Gun Controll Glock 9

[Howdyphillip]

Just a continuation from here...

[Howdyphillip]

For those arguing for registration, here is another reason that i am against that idea...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/

[IheartTesla]

I would contend the problem is more with the Freedom of Information law rather than the act of registration of a firearm itself. I'm pretty sure you could get vehicle registration information too.

[Maltaran]

Surely, if the purpose of owning a gun is to deter robbers, you want your ownership to be public knowledge?

[Tempra]

Surely, if the purpose of owning a gun is to deter robbers, you want your ownership to be public knowledge?

As guns are valuable, not so much. On the flip side, don't robbers now know which houses to avoid?

[The Mance]

Surely, if the purpose of owning a gun is to deter robbers, you want your ownership to be public knowledge?

Unless you're worried that criminals might track gun ownership databases to find highly sought after guns to steal.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Surely, if the purpose of owning a gun is to deter robbers, you want your ownership to be public knowledge?

Unless the robbers are trying to steal guns.

As guns are valuable, not so much. On the flip side, don't robbers now know which houses to avoid?

See above.

[IheartTesla]

Also, just to be clear, the addresses published are in the Northeast. There are a few studies on the demographics of gun owners, so I wouldnt say it is a particularly southern phenomenon,

Anyhoo, just to re-emphasize, this Freedom of Information law sounds a real doozy and is the real issue. Once the information is easily accessible people will use the information as they see fit.

I would have thought there would be some expectation of privacy about where you reside .... but apparently not, unless you dont own a vehicle (and a gun too).

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Aww man, I wanted to name the thread.

Here it is folks. Feinstein's summary of her proposed ban. Warning: the stupid is about to commence.

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  
  • 120 specifically-named firearms
    
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
    
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
    

  [*]Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
    
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
    
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
    

  [*]Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

  [*]Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
    
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
    
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
    

  [*]Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration
    

WTFIDON'TEVEN

This is bad legislation. Just straight up lousy. Banning thumbhole stocks? (this is a thumbhole stock). Banning guns by brand name? Banning fixed (non-detachable) magazines over 10 rounds? Adding semi-automatic firearms to the NFA list? This is not a crime-prevention measure, this is a punitive measure against gun owners.

Here is an example of how stupid this is - I would be able to own a pistol that has a detachable mag, or a rifle that has a detachable mag, but not a rifle with a "pistol grip" that has a detachable mag. What is the purpose of such a thing?

[peterbound]

Unless the robbers are trying to steal guns.

Most responsible gun owners keep their fire arms in a damn near impossible to breach safe. Come in and /try/ to steal my guns. Hell, I'll give you a few hours, it's not going to happen. If you aren't securing your weapons, you are putting yourself and your family at risk.

I can still access my weapons quickly, and safely in case of a home invasion (and in that case i'm only grabbing the 12gauge. Anyone that says you need or should use an assault rifle for home protection is nuts) even if they are in the safe.

[lupis42]

Anyone find the text of the law and figure out how she plans to outlaw bullet buttons? It's a magazine that requires a tool to remove - that's basically all magazines, no?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Most responsible gun owners keep their fire arms in a damn near impossible to breach safe. Come in and /try/ to steal my guns. Hell, I'll give you a few hours, it's not going to happen. If you aren't securing your weapons, you are putting yourself and your family at risk.

I can still access my weapons quickly, and safely in case of a home invasion (and in that case i'm only grabbing the 12gauge. Anyone that says you need or should use an assault rifle for home protection is nuts) even if they are in the safe.

Although we rarely agree on things, but you do raise a perplexing problem. No safe is breach proof. No safe gives an owner quick enough access to a gun in the event of a break-in. To be effective inside the home, that shotgun would need a barrel shorter than is legal. Assault rifles are already illegal. Assault weapons, for all practical purposes, are based on cosmetics, not function. They, too, are unwieldy due to their length in close quarters.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Anyone find the text of the law and figure out how she plans to outlaw bullet buttons? It's a magazine that requires a tool to remove - that's basically all magazines, no?

I haven't found the text, it won't be introduced until congress is back in session on the 3rd I believe. I presume that the text banning bullet buttons will be as ignorant and insane as the rest of the law.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What is the purpose of such a thing?

To make people who don't understand weapons feel better?

I personally have some sympathy for the "large-capacity magazine" argument. While it is true that changing magazines theoretically can be done in a few seconds, it also can take longer, especially if the person is nervous or otherwise not concentrating fully on the task. If you're using a two handed "assault weapon", it means you've got to take one hand off the weapon, grab the new magazine, insert it, and send the bolt home, all while looking at the weapon rather than putative victims. That's one reason why I think a close-quarters shooter is actually better off with a few semi-automatic pistols than an "assault weapon". But other than that, I agree completely.

