Guns: Infinity

[howard]

I do agree with the general concept of the right to defend yourself. But I don't think that right to self-defense includes a right to endanger others. And obviously, your owning a gun does not directly endanger others because I assume you are responsible about it. But continuing to allowing everyone to access guns does endanger others. So I don't think the moral right to defend yourself includes the right to own weapons.

It would be fine and dandy for us as a society to hash this difference out, without resort to all the silliness that we actually do instead.

I could certainly live in such a society that embraced your view, that there was no right to own weapons, and said society embraced the view to such a deep extent that weapons were absent. I truly could; I own a gun to protect myself from the other MFers whom own guns. Not for some cockamamie ideal of resisting the tyranny of the government (because that ship sailed the day a large peacetime standing army was established).

But the USA is not that society. The Second Amendment can be interpreted in several ways, but it is there. It does not say "for the general safety guns will only be held in the hands of a well-regulated militia". And regardless of the ambiguities of language, American society from day one has been and continues to be a gun-owning society. By right, or by law, this is what we are.

The guns are there; the incremental measures to kinda sorta infringe on gun ownership have but one practical effect--to disarm the legal, responsible owners, while maintaining ownership by illegal, criminal owners. You have presented the case for an incremental path to change, toward a gun-less society. But I submit that the intermediate steps along that path, even assuming said path is valid and likely, place me in significant danger; even makes me a criminal.

I don't mean to jump from theoretical plane to philosophical plane for the sake of argumentative advantage. I could absolutely accept a moral order with no legal gun ownership, and the occasional sporatic danger of being subjected to the rare criminal who manages to get ahold of a gun. (For example, life in Japan.) Your moral exclusion of personal firearm rights is just as good as my opposite view, on that theoretic plane; and it has the advantage of actually working much better than life in America in many places in the world. Some countries with a lot of personal freedom; some with not so much. I might even agree that starting from scratch, your view is better; a nation with no private guns is superior to a nation with 400 million private guns.

But of course, that is not the choice down here on earth. In terms of policy, we are bound by the facts of history and by the facts of here and now, as well as the realistic anticipation of any transition.

This shit is not black and white. Even an absolute viewpoint that no right to own firearms should exist carries the messy aspects of lack of consensus around that view, the history of the opposite view, the vast millions of guns that exist, and the adverse effects of incremental gun restriction. Additionally, there are myriad real dangers of domestic gun violence, accidental gun violence, and theft of legal guns by criminals, which I do not mean to discount. Messy messy mess we've made for ourselves.

[Johnnie]

So, Johnny. I've never been to a gun show, but you say you've been background checked there. So, if some in U.S. Congress tried to pass a law to force this to happen, I have to assume that the federal government was voting on a blanket requirement for all states, because I assume some states don't have the requirement. My understanding, from an SF Chronic article I read, is that Nevada does not have this requirement, which causes many Californians of dubious background to purchase guns at Nevada gun shows. (Unless I got that wrong.) But, in any case, are you saying they are voting to implement something that is already implemented across the country? If not, then your counter that you already got checked isn't really a counter-argument.

Honestly, I have to read the verbage of the bill they tried to pass. Something doesn't make sense from a comsumer point of view. I have purchased firearms in 2 states: Louisiana & Arizona. Each of these states is "gun friendly" and I believe each grants reciprocity to each other's conceal carry permits. Each time when I decided to purchase a firearm I have to fill out paperwork and fill it out completely so that a 'background check' over the phone could be run on me. I believe what is done here is the retail store (for Louisiana, it was the BX on base who was just established earlier that month, for Arizona it was either the dealer at the gun show or formal brick and mortar retailer) calls a person from the state office and they run, what I can only assume, what a police officer runs when I'm pulled over. And even with that, the form has my SSN. The cop doesn't get that info when I'm pulled over.

If this check is a cursory glance or an in-depth retrospective to my life from the time I understood what a gun was, I have no idea. What I do know is that it took about 25-30 minutes. Were they looking for felonies? Were they looking for questionable marks? What was the database they used? No idea. But when the retailer hangs up the phone and goes, "Looks good, sir. Enjoy your purchase." and then proceeds to ring me up, I know something occured according to regulations. I voluntary provided information to people I never knew previous to that moment for the protocol to now own a firearm.

