Gun Controll Glock 9

[Seli]

...

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

Mass shootings in schools, even if they happen relatively often in the States, are such a small threat it is useless to specifically legislate against that. (In due course you would need similar laws for hospitals, football matches, care homes etc etc).

The high proportion of gun related deaths and the violence issues of the country in general seem to be a threat worthy of the attention of the legislature.

[Liffguard]

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.

I think it's pretty frightening that an advanced western nation would need armed guards in all these places. Fair enough for airports and senior politicians, maybe powerstations. But office buildings? Sports stadiums? Are armed guards really standard procedure for these places in the US?

[Jon Sprunk]

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.

FLoW, you should know better than to believe this nonsense. Most of the time our society uses armed guards in places where violence is commonplace or would be commonplace if left unguarded. Obviously, guards protect banks and commerical property against robbery. Courthouses-- do you really need me to explain why they require armed officers? Some schools have histories of violence, so it makes sense that those students require the added protection. But Mr. LaPierre is suggesting something more insidous and damaging. That if you love your kid, you'll surround him/her with guns. In your home, at their school, in the church. Guns, guns, guns. This is out of control. The pendulum has swung too far in the "guns for everyone" direction and now needs correcting.

[Ser Reptitious]

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?

Well, off the top of my head, weren't there also shootings at a movie theatre and in a mall in the U.S. this year? If you start protecting every single school in the U.S. with guards (never even mind the cost of that!) the crazies will simply pick other easy undefended targets, such as the aforementioned movie theatres and malls, as well as train and bus stations, public squares, campuses, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, museums, churches, etc. Basically any place where they are likely to find a sufficient number of people (i.e. targets). Are you going to place armed guards in each and every one of those places (at all times)? At what point does that become ridiculous to you?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Well, off the top of my head, weren't there also shootings at a movie theatre and in a mall in the U.S. this year? If you start protecting every single school in the U.S. with guards (never even mind the cost of that!) the crazies will simply pick other easy undefended targets, such as the aforementioned movie theatres and malls, as well as train and bus stations, public squares, campuses, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, museums, churches, etc. Basically any place where they are likely to find a sufficient number of people (i.e. targets). Are you going to place armed guards in each and every one of those places (at all times)? At what point does that become ridiculous to you?

In many other places armed guards are not required, because there is a likelihood of armed citizens being present. Most mass-shootings happen in so-called "gun free zones" where weapons are forbidden and the shooter knows that no one present will be armed (a notable exception being here in AZ when Jared Loughner shot up a political rally in a parking lot).

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?

Regarding semi-automatic rifles, you are backtracking your point. If apples are dangerous, why are we collectively agreeing to ban pears? Just because it's a step towards banning apples doesn't mean that it's a good step or useful in any way. Especially if we don't agree on banning apples in the first place.

Regarding pistols -

http://www.atf.gov/f...technology.html

“Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand… Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29).

Under an implementing regulation of the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined as:

… a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and ( b ) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

[MercenaryChef]

and I say 'you will get my pear when you pull it from my cold dead hand.'

[Howdyphillip]

The pendulum has swung too far in the "guns for everyone" direction and now needs correcting.

First off, gun ownership is actually down in this country, and secondly, the American population has the right to bear arms that is protected under our constitution.. There is no pendulum, This has been a steady law since the countries inception. If you do like the law, then there are means to change it built in to it.

[Fragile Bird]

Regarding semi-automatic rifles, you are backtracking your point. If apples are dangerous, why are we collectively agreeing to ban pears? Just because it's a step towards banning apples doesn't mean that it's a good step or useful in any way. Especially if we don't agree on banning apples in the first place.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying ban semi-automatic rifles, I'm talking about the discussion that has taken place here about whether or not forcing a shooter to slow down and re-load more often might be a good thing.

Regarding pistols -

http://www.atf.gov/f...technology.html

“Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand… Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29).

Under an implementing regulation of the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined as:

… a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and ( b ) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

So, the definition of handgun is the one I've seen. I can't tell from what you quoted, are pistols and handguns the same thing? Or, are all pistols handguns, but not all handguns pistols?

ETA: is it a question of barrel length?

[Jon Sprunk]

First off, gun ownership is actually down in this country, and secondly, the American population has the right to bear arms that is protected under our constitution.. There is no pendulum, This has been a steady law since the countries inception. If you do like the law, then there are means to change it built in to it.

I'm not arguing that the right exists. I'm arguing that the mindset of the country (well, of a particular subset) needs to be altered. Wayne LaPierre's statement, as illustrated by FLoW, is the symptom of a sickness of the mind, a mass delusion that many Americans suffer from.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So, the definition of handgun is the one I've seen. I can't tell from what you quoted, are pistols and handguns the same thing? Or, are all pistols handguns, but not all handguns pistols?

ETA: is it a question of barrel length?

As far as I know the terms are interchangeable.

[Robin Of House Hill]

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

I tried to send him a message, but I think his inbox is full.

[peterbound]

I tried to send him a message, but I think his inbox is full.

Hot Fuck. You actually want that guy/girl in this conversation?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying ban semi-automatic rifles, I'm talking about the discussion that has taken place here about whether or not forcing a shooter to slow down and re-load more often might be a good thing.

So, the definition of handgun is the one I've seen. I can't tell from what you quoted, are pistols and handguns the same thing? Or, are all pistols handguns, but not all handguns pistols?

ETA: is it a question of barrel length?

Pistol and handgun may be safely used interchangeably. But, this is one that will confuse you. As you see it, with the detachable wooden shoulder stock/holster, it is considered a rifle and because its barrel is shorter than legally permitted, it is illegal. However, if you don't own the shoulder stock, it is a pistol and perfectly legal. I used to own one in the original 7.65 mm Mauser, rather than the 9 mm Parabellum, as shown...but without the shoulder stock.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Hot Fuck. You actually want that guy/girl in this conversation?

That statement from someone whose avatar appears to be a guy giving head to a shark, is intriguing.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Hot Fuck. You actually want that guy/girl in this conversation?

Lorien is Robin Hill dude.

[peterbound]

Lorien is Robin Hill dude.

Says you.

I'm not convinced.

And my avatar, sir, is none other than the mighty Haggar body slamming a shark.

[Guest Raidne]

One, why am I still reading this? I guess it was worth it to read Tormund's summary of Feinstein's bill. Which is manifestly NOT legal. Not even a good faith attempt to be legal. It's operatively a seizure, requiring just compensation. Gun control fanatics, wanna pay reimbursement? Just compensation under the 5th Amendment? 'Cause your gonna under that state law clause.

Also, I have shot at least a few handguns, never only with one hand? Is that really the definition? What? So confused.

[Guest Raidne]

Secondly, the whole point, the whole REASON ownership of firearms is a RIGHT is so that fucktards can't ban whatever to make them feel safer with no link to reality. Is that really, on its face, a bad thing? That laws make sense when they ban things people own?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Says you.

I'm not convinced.

And my avatar, sir, is none other than the mighty Haggar body slamming a shark.

1. All you have to do is look at a profile to determine the board names anyone has used.

2. I know what you say it is and I know what it looks like.

But, enough of this unimportant stuff and time to focus on the all-important question of why there is a misspelling in the title of this thread.

[Fragile Bird]

<smirk>