Gun Control thread (merged many)

[August]

Originally Posted by Vendor

The possibilities is increasing even in percentage according to surveys.

No it's not. The numbers of gun related homicides have been falling in this country for a couple of decades now.

[Onkel Neal]

Maybe it's time to add to the debate.

A stunning number lands in the middle of the gun debate

As political Washington mulls what -- if anything -- to do legislatively to address the latest in a long line of mass murders committed with guns, a new Fox News poll has a number in it that is an absolute stunner.

That number is 67%, which reflects respondents who told pollsters that they support a ban on assault weapons. For you non-math majors out there, that's two-thirds of the American public!

This could be the end of legal military style rifles and high capacity magazines. Although, simply banning new sales won't do much without confiscating current owners. I'm leaning toward applying the same conditions for assault weapons as fully auto weapons, just require an expensive license that will put legal ownership out of reach for the average crazies.

Also, raise the age for all firearms to 30.

Last, stop releasing criminals who used weapons in crimes. Make it a life sentence.




Fox News Poll, August 14

[August]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Maybe it's time to add to the debate.

A stunning number lands in the middle of the gun debate



This could be the end of legal military style rifles and high capacity magazines. Although, simply banning new sales won't do much without confiscating current owners. I'm leaning toward applying the same conditions for assault weapons as fully auto weapons, just require an expensive license that will put legal ownership out of reach for the average crazies.

Also, raise the age for all firearms to 30.

Last, stop releasing criminals who used weapons in crimes. Make it a life sentence.




Fox News Poll, August 14

One poll does not justify taking away the rights of millions of Americans but even if it were to pass I'd bet noncompliance would be rampant. There are upwards of 20 million AR-15's alone in civilian hands. The government would play hell trying to take them.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Also, raise the age for all firearms to 30.

Last, stop releasing criminals who used weapons in crimes. Make it a life sentence.

I agree on the thirty year age limit; testosterone and a sense of consequences has generally caught up with intelligence by then. Life sentence is too lite and costly imho. The use of deadly force/deprivation of life by firearm should invoke the death penalty. Escalation-of-force training leaves no room: use of the gun is unmitigated deadly force... with intent and ability both legal elements of the crime. Also with the present state of affairs, an absolutely unrelenting deterrent factor must be considered-more a Federal than dithering state jurisdiction-to insure uniformity of enforcement. Many states have the automatic death penalty for killing cops; a cop is "an extension of the community they serve' or so it was taught at my P.O.S.T. academy. So, just extend the deterrent protection to the 'sovereign citizen' as well. Use a gun to wound or cause death: and U face the death penalty!

[Buddahaid]

Yes, but what of the homeowner who is deemed to have crossed that line in home defense. The death penalty?

[Onkel Neal]

Key words: home defense

[Buddahaid]

Yes, but there is that line where the home invader is considered to be under control and any further shots become a crime of the homeowner such as continuing to shoot if they are attempting to flee.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Although, simply banning new sales won't do much without confiscating current owners.

No, it won't. It would take many many many years for those type of weapons to be out of circulation. The number would lessen slowly as police would respond to various calls, domestic etc. and confiscate those types of weapons if found.

[em2nought]

As soon as semi-auto rifles are gone they'll make the point that handguns are used to kill far more people than rifles to begin with so those gotta go. Hell, blunt instruments(fists, bats, golf clubs) kill more people per year than rifles. Hippos kill more people than rifles. End game for them is to take away the second amendment and disarm law abiding conservatives, just like it's always been.

[Catfish]

^ Hippo-crite!

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Yes, but there is that line where the home invader is considered to be under control and any further shots become a crime of the homeowner such as continuing to shoot if they are attempting to flee.

That's true, and it depends on your individual view on what level of violence one can deal out to a home invader. If I'm on a jury, the outcome would be different that if you were on instead, I'm sure. As far as I care, if the situation is a true home invasion by an individual intent on burglary, then all bets are off.

Originally Posted by Dowly

No, it won't. It would take many many many years for those type of weapons to be out of circulation. The number would lessen slowly as police would respond to various calls, domestic etc. and confiscate those types of weapons if found.

Yeah, so if we were to enact laws that forbid ownership of an AR-14, we could not expect to see true change for a couple generations. I'm not sure that is worth it, especially when there are millions of AR-15 owners like me and August who have never and will never use their weapon in a crime. Probably 99% of all assault weapon owners fit in this category, so is it fair, does it make sense to pounish them, for the insane actions of a tiny few?

Originally Posted by em2nought

As soon as semi-auto rifles are gone they'll make the point that handguns are used to kill far more people than rifles to begin with so those gotta go.

Yep, I'm sure of that.

[Catfish]

Maybe OT, but i always wondered how this is handled in the US - and it may well be that it is different in different states:

Someone has a house and property, to get to the door to ring or whatever you, a complete stranger, have to cross the lawn, walk an entrance way or whatever is in front of the house.

Maybe you are the new postman, or from Hermes, DHL or whatever, maybe not easily to identify though.
Or you are a new neighbour, and want to introduce yourself.
Or your car broke down, and you want to ask for a telephone call.
Or some salesman.

You clearly cannot shout or ring from the outer perimeter of the property.
So, what is the owner of said property allowed or supposed to do when a stranger enters it?


California: "Come in man and smoke a joint!" ?
Texas: Boom! ?

[u crank]

People, for various reasons knock on doors or ring doorbells all the time. The homeowner has a choice as to whether to answer or not or to determine who is on his property. On the other hand if an individual enters a home without permission...well that is a completly different story. I don't own a gun but if someone enters my home without my permission I am under no obligation to treat him as a guest.

[Onkel Neal]

Nice false characterization, lol. No, we just say hi, can I help you? Want to come in for glass of tea?

If it's at night and they're carrying my tv, then headshot

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Nice false characterization, lol. No, we just say hi, can I help you? Want to come in for glass of tea?

If it's at night and they're carrying my tv, then headshot

Actually, I just detain the idiot carrying my tv with my laser equipped .9mm BERRETTA DAO and proceed to direct what other objects he'll remove so I can fill out a burglary insurance form and upgrade... saves a bullet and I don't have to dig a big hole in the back yard