Now, on the complete horseshit misconception that gun shows are the wild west: they aren't. In fact, I witnessed, first hand, multiple dealers shut down my cousin's friend who tried to buy firearms at a gun show one day. He was active duty military. He wasn't wanted for anything. His background is clean. So why was he shut down? The only form of identification he had on his person at the moment was his Califronia ID. The dealer could have accepted that had he also had a copy of his orders on him, but he didn't. So dealer after dealer after dealer was turning him down. So, curious, I asked a dealer what the deal was, one I had just purchased my firearm from. The response? California (lovingly referred to as 'The People's Communist Republic of California') is so particular and stringent with gun laws that they will prosecute nearly every single entity when a firearm is discovered to be 'illegal' in their state however legal it may be in any other. And then come down on retailers who provided said firearm. My memory is a bit sketchy, but this is what I'm minorly remembering.

For example: You're pulled over on a routine traffic stop. You have a gun in a glovebox. You were travelling from Arizona and forgot to leave it at home. "Probable cause" was established and your car is search. The gun is found. And BOOM! You are in trouble. What you did was perfectly legal in Arizona. It's not in California. The person should know this beforehand, so he'll get busted. BUT...they will confiscate the gun and come after the retailer. Anti-gunners think this is just splendid. Because hey, 'Gun stores supply criminals! See! That weapon was used in a crime and WE stopped it. Now we're going after these people at their source: GUN STORES.' That might be a stretch, but it is also very possible. Why else would a retailer completely kill a sale before it starts?

See the problem here? Extrapolate that across the country. There's a regional bias with regards to how a firearm is looked at. So when gun retailers see IDs from states that aren't keen on firearms, they have a reasonable assumption to make that that person will travel back into that state for whatever reason. Which means the firearm could be stolen or lost or something. So they play CYA and don't even sell the thing in the first place. So, once again, and I can only assume, the legislation that wasn't passed probably had some form of 'dumbing down' entity to it with regards to background checks. One way or another, it only affects those wanting to buy firearms legally -- not the criminals.

But I think I may have found a compromise, however slight: encourage all firearm owners to get conceal carry permits. My reason? I went through a state run course that went over laws and situations in my state. I had to show I was competant at firing. And I gave the state all of my info beforehand plus my fingerprints. I'm in Arizona's database for this permanently even after my permit expires. Sure, it doesn't really affect shotgun and rifle sales, but, as many people already know, those can be used for hunting and seem to be universally regarded as appropriate weapons. (And yes, you can use an AR-15 to hunt. .223 is .223 no matter the way it's delivered.)

There may be some blowback to this, but there is with everything. Hell, just the dude that wants a handgun for home protection is going to be put off to the notion. He doesn't want to conceal carry. I understand that, but still. I would even be down with expanding the conceal carry class to include more of a background check -- whatever that truly means. (I mean, will it be on the level of how I got my security clearance? I passed that well enough.) But see how it is voluntary? I'm thinking if the government, state or federal, wrote plain English rules and regulations for their intent on the matter people would be more receptive. As it is now, people see a lunatic steal a gun, kill kids, anger nearly everyone, and have the authorities then try to establish rules that won't settle anything and only affect law abiders. Enhancing guns laws needs to be a proactive approach, not a reactive one. And most certainly not a reactive one from Congress.

[Johnnie]

I wanted to post this in the Boston Marathon thread, but this is the more appropriate one for it: Why does America lose its head over 'terror' but ignore its daily gun deaths?

Honestly, I have to agree with much of what's said. But people are still all pouty on the background check. Not for nothing, but why isn't there just a bill solely for the establishment of creating rules for it? And why isn't something like that written up, in plain English, to disseminate to the masses. 9 times out of 10, people are skeptical of adding any new laws because they only hear of a thought crafted into a bill that's then brought forth to possibly turn into law. I feel if everything was laid out in detail, people would be more receptive. All I heard was "This isn't the gateway to a national registry. Trust us. It's just a background check." Well, tell me what's included in it vice what's NOT included in it.

[howard]

This only kinda sorta fits this thread. I didn't want to start a new thread, cuz once I start posting in a loss of freedom and enlarging security/police state, it could get ugly fast. I couldn't even find a 'Rant' thread.

Biometric Database of All Adult Americans Hidden in Immigration Reform
What particularly kills me this morning, thinking of such things, is this little fact. The FBI had photographs of the Boston bomb murderers. They had a recently active file on the older brother (2011 if not more recent). They have all kinds of technology. They failed to fucking identify him. Failed. Had to release the photos to the media, for the public (who had provided the photos in the first place) to put a name to a man they had already id'd as a terror possibility, and had a file.

