Gun Controll Glock 9

[Robin Of House Hill]

I bet a lot of those folks are just turning in "inherited" guns

I wonder how many turned in guns they had stolen. Maybe crime does pay.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I wonder how many turned in guns they had stolen. Maybe crime does pay.

Why not just steal $100 in groceries or pizzas? Surely that's easier and less risky than stealing a gun?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If you already stole a gun and have used it in a crime you can't keep it. You can try to sell it on the black market (illegal, risky), throw it away (wasteful), or turn it in with a few hundred other anonymous guns for some money!

[Robin Of House Hill]

I wonder how much evidence gets destroyed this way.

[Larry of the Lawn]

My mistake, I thought Lorien was suggesting some people were going out and stealing guns in order to turn them into the program.

I know that in the San Diego one they still check all the guns to see if they've been used in a crime.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

For the record I have no big issue with gun buyback programs other than thinking that public money could be better spent. I wish they'd have one here. I'd head down to the line with $110 and come back with good deal I bet.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I know the one in San Diego is totally funded by donations. Not sure if the police that are there are being paid or not though....

[Robin Of House Hill]

My mistake, I thought Lorien was suggesting some people were going out and stealing guns in order to turn them into the program.

I know that in the San Diego one they still check all the guns to see if they've been used in a crime.

According to a news report in Los Angeles, they check the serial numbers, so that if any have been stolen, they can be returned to their owners, but I doubt they run ballistics tests on all of them.

[snake]

Here is link to a wiki page describing our gun laws in Canada. Fairly strict but not as draconian as one would think. Mostly automatic firearms get the ban up here. We also tried a gun registry and it became way too expensive and was fairly unpopular so it is now scrapped.

Tormund,

I'm curious as to whether or not you own any firearms that are on our prohibited list? It is rather long but if ya got the time have a look.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Here is link to a wiki page describing our gun laws in Canada. Fairly strict but not as draconian as one would think. Mostly automatic firearms get the ban up here. We also tried a gun registry and it became way too expensive and was fairly unpopular so it is now scrapped.

Tormund,

I'm curious as to whether or not you own any firearms that are on our prohibited list? It is rather long but if ya got the time have a look.

No, all my guns would be legal in Canada.

[Seli]

...

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?

To target a certain group of gun-owners and the sub-culture they represent? These rules don't hurt most hunters, leave the self-defence people alone, but do target the tacticool crowd.

[snake]

No, all my guns would be legal in Canada.

Well, you're not much of a gun nut at all!! That saddens me.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Some of Wayne LaPierre's comments got a lot of play. But most of the media seemed to ignore this part:

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses - even sports stadiums - are all protected by armed security. We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family - our children - we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it.

http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz2GHcsF1yY

Of course, he's not entirely correct. For example, the President, Raum Emanuel, and other elites apparently prefer that their children are protected by armed guards at school. Just not the children of the rest of us.

http://www.breitbart...-On-Duty-Police

http://www.weeklysta...ool_691057.html

Hey, if the "guns don't make people safer" arguments holds, then shouldn't the President give up his armed Secret Service detail?

[Fragile Bird]

That is such a bizarre attitude to take. Governments around the world protect their leaders and their families because of threats against them. Legislative assemblies around the world are protected because of attacks made against them. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of threats made against the President, his cabinet, senators and congressmen and their families, because we live in that kind of world today. The President is an active target - are you an active target of some terrorist organization, FLoW? Are you a mulit-millionaire, or a politician of elevated status? A star of tv, film or stage, worried about crazy fans?

No one has ever threatened me, or my family members, or my friends or their family members. The school down the street that I attended as a child does not have armed guards, though various doors are locked while children are in school. And let's face it, that's all most schools need.

Most kidnappings are done by family members, or former family members, estranged or divorced husbands or wives, breaking a custody order. The armed guard would have to be in your house for the kind of safety needed.

And didn't someone in the last thread post the fact that 30,000 schools in the US already have armed security at their buildings? Doesn't that mean a hell of a lot more children than just the children of congressmen and senators are protected? Pointing out that elected officials and people who are targets of threats have extra protection but not the general public is just another piece of bullshit. The most precious thing in my life is, ta-da, my life. Why do banks have security guards and my house doesn't? They are just protecting money, after all, and employees b default.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Well, you're not much of a gun nut at all!! That saddens me.

