Guns Master Thread

[whYME]

Still waiting for one common sense approach from any of you.

Generally when people say "common sense" in regards to gun control they really mean "emotional, feel-good without a factual, data-based basis."

So what is the solution to keep hand guns out of the criminals hands? Anything I say will be "it doesn't work" so lets here your solution.

Well for a start we could begin by focusing on the criminals, not the guns. The goal of any legislation needs to be preventing criminals from obtaining and using guns, not blanket rules that primarily impact law-abiding gun owners and have minimal-to-none impact on criminals.

How about this as a starting point:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

[as2]

If your focus is the criminals, then harsher sentences/punishment would probably be a start. While I'm in no way suggesting this, imagine if you got the needle for possessing of a deadly weapon? While that is too drastic, there has got to be a point where many criminals will no longer find it worth the risk. Not to mention it would impact the black market.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

How about this as a starting point:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

That is were we get into what the numbers mean. Each side has there own numbers to prove their point. Here is what I know for a fact. I do not own any HCM's or full auto weapons. The reason is they serve no useful purpose. If you ban them it might help and it might not. The thing is there is no downside so why not try?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

If your focus is the criminals, then harsher sentences/punishment would probably be a start. While I'm in no way suggesting this, imagine if you got the needle for possessing of a deadly weapon? While that is too drastic, there has got to be a point where many criminals will no longer find it worth the risk. Not to mention it would impact the black market.

Maybe I am missing something. Is anyone against stricter laws for gun crimes?

[aygart]

The thing is there is no downside so why not try?

The downside is that you curtailed a constitutional right. If there is a compelling reason then it should be done if there isn't then it shouldn't based only on a why not. I do not have the understanding of the subject to make such a determination. Neither do most of those blabing about what to do.

[ShlockDoc]

Maybe I am missing something. Is anyone against stricter laws for gun crimes?

It's not about being for or against.  It's about where the resources needed to pass legislation and policy get directed toward.   Wasting time, political capital, etc. on high capacity magazines misses the opportunity to do something that would actually address the largest slices of the gun death pie chart.

[as2]

That is were we get into what the numbers mean. Each side has there own numbers to prove their point. Here is what I know for a fact. I do not own any HCM's or full auto weapons. The reason is they serve no useful purpose. If you ban them it might help and it might not. The thing is there is no downside so why not try?

Clearly there are some who don't agree. Why were HCMs made? Why would a unnecessary item become a common stocked item? While the uses may not be practical in all cases, or maybe not at all to you, I don't think it can be said for certain that they are useless. Personally, I have/will never own/ed a HCM unless my circumstances drastically change. Banning things simply because it might help, but it might not, is not practical, because one day, those bans will start encroaching on your personal stash, or mine, or whoever. Nothing should be banned unless there is a real solid reason.

[as2]

Maybe I am missing something. Is anyone against stricter laws for gun crimes?

Not at all. But throw gun control out the window, when talking about criminals, because it will most like only minimally effect what criminals can get ahold of. The only thing, if any, that they are scared of, is the punishment. Make it something they will fear.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The downside is that you curtailed a constitutional right.

There is no constitutional rights to HCM and full auto weapons.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

How about a national database for gun owners and sales?

[churnbabychurn]

How about a national database for gun owners and sales?

How does that save lives?

[Aaaron]

There is no constitutional rights to HCM and full auto weapons.

That's arguable.  The Miller case back from the 30s states that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't protected under 2a because there wouldn't be a purpose for it in a militia.  Implying that weapons that have a purpose in a militia would be protected. 

[ChaimMoskowitz]

How does that save lives?

Someone buying 30 rifles and 12 bump stocks in a short period of time would have been on their radar.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Implying that weapons that have a purpose in a militia would be protected.

So you are arguing that ANY weapon a militia would use is protected?

[Aaaron]

So you are arguing that ANY weapon a militia would use is protected?

Yes.  And to take away the right to that weapon the courts would have to apply strict scrutiny. 

[Something Fishy]

Putting aside the debate for a moment... Is anyone able to ID this rifle and ammo for me?

[Aaaron]

Looks a little larger than a .308.  Prob 300 Win Mag or 338 Lapua.  Rifle looks like any other bolt action, pretty hard to tell from that vid. 

Edit: On second glance, very possibly a 308.

[jj1000]

https://grabagun.com/dpms-panther-oracle-223-16-30rd.html

[jj1000]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/25/news/companies/remington-bankruptcy/index.html

So, do gun makers vote Democrat?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

So, do gun makers vote Democrat?

Wrong thread.