The evil uses of such information on all Americans by the security state authorities and functionaries is horrific enough. But I worry much more about the incompetent misuses of information and technology. Incompetence by the clowns who are supposed to control us/keep us safe.

So, I'm getting one of these. And bringing it back to topic:

[Sabo]

The Pew Research Center says gun violence is down since 1993.

[Johnnie]

I've heard of S. E. Cupp before, not enough to know if she's a hack or not, but just seeing Michael Moore look like a complete fucking idiot here was great. And I had no idea that Bill Maher was a gun owner.

[Shirley]

She only one if her facts were right. Have there really been fewer mass shootings over the past 30 years? I'd like to see the numbers behind that.

Moore lost points when he tried to switch it to school shootings midstream.

[Johnnie]

What I'd like to know is the control behind a statistical analysis of that. As compared to when? The 30 years previous to that? Something else? When certain firearms were introduced into production?

As long as guns, magazines, and bullets exist, shootings will exist. Creating a registry and limiting magazines does nothing to prevent shootings, crime and death. Since the attitude is zero tolerance, anything greater than 1 is already too much. Limiting magazines leads to leads to, as brought up, more guns being purchased. So if all the restrictions were put in place and crime still exists (because it will), then what? Stop the production of guns? Which makes me think....I really need to find out where in America gun manufacturers are located. I'll bet it's liberally leaning states. (I know Kimber is manufactured in New York, for example.) If gun manufacturing plants threatened to close in these blue states how quick would these same liberals be to suddenly shut their mouths if jobs were lost? So they're fine with the manufacturing of them because money and employment, but hate that they exist and want to limit everything about them. If I were a journalist, I'd dig.

Also, the striking thing in this clip was the other person on the panel acting like, and I'm paraphrasing, "What's the rationale of being able to hide your weapon and how many clips do you need/have?" That's absurd, preposterous, and flat-out disgusting. Who the fuck is Joe Q. Citizen to know what my business is? And then to say it to a woman? I'm so glad she shut him the fuck up on that. A nosey little asshole like that is going to live in indignancy (is that a word?) his entire life. It's pathetic.

When you have know-nothings preach gun control and then don't understand gun ownership, that's where the left completely loses. Just think...someone as dense as that guy could have access to this proposed registry. And if he sees that a person owns multiple guns, who's to stop him from flagging that person as a "person of interest" or something equally as damning just because a number greater than zero is subjectively off-putting? It's already a Chicken Little moment that he doesn't understand the rationale to conceal and protect oneself. I couldn't imagine what kind of shit he'd pull with actual authority.

[Shirley]

What I'd like to know is the control behind a statistical analysis of that. As compared to when? The 30 years previous to that? Something else? When certain firearms were introduced into production?

Those were my questions as well.

As for the registry, I can understand arguments on both sides. I get the Big Brother fear. I'm also not sure it would really do anything to prevent violence. At the same time, I can already pay $10 bucks online and have all kinds of information about any of you in minutes, including everywhere you've lived, what cars you've owned, etc. A gun registry is hardly the start of this issue.

I also love how pro-gun advocates get all ACLU about profiling when it involves THEM. Profiling brown people with funny names? That's just common sense police work!

[Sabo]

Which makes me think....I really need to find out where in America gun manufacturers are located. I'll bet it's liberally leaning states. (I know Kimber is manufactured in New York, for example.)

Here are the ones I know:

Remington: Based in Madison, North Carolina, but have large plants in New York and Kentucky.
Ruger: Based in Connecticut but they have a big plant in Prescott, Arizona.
Smith and Wesson: Springfield, Massachusetts.
Kahr Arms: Blauvel, New York (Interestingly enough, the guy who started this company and is still chairman and CEO is the son of Sun Myung Moon, who founded the Unification Church).

[Johnnie]

I also love how pro-gun advocates get all ACLU about profiling when it involves THEM. Profiling brown people with funny names? That's just common sense police work!

I think you're mixing 2 issues here. Are pro-gun rights advocates inherently some form of racist? Or am I missing something? Please don't base your idea of pro-gunners off of the Tea Party and other right wing/anti-Obama windbags.

Do the gun rights/lib'rul haters/latent racists sometimes overlap? Sure. (See: 'MURICA) But thinking one means the other? C'mon, dude.

[Johnnie]

Also, since the only way to combat violence is to profit from it on the state level, California does just that.

