(December 4, 2015 at 5:26 pm)KUSA Wrote: I have never heard the terminology that you are using. If you are referring to full auto weapons then I'm not going to fuss about them as they are mostly banned already.

However, if you are talking about semi-auto weapons then I've got a problem with that.

This line you throw out as an appeaser saying that you don't want all guns banned is bull shit. What you would ban is everything other than a single shot. Fuck that.

He does not want to give an honest answer. I assume he is lumping in semi-auto guns into his vague "spray" weapon reference. Fully automatic weapons are already very difficult to acquire legally in the U.S. Even after purchasing the weapon (which would cost thousands), the permits and necessary paperwork could take upwards to a year.

Likely he means anything that even appears to be an assault rifle which are semi-automatic and legal to purchase. He's being intellectually dishonest by refusing to define a term that he willingly used.

If some gun control advocates had their way, I'd have to practice speed-loading my muzzleloader.

Quote:Fully automatic weapons are already very difficult to acquire legally in the U.S.

I don't know about you but I can move my finger pretty fast.  The difference between semi and full auto is minimal and the shooter probably wastes less ammo.

I've never really bought the notion I-need-a-gun-to-protect-myself-and-my-family.

If you're a safety conscious gun person, your guns are going to be unloaded and/or (hopefully) locked away, so they aren't going to do you the tiniest bit of good when someone kicks open your door and starts shooting.

For a firearm to have any value at all when it comes to protection, it needs to be available. If you're so nervous that you feel the need to carry your pistol around the house with you, you drastically increase the chance that you're going to hurt yourself or an innocent bystander, like your teen trying to sneak in after curfew, or your husband coming in quietly so as not to wake you.

Is the tiny likelihood of a home invasion worth the risk of keeping a loaded firearm within easy reach?

Boru

(December 4, 2015 at 8:18 am)Brian37 Wrote: Bans on ALL spray weapons and bans on big clips. 7 day waiting period for all other guns. Mandatory psychological evaluation. Bans on online gun sales. Close gunshow loophole. Traceable ammo and limits on amount of ammo. Liability laws for injuries or death resulting from use of the gun.  Mandatory stress training, meaning KNOWING how to use a gun under stress. Licence review like drivers licence. Mandatory viewing of ME exams of those who are victims of gun death. Limits on amounts of guns makeres can make per year.

Let's examine each of your suggestions one-by-one:

Ban 'spray' weapons and big clips: I'm okay with that, especially since they already are banned. That did not seem to deter the Islamic terrorists.

Mandatory pyschological evaluation: 1) Getting a medical prescription for pot is ridiculously easy. Don't you think finding a psyche to pass you would be anymore difficult & 2) to all outside appearances, Syed Farook was a fully functioning member of society. His problem was not mental illness, but rather a poisonous religious ideology.

Bad online gun sales: Sure. Why not? But I'm not sure if that would really how much of an effect that would have.

Close gun show loopholes: Already done, unless you have a specific 'loophole' in mind.

Mandatory stress training: Would you accept that every person that has served in the military has already had that? I don't think you're really interested in actual safety. You just want make the cost of legal gun ownership prohibitive, but have no effect on illegal users. How about this instead, mandatory age-appropriate gun safety and gun use training in all public schools. I'd bet that would prevent many many more accidental deaths.

Traceable ammo: You've never made your own ammo have you? It's not particularly difficult. Besides, current forensic techniques can usually pair slugs and shells with the guns from which they came.

Liability laws: They already exist and are quite stiff. That's why responsible gun owners carry liability insurance specific to the ownership and use of guns.

License review: Most states have that. But what is your real goal here. Public safety or merely increasing cost of legal gun ownership.

Mandatory viewing of ME exams of those who are victims of gun death: You mean like making women see ultrasounds of their baby before abortion? This doesn't make any sense anyway. Everyone sees the effects of gun violence on the news and internet. More images will only desensitize good people and wet the bloodlust of psychos.