I know gun-owners are stereotyped as bitterly clinging dumb hicks by some, but we're not so stupid as to believe that "mere registration" won't be used as a means to enforce either this, or even more strict gun laws. Heller was decided by just one vote, and could just as easily flip the other way in a few years.

[Kouran]

On the upside, it would be harder to be more dumb than this bill already is, barring requiring blood samples and bio-metric scans.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I can't understand why so much of the bill is dedicated to restricting things that are essentially aesthetic attributes of firearms. Especially the thumbhole stock thing. Is there something I'm missing there?

Personally, I would have preferred to see a max capacity of around 5 rounds for any semi-automatic weapon, and a mandatory requirement that all private sales be conducted at a licensed dealer to eliminate the loophole that allows people to get around the background check and waiting period. Mandatory registration would actually do something, at least require that all states keep DMV-esque records or who own what, with penalties for owning an unregistered firearm or failing to report a stolen gun. This would immediately reduce the flow of guns into the hands of criminals.

Require that all firearms in a home be secured in an approved gun safe (although considering the hack job they did of product selection/exclusion in what Tormund listed I have doubts about anyone's ability to make a sane list of approved safes/vaults) with penalties for not securing a firearm in your home.

The thumbhole stock provision, and others like it, are absolutely ludicrous and are the type of restrictions will dissuade a lot of gun owners who are okay with reasonable restrictions from supporting a bill like this.

This legislation will be almost entirely powerless to prevent gun violence.

As guns are valuable, not so much. On the flip side, don't robbers now know which houses to avoid?

Unless you're worried that criminals might track gun ownership databases to find highly sought after guns to steal.

Unfortunately, I know many gun owners who actually want to have the opportunity to use one of their guns against an intruder in their home as a part of some kind of hero fantasy. While they are kicking and screaming about registration info being made public, two of my friends have the same sign on their properties that reads " I shoot first and ask questions later ". Maybe that gives some insight into a certain mentality amongst some gun owners, that while not necessary prevalent, is certainly present.

When I took my pistol permit class a couple years ago, I realized that this attitude is not limited to a few of my idiot friends from high school.

If we're going to have new gun related legislation it would be nice if it could be actually targeted at reducing gun violence and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals instead of arbitrarily restricting aesthetic characteristics. More reasonable legislation would also help to get more gun owners on board with a bill like this.

[peterbound]

Although we rarely agree on things, but you do raise a perplexing problem. No safe is breach proof. No safe gives an owner quick enough access to a gun in the event of a break-in. To be effective inside the home, that shotgun would need a barrel shorter than is legal. Assault rifles are already illegal. Assault weapons, for all practical purposes, are based on cosmetics, not function. They, too, are unwieldy due to their length in close quarters.

I disagree, on both points.

I can reasonably get to my safe, open in, and ruin someone's day in a hurry. If you are that concerned with home defense, you have a working alarm system setup, and a way to notify you in case of an intrusion.

As for the shotguns. I'm not sure where you live, but tactical shotguns are still legal in the wild west, and are my standby for home defense. They are what I use, and what I recommend others getting for that function. Less room for error, more 'intimidation factor', and multifunctional.

If you want to be snotty about it though, get a fucking .410 handgun and make the compromise.

P.s. Your syntax correction was cute. Assault Weapons it is, the point is, they are (unless heavily modified) not suited for home defense, and anyone that says other wise has never used the fuckers in any real situation. Just out of curiosity, Lorien, what is your background? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you come off sounding like a gun enthusiast with little in the way of practical experience.

[lupis42]

I can't understand why so much of the bill is dedicated to restricting things that are essentially aesthetic attributes of firearms. Especially the thumbhole stock thing. Is there something I'm missing there?

Your answer is here:

To make people who don't understand weapons feel better?

The logic goes "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this!"

[lupis42]

Assault Weapons it is, the point is, they are (unless heavily modified) not suited for home defense, and anyone that says other wise has never used the fuckers in any real situation.

The shotgun sends several lead balls downrange, the rifle one at a time. Given the desire to ensure that every single piece of lead sent goes where it's supposed to, why do you think it's unreasonable to want something a little more precise?

[Larry of the Lawn]

The shotgun sends several lead balls downrange, the rifle one at a time. Given the desire to ensure that every single piece of lead sent goes where it's supposed to, why do you think it's unreasonable to want something a little more precise?

Birdshot isn't going to go into your neighbor's house or an adjoining apartment, probably not even another room. A rifle bullet will can do all those things.