Not sure of the journalistic integrity of that website, but I'm just giving info on the fact of the matter: a tax on ammo.

This reduces violence how? So if in 5 years (3 years? 2 years?) California looks back on increasing the price of ammo and nothing changed in crime involving firearms, we can say this was a blatant attempt of fund raising at the expense of gun owners/operators.

The logic is backwards. You want people to stop killing each other with bullets? Don't manufacture them. People are still going to pay for ammo for target practice/hunting..etc. Cigarettes still kill. People still pay ridiculous amounts for those. I'm sure there's less prevalence of smokers these days than say 50 years ago because of science and alternatives, so the comparison might not be completely apples to apples. But people still smoke. When it comes to attitudes, for every Chris Rock reference to ammo, there's a Denis Leary reference to smoking.

[The Sybian]

I also love how pro-gun advocates get all ACLU about profiling when it involves THEM. Profiling brown people with funny names? That's just common sense police work!

This does get me, too. Why is a gun registry such an invasion of privacy? We have to register EVERYTHING in this country already, why wouldn't we register guns? Like they said, if we have to register dogs, cars, boats... guns are the FIRST thing we should be registering.

As for SE Cupp, I've mentioned it before, but I have a big time hate-crush on her. Actually, I can't even say I hate her. She comes off as intelligent and rational, but some of the stuff she argues for makes no sense, unless she is purely doing it to keep a spot on Fox News and sell books, which is the only logical conclusion. Her biggest shtick is being the Atheistic crusader in the War on Christmas. Thinking about it too much will make your head explode. But what will really make your head explode is that she claims to be an Atheist "striving for theism." All of her points and arguments about Atheism seem to have the misunderstandings that can only come from the hardcore faithful person's misunderstanding of what Atheism means, and what they think a person who doesn't believe in G-d must think, and that they really want to believe in G-d. The whole thing comes off as so contrived and phony, so I can't hate her.

She did graduate from Cornell, then I think she got a Masters in Religious Studies or something from NYU. Now she supposedly has a show on Glenn Beck's network or whatever you'd call what he runs.

[Johnnie]

This does get me, too. Why is a gun registry such an invasion of privacy? We have to register EVERYTHING in this country already, why wouldn't we register guns? Like they said, if we have to register dogs, cars, boats... guns are the FIRST thing we should be registering.

Because you can never accurately register every gun in existence and you are simultaneously creating a database of guns who are owned by law-abiding citizens. You're grouping me in with people who will willingly circumvent rules and procedures, commit crimes, and then when you ping that firearm's serial number against a database (the serial number will probably be scratched off, btw like the one at the scene of the heartbreaking Hofstra student's murder at the hands of cops), all you did was identify a bunch of people who willingly gave info to a government entity and someone is still dead.

Oh, so you found that a gun was used in a crime by a dude who obtained it from someone who registered it? Now what? Implicate that guy/girl in the murder? OK....? Harsh. Very harsh. That's fair, I guess. The person was irresponsible. Maybe it wasn't locked up. Maybe it wasn't reported stolen to police after a break-in in a timely fashion. Maybe whatever. All that will do is get someone in big trouble who wasn't the perp. I don't see what that proves other than creating a new statistic. So bump that against all crimes committed involving guns that aren't in the registry. I wonder where the numbers will add up higher. The left will claim victory. "See! A registry works! Those pesky gun owners are contributing to gun violence! That one guy that one time was irresponsible and someone died because of his negligence. We're going to prosecute him/her to the fullest extent of the law. We told you gun owners were criminals in waiting." It's now a political talking point. But the point remains...someone is still dead.

So let's also say this database is created. It's federally run. It has representatives in every state with access. (Hooray job creation!) Everyone complies and registers. What's that doing? The government knows my 5 handguns and 1 shotgun are owned by me. Awesome. Other than the feeling of unease that the government knows something else about me, does it affect much. Maybe not in my specific case. But let's look at it nationally: There is a system that compiles a list of everyone in America who owns guns. This system is hackable, btw. Everything on computer is. Let's see who knows a way to get around that kind of encryption and figure out who owns and doesn't own one? Cool. That info can now be sold to people who want to either steal guns or rob people who don't have them. Awesome. Hey, when I was younger I knew someone who knew someone that worked at the DMV that could make a fake license and put any age on it. What makes you think there isn't the same 2 degrees of separation to get this kind of access without hacking it?

And you think my example is far-fetched? It's just as far-fetched as you thinking you can stop gun crime by making a database.

