

I wouldnt argument with nazi Germany, I would use current Germany and lump it together with other states(countries) that both have gunfree zones and shooting sprees at schools. And the show other states/countries that have niether.

Simply: States with gun-free zones are dangerous for kids and states where you can carry guns to school are safe. Regardles whether its in US or in Europe.

 

[Xyr]

There really isn't ANY way to make a criminal scumbag put down his gun. Outside of imprisoning them by force or killing them...ironically....by force.