There's what you're a fan of, and what you can afford. I had plans to buy several more guns next month, but the current hullaballoo has driven prices up by 30% or more and dried up the supply

That is such a bizarre attitude to take. Governments around the world protect their leaders and their families because of threats against them. Legislative assemblies around the world are protected because of attacks made against them. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of threats made against the President, his cabinet, senators and congressmen and their families, because we live in that kind of world today. The President is an active target - are you an active target of some terrorist organization, FLoW? Are you a mulit-millionaire, or a politician of elevated status? A star of tv, film or stage, worried about crazy fans?

No one has ever threatened me, or my family members, or my friends or their family members. The school down the street that I attended as a child does not have armed guards, though various doors are locked while children are in school. And let's face it, that's all most schools need.

Most kidnappings are done by family members, or former family members, estranged or divorced husbands or wives, breaking a custody order. The armed guard would have to be in your house for the kind of safety needed.

And didn't someone in the last thread post the fact that 30,000 schools in the US already have armed security at their buildings? Doesn't that mean a hell of a lot more children than just the children of congressmen and senators are protected? Pointing out that elected officials and people who are targets of threats have extra protection but not the general public is just another piece of bullshit. The most precious thing in my life is, ta-da, my life. Why do banks have security guards and my house doesn't? They are just protecting money, after all, and employees b default.

So what you're saying is, that the threat is so minimal it isn't worth legislating over?

[Sixshells]

Maybe I missed it, but the Washington Post published this poll on the differences of opinions on different gun control measures between non gun owners, gun owners and gun owners registered at the NRA:

Some measures attracted nearly universal support (keeping guns from the mentally ill) or opposition (banning the sale of handguns). Requiring a five-day waiting period was also very popular. Even half of NRA members supported that.

(snip)

To be sure, this means that the majority of gun owners—regardless of whether they belonged to the NRA—opposed many forms of gun control. But on the other hand, this list of gun laws did not include some popular proposals. For example, gun owners, regardless of NRA membership, appear to support criminal background checks.

What these poll results show is that the coalitional politics of gun control is more complex than you might think after LaPierre’s speech. This is not a world with gun owners on one side and those who do not own guns on the other. Two of the policies most discussed in the wake of the Newtown shootings—a ban on assault weapons and a limit on the size of magazines—will attract support not only from those who don’t have a gun in their house but from those who do, especially if the gun isn’t theirs and also if the gun is theirs but they are not NRA members.

Gun owners do not speak with one voice about gun control, and, for many gun owners, Wayne LaPierre does not appear to speak for them.

[Kalbear]

Gun Controll

I'm surprised Robin Hill hasn't freaked out about this thread title.

[Fragile Bird]

So what you're saying is, that the threat is so minimal it isn't worth legislating over?

No, I'm saying people who say the President is a hypocrite for having security protecting him, his wife and his children and members of the Senate and Congress, and not every child in America, is full of it.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

No, I'm saying people who say the President is a hypocrite for having security protecting him, his wife and his children and members of the Senate and Congress, and not every child in America, is full of it.

But you made your point by making almost precisely the point of the people who argue against gun control. You pointed out that schools are extremely safe and rarely need armed guards. You pointed out that if children are threatened at all, it is likely by a family member in their home rather than a stranger in public. Based on this knowledge, why support a ban on semi-automatic rifles?

[Fragile Bird]

Well, if you recall. Tormund, the point I made in the last thread (or the one before, damned if I know, lol) was that 60% of murders are committed by persons using handguns. I don't care if they are semi-automatic or not. It seems to me you Americans need to do something about handguns. Someone, Raidne I think, pointed out the Heller decision means handguns can't be banned, but I don't recall ever calling for a ban on anything, just better controls.

I also asked a question that no one answered, mainly, I think, because responses were flying fast and furious at that point, about the definition of handguns. Just from reading these threads it certainly sems like the language of guns is not being used the same way by everyone, so even looking for facts and figures can be difficult. What is the definition of a handgun? Is it literally a gun a person can shoot with one hand, and all other guns that normally need two hands are considered rifles? (irrespective of movies where someone is shooting with long guns in either hand). Is it just a question of the length of the barrel, or the calibre of bullet? What I see on the internet isn't very clear to me. Is there a standard definition used used by the FBI and the CDC in the collection of their statistics?

As for the issue of semi-automatic rifles, if being able to agree on an initial set of controls of some kind is low hanging fruit, why not start there. If the fact that a shooter may have to pause to re-load and that saves lives or gives bystanders an opportunity to tackle someone while they are distracted, is that not at least one small step that can be taken?