A registry database doesn't do anything but create this placebo effect for armchair criminologists which makes them feel like they made some sort of significant contribution in reduction of crime. You didn't. All you did was inconvenience others at the expense of those who won't commit the crimes you are trying to stop. Bravo.

[Scottie]

If you want to know how impossible (and frankly stupid) the idea of a gun registry is, look up "Canada Gun Registry" and/or "Canadian Firearms Registry" on your internets. You'll see a liberal government that blew billions of dollars, infuriated a nation and accomplished exactly nothing. Americans would do very well to look at an example of an attempted, and failed, gun registry in the country next door. Oddly, it never gets mentioned in the argument despite being the most obvious example on the planet.

Aside from the fact that criminals and psychopaths don't register weapons, the entire farcical "law" collapsed and brought the liberal party down with it; liberals went from being the governing party to having about 1/10th of the national vote.

If American politicians want to know what imposing a gun registry looks like, they'd be fucking up royally if they ignore what happened up north.

[Johnnie]

I didn't even think of that.

That's what I get for relying on Michael Moore to tell me how Canada has done things in comparison to America. :-/

[Scottie]

Slobby Michael Mopron doesn't know a goddamn thing about this country. The reason he uses Canada as an example is because he relies heavily on Americans not knowing a damned thing about what goes on up here; makes it easier for him to spread his idiot commie bullshit around.

[The Sybian]

This does get me, too. Why is a gun registry such an invasion of privacy? We have to register EVERYTHING in this country already, why wouldn't we register guns? Like they said, if we have to register dogs, cars, boats... guns are the FIRST thing we should be registering.

Because you can never accurately register every gun in existence and you are simultaneously creating a database of guns who are owned by law-abiding citizens. You're grouping me in with people who will willingly circumvent rules and procedures, commit crimes, and then when you ping that firearm's serial number against a database (the serial number will probably be scratched off, btw like the one at the scene of the heartbreaking Hofstra student's murder at the hands of cops), all you did was identify a bunch of people who willingly gave info to a government entity and someone is still dead.

Oh, so you found that a gun was used in a crime by a dude who obtained it from someone who registered it? Now what? Implicate that guy/girl in the murder? OK....? Harsh. Very harsh. That's fair, I guess. The person was irresponsible. Maybe it wasn't locked up. Maybe it wasn't reported stolen to police after a break-in in a timely fashion. Maybe whatever. All that will do is get someone in big trouble who wasn't the perp. I don't see what that proves other than creating a new statistic. So bump that against all crimes committed involving guns that aren't in the registry. I wonder where the numbers will add up higher. The left will claim victory. "See! A registry works! Those pesky gun owners are contributing to gun violence! That one guy that one time was irresponsible and someone died because of his negligence. We're going to prosecute him/her to the fullest extent of the law. We told you gun owners were criminals in waiting." It's now a political talking point. But the point remains...someone is still dead.

So let's also say this database is created. It's federally run. It has representatives in every state with access. (Hooray job creation!) Everyone complies and registers. What's that doing? The government knows my 5 handguns and 1 shotgun are owned by me. Awesome. Other than the feeling of unease that the government knows something else about me, does it affect much. Maybe not in my specific case. But let's look at it nationally: There is a system that compiles a list of everyone in America who owns guns. This system is hackable, btw. Everything on computer is. Let's see who knows a way to get around that kind of encryption and figure out who owns and doesn't own one? Cool. That info can now be sold to people who want to either steal guns or rob people who don't have them. Awesome. Hey, when I was younger I knew someone who knew someone that worked at the DMV that could make a fake license and put any age on it. What makes you think there isn't the same 2 degrees of separation to get this kind of access without hacking it?

And you think my example is far-fetched? It's just as far-fetched as you thinking you can stop gun crime by making a database.

A registry database doesn't do anything but create this placebo effect for armchair criminologists which makes them feel like they made some sort of significant contribution in reduction of crime. You didn't. All you did was inconvenience others at the expense of those who won't commit the crimes you are trying to stop. Bravo.

Ok, the selling the info to gun robbers is the first legit argument I have heard. I'm not dumb enough to think a gun registry would eliminate gun crime entirely, and quite frankly I'm insulted that you implied that I'm that stupid. I also realize you can register every gun, but why should that prevent us from starting a registry, if a registry would be useful? We can't hope to register every dog, car, boat... should we throw up our hands and stop trying to regulate anything in this country? Come on Johnnie, you are better than that kind of specious argument. By that logic, we can't stop everyone from from running red lights, so why bother with traffic lights, right? And why is a gun registry "lumping you in with criminals" but registering your vehicle isn't?