Gun manufacturing quotas: Even if it weren't highly intrusive of free enterprise, the devil would still be in the details. Clever manufacturers will evade the limits by making minor modifications to the product line or selling gun 'kits', non-functioning parts that buyers assemble into functioning weapons.

Today's atrocity.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/7-year-o...pens-fire/

Quote:7-year-old girl killed at MI soccer practice after ‘paranoid’ man with concealed carry license opens fire

Quote:A 7-year-old girl died at soccer practice Thursday night and a family friend who had been experiencing paranoia is accused of shooting her in the head before taking his own life.

Quote:“Of course, this is a tragic situation and the thought that maybe if the right person had the right information at the right time could have prevented this, of course it’s very frustrating,” Sclabassi said. “Clearly this was an individual who needed help. Clearly this is an individual who should not have been able to purchase a handgun just this past September.”

Clearly, Gun Nut Nation does not agree with that last comment.

(December 4, 2015 at 6:32 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've never really bought the notion I-need-a-gun-to-protect-myself-and-my-family.

If you're a safety conscious gun person, your guns are going to be unloaded and/or (hopefully) locked away, so they aren't going to do you the tiniest bit of good when someone kicks open your door and starts shooting.

For a firearm to have any value at all when it comes to protection, it needs to be available.  If you're so nervous that you feel the need to carry your pistol around the house with you, you drastically increase the chance that you're going to hurt yourself or an innocent bystander, like your teen trying to sneak in after curfew, or your husband coming in quietly so as not to wake you.

Is the tiny likelihood of a home invasion worth the risk of keeping a loaded firearm within easy reach?

Boru

The Nuts will say "yes."

Which is why this kind of shit

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/...-self.html

Quote:Three-year-old stable after shooting self at South Side home

happens all the time.

(December 4, 2015 at 6:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:“Of course, this is a tragic situation and the thought that maybe if the right person had the right information at the right time could have prevented this, of course it’s very frustrating,” Sclabassi said. “Clearly this was an individual who needed help. Clearly this is an individual who should not have been able to purchase a handgun just this past September.”

Clearly, Gun Nut Nation does not agree with that last comment.

And your solution is....?

It takes several sessions to even attempt an accurate psychiatric diagnosis for someone that knows they need help and actively seeks it. Except in the most extreme cases, short-term psychological evaluation of reluctant and/or evasive patients is simply not reliable enough to justify any positive diagnosis. Even then, symptoms may manifest sporadically or suddenly in otherwise apparently sane people. Syed Farook was not insane; he was a meticulous and motivated terrorist.

Suppose you deny gun ownership because they are receiving treatment, either because they have sought counselling for depression or are taking medication. How many people would be discouraged from seeking treatment if they thought it would put them under state scrutiny? Especially people prone to paranoid delusions? We need to be aware of unintended consequences.

Just because everyone agrees on the existence of a problem does not mean there is a simple or obvious solution. Nor am I saying we should turn a blind eye to gun-related violence. We just need to be practical and not reach for ineffective solutions because they feel good.

Quote:Suppose you deny gun ownership because they are receiving treatment, either because they have sought counselling for depression or are taking medication. How many people would be discouraged from seeking treatment if they thought it would put them under state scrutiny? Especially people prone to paranoid delusions? We need to be aware of unintended consequences.

I really, really hope I'm missing your point. Are you seriously contending that denying gun ownership to people prone to paranoid delusions is a bad idea?

If emotionally disturbed or mentally unstable conditions are not reported to gun licensing agencies, then you're widening the set of people with guns who should not have guns. If these people and conditions are not included in some sort of database, what is to prevent the bloke who tells his counselor, 'I have dreams about shooting school children in the face' from buying a weapon and fulfilling his fantasies?

Boru

Quote:And your solution is....?

I am for banning guns. 

And don't give me any of this 2d amendment shit because you are not in the militia.