[The Sybian]

Slobby Michael Mopron doesn't know a goddamn thing about this country. The reason he uses Canada as an example is because he relies heavily on Americans not knowing a damned thing about what goes on up here; makes it easier for him to spread his idiot commie bullshit around.

With all due respect, Michael Moore employs similar tactics with all of his arguments to cover for his intellectual short comings. I cringe whenever he is given air time, because he hurts his arguments every time he opens his fat fucking mouth, and I agree with his side of the debate more often than not, just not his reasoning, and certainly not his pseudo-logical song and dance routines.

[howard]

…the entire farcical "law" collapsed and brought the liberal party down with it; liberals went from being the governing party to having about 1/10th of the national vote.

So, there is an upside to Democrat attempts at gun control. Cool; I'm on board!

[Johnnie]

Slobby Michael Mopron doesn't know a goddamn thing about this country. The reason he uses Canada as an example is because he relies heavily on Americans not knowing a damned thing about what goes on up here; makes it easier for him to spread his idiot commie bullshit around.

Exactly. I'm actually agreeing with you on that. Michael Moore is a douche.

And Syb, I'm not insinuating anything about your intelligence. I actually like what you have to say. And Dammit if I wasn't in the middle of outprocessing, I'd debate you further. I'll be back on eventually.

[Shirley]

I also love how pro-gun advocates get all ACLU about profiling when it involves THEM. Profiling brown people with funny names? That's just common sense police work!

I think you're mixing 2 issues here. Are pro-gun rights advocates inherently some form of racist? Or am I missing something? Please don't base your idea of pro-gunners off of the Tea Party and other right wing/anti-Obama windbags.

Do the gun rights/lib'rul haters/latent racists sometimes overlap? Sure. (See: 'MURICA) But thinking one means the other? C'mon, dude.

No, I'm not saying that gun folks are racist. I'm saying that they are complaining that a gun registry is tantamount to profiling.

Usually in this country, profiling happens when law enforcement (at some level) targets a group of people for harassment. That's almost always brown people of some sort, either African Americans, Hispanic immigrants (or Americans who look like immigrants), Arabs, etc.

Whenever folks complain about racial profiling (e.g. the controversy in Arizona a few years ago), many conservatives chime in that while it sucks for the brown folks, profiling is a necessary and valuable law enforcement tool.

We all know that there is a huge intersection between those conservatives and gun rights advocates. It's not 100%, of course - you're a clear counterexample - but it's a pretty strong correlation.

So, put two and two together and many, many people who supported profiling of Mexicans and Arabs really don't want to be profiled themselves.

[Scottie]

I'm saying that they are complaining that a gun registry is tantamount to profiling.

And that's where they are wrong. It isn't profiling.

[Johnnie]

Ok, the selling the info to gun robbers is the first legit argument I have heard. I'm not dumb enough to think a gun registry would eliminate gun crime entirely, and quite frankly I'm insulted that you implied that I'm that stupid. I also realize you can register every gun, but why should that prevent us from starting a registry, if a registry would be useful? We can't hope to register every dog, car, boat... should we throw up our hands and stop trying to regulate anything in this country? Come on Johnnie, you are better than that kind of specious argument. By that logic, we can't stop everyone from from running red lights, so why bother with traffic lights, right? And why is a gun registry "lumping you in with criminals" but registering your vehicle isn't?

Absolutely never, ever would I insinuate that you'd think gun registry = less violence. Hell no. I give you far more credit than that. You're a smart person and I value your opinion. But it only seems to be brought up as a remedy when shootings occur. So that's my bad. Similar in fashion to the overlap the Shirley/Dave/Rerun brought up involving the Right and 2nd amendment rights.

My beef is where is this registry useful? What does it set to accomplish? Who is going to be granted access? Those three questions are the crux of my worries. If we have so many guns in circulation and a registry was started tomorrow, how are you going to compel millions of Americans who already fall in the "lesser government" crowd to readily give up information they normally wouldn't? Fines? Jailtime? The promise that something like a registry isn't going to be a bother has already met its first roadblock right there. So now I have to suddenly give more money to the government or face jailtime because you want a serial number when I've done nothing wrong? What the fuck is that? That alone scares the shit out of me.

And this is fundamentally different than a car registry or anything like that. Those aren't items you can tangibly conceal. You aren't paying taxes that go to shooting ranges (yet) like you pay taxes that pay for highways/roads. Do you want me to register my TVs and stereo equipment? My cell phone? What's the real purpose of registering things like cars? Raising money for the state/fed so that you can use it in an area and have the reasonable assertion that the road/access to places is available for me and maintained in fashion that won't ruin it. But what happens every year? Those prices go up and up and up and where does that money go? And people still don't register their vehicles or get insurance. So on some level, I hate vehicle registry too. Then there's other dumb things: Will I now need to pay tolls to transport my guns from state to state? Do I need to have a title for my guns? Do I have to get them inspected yearly by the state? Or, Allah forbid, will there be a Registry of Firearms Division building that I have to visit once every couple of years on my birthday? Sweet Christ. I don't even want to imagine that. DMVs are already the 8th layer of hell. Now people with loaded weapons will be sitting everywhere mad. AHHHH! (I kid, but you get it.) Cars, boats, trucks...etc are daily use, large items that take a toll in public areas and create waste. I just cannot see a comparison with registries for guns and cars.

All I see at the end of the day is a way for the state to make money under the guise of doing something positive. How many millions of people own guns? How many of these millions of people are felons? And how many of these millions of people commit violent crimes? So the small percent of the small percent now fuck up everything for those who like to shoot for sport/practice because crazy assholes can have access? A registry doesn't prevent access. A registry is doing nothing positive. It just punishes everyone for the acts of a few.

[rass]

All around devastating piece on the surviving family members of one of the kids killed in Newtown, specifically their struggles with grief and to find a way to enact meaningful gun "responsibility" changes since the massacre.

[Jerloma]

Gun groups to hold "Guns Save Lives Day" on the one year anniversary of Sandy Hook shootings.

“We are going to show America that there is a good side to guns,” the groups’ petition says. Declaring that gun owners have been victimized in the debate post-Newtown, they request people send donations. “We plan to honor these victims by doing everything within our power to prevent misguided gun control laws from leaving Americans defenseless or worse victims. Don’t be a victim, ARM YOURSELF and help ARM our movement with the resources we need to protect and restore our nation’s gun rights.”

[Johnnie]

Well, check out this ammo that I would assume will be made illegal sometime starting 10 minutes ago:





(Dude's voice is very annoying.)

[The Sybian]

Well, check out this ammo that I would assume will be made illegal sometime starting 10 minutes ago:




(Dude's voice is very annoying.)

Wow, that is quite impressive and a bit scary. "Effectively ripping through objects like plywood, auto glass, cinder block, sheet metal [and major bodily organs]." That must do devastating damage to a body. The footage of the bullet going through the balloon was sick. I wonder how large an exit wound would be to a gut shot.

And I think Radically Invasive Projectile would be a good name for a group doing whatever kind of "music" Skrillex makes.

[Shirley]

Whew. Thank god that bullet will only be used by law enforcement and for self defense!

[Johnnie]

Rated RR has a nice video demonstrating the new round. This dude's YouTube channel is awesome.

[The Sybian]

Rated RR has a nice video demonstrating the new round. This dude's YouTube channel is awesome.

That is some incredible camera work. so cool how the first shot looks in the gel, especially where the petals broke off. I never really thought about the damage the shock waves of a bullet could do to soft tissue. Actually seems worse than the damage the bullet makes. Is that the point of hollow tips? I just know my father only used hollow tips with the mantra that if he ever needs to use his gun, he wants to do as much damage as possible. I love the phrase stopping power to describe a gun or bullet.

[Sabo]

I never really thought about the damage the shock waves of a bullet could do to soft tissue. Actually seems worse than the damage the bullet makes. Is that the point of hollow tips?

Hollow-tip ammo is designed so the bullet expands once it hits something. When it expands, it decreases penetration by the bullet and causes more damage to whatever it hits.

The biggest difference between regular hollow-tip ammo and this RIP ammo is the RIP ammo breaks off into shards when it hits something. These shards will penetrate more area and cause more damage than a regular hollow-tip bullet. IMO, this RIP ammo is overkill (no pun intended). A well-placed shot from just about any handgun is going to be effective self defense.

[howard]

IMO, this RIP ammo is overkill (no pun intended).

Thank you. Getting hit by a smooth-tip round is no picnic either. (But they don't look as scary.)

[Johnnie]

Since one of the 4 main tenets of operating a gun is knowing what you're shooting at and what's behind it, hollow tips are there so you don't inadvertently kill someone else because the round doesn't go through who you are intending to kill.

This is the problem with our M4/M16 ammo. It's essentially .22 caliber long range target rounds that go through and through. Decent for accuracy, but not the "stopping power" you want.

[ZMan]

And why is a gun registry "lumping you in with criminals" but registering your vehicle isn't?

I know this is fucking old, but I'm responding anyway...
The difference that I see, is that driving a car is a privilege granted by the state whereas owning a gun is a right recognized by the constitution. So if the state make registration a condition required to be granted said privilege, that seems a valid trade-off to me.
Also, you don't have to register a car. Sure, some municipalities might require you to keep that car under a cover, in a garage, or in your back yard, but you really only need to register it if you want to be granted the privilege to drive.


Concerning those RIP bullets, I have to imagine they'll give ER docs fits. It's bad enough when a regular or hollow point happens to break up into bits as it enters the body. These fuckers are designed specifically to do that. Though, given the claims made in the video, it would seem more morticians will deal with those bits than ER docs.

[Johnnie]

You make a good point, Z. I knew there was a fairly simple reason and you seem to have pinpointed it.

And don't forget - not just the federal Constitution. 43 states, according to the book I'm reading, have it written into theirs explicitly.

[The Sybian]

And why is a gun registry "lumping you in with criminals" but registering your vehicle isn't?

I know this is fucking old, but I'm responding anyway...
The difference that I see, is that driving a car is a privilege granted by the state whereas owning a gun is a right recognized by the constitution. So if the state make registration a condition required to be granted said privilege, that seems a valid trade-off to me.
Also, you don't have to register a car. Sure, some municipalities might require you to keep that car under a cover, in a garage, or in your back yard, but you really only need to register it if you want to be granted the privilege to drive.


Concerning those RIP bullets, I have to imagine they'll give ER docs fits. It's bad enough when a regular or hollow point happens to break up into bits as it enters the body. These fuckers are designed specifically to do that. Though, given the claims made in the video, it would seem more morticians will deal with those bits than ER docs.

Sure, you don't have to register a car, but if you get pulled over, the cops don't have to let you leave or give you your car back. In that sense, you don't have to obey any law.

That is a good distinction with the Federal Constitution, but it doesn't quite play out that way. States can still regulate gun ownership. For example, a lot of states don't allow convicted felons to own guns, or people with a history of mental health issues. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is also highly debatable, I really don't want to get into a debate on this, but a strong argument is there that the 2nd amendment was only in place because an organized military did not exist, and it was necessary for citizens to have guns for national and state defense from foreign invaders. The 2nd Amendment also doesn't grant absolute right to firearms. Laws are in place to prohibit rocket launchers, bazookas, etc... And requiring registration does not prevent you from owning a gun, it just means the gun needs to be on file.

[Sabo]

That is a good distinction with the Federal Constitution, but it doesn't quite play out that way. States can still regulate gun ownership. For example, a lot of states don't allow convicted felons to own guns, or people with a history of mental health issues. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is also highly debatable, I really don't want to get into a debate on this, but a strong argument is there that the 2nd amendment was only in place because an organized military did not exist, and it was necessary for citizens to have guns for national and state defense from foreign invaders. The 2nd Amendment also doesn't grant absolute right to firearms. Laws are in place to prohibit rocket launchers, bazookas, etc... And requiring registration does not prevent you from owning a gun, it just means the gun needs to be on file.

Question for you: How does society benefit from the registration of firearms? Do you see it solely as a means of regulating the private sale of firearms, or are there other reasons for registration?

[howard]

It allows people to wallow in the fantasy delusion that registration somehow reduces crime.

[Gunpowder]

I never really thought about the damage the shock waves of a bullet could do to soft tissue. Actually seems worse than the damage the bullet makes. Is that the point of hollow tips?

Hollow-tip ammo is designed so the bullet expands once it hits something. When it expands, it decreases penetration by the bullet and causes more damage to whatever it hits.

The biggest difference between regular hollow-tip ammo and this RIP ammo is the RIP ammo breaks off into shards when it hits something. These shards will penetrate more area and cause more damage than a regular hollow-tip bullet. IMO, this RIP ammo is overkill (no pun intended). A well-placed shot from just about any handgun is going to be effective self defense.

If these actually cause greater damage, that will also make them different from hollow-tips.