The issue of gun control

[Oneye]

Well, as our House sits and and acts like toddlers throwing a temper tantrum playing politics, I just wonder how close we are getting to a ban on AR15s and high capacity magazines. I'm also wondering fellow outdoorsmans views here on assault style weapons and there availability. It seems we are getting closer and closer and im just wondering everyone's thoughts on the issue and what you do an do not support as far as gun legislation moving forward. Let's keep t clean and civil and on topic as well, hot button issues such as this can go sideways quickly.

 

[maxx]

I do not support a ban on so called Assault rifles. What makes this gun an assault rifle, pistol grip or the ability to accept a magazine. Is the Howa mountain rifle an assault rifle because it accepts a magazine?

I don't support a limit to magazine capacity. I don't support it because where does the limit stop. Can you not produce a tube fed 22 that except 12 bullets. Who's to stop that to 5 next time or 4 next time.

I am luke warm on extended background checks. I don't think it would affect me or most gun users that much but I also don't think it would have much more affect so what is the point other than giving people the warm fuzzy's that we the people are doing something.

I hear the gun show loop hole being closed. There is no loop hole this is grand standing and pasturing by our law makers. If they want to call it a private sale loop hole I am ok with that and if they want to close that and force people to have to go through a registered firearms dealer to sell a gun I could be ok with it but again I am luke warm. I don't see how that would have much affect either.

Other I don't want any other gun control. I am not a fan of the no fly list thing. How do you get off the list or on it? I also think it is posturing.

 

[MTGomer]

I support no gun control. None.
I certainly don't support stripping anyone that some worthless bureaucrat has a grudge against of their right to due process.

That said, those convicted of violent gun crimes should be strung up by their neck and hung until dead at dusk on the day of their conviction.
We don't need more laws, we need punishment for the ones we already have and to restore society's value in human life.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm fine with no limits on firearms as well.

But, what I will not listen to is all the bullshit blaming the .gov., liberals, and Obama for not stopping these mass shootings.

We simply cant have it both ways, if you want no limits on firearms, magazine capacity, background checks, etc. etc. fine. But LIVE with the consequences of that freedom. No Monday morning QBing, no whining, no bitching, no blaming anyone. Prosecute the shooters, arrange the funerals for the victims, and call it a day.

Prepare for the next one and enjoy your freedoms in the meantime.

 

[schmalts]

I support no gun control. None.
I certainly don't support stripping anyone that some worthless bureaucrat has a grudge against of their right to due process.

That said, those convicted of violent gun crimes should be strung up by their neck and hung until dead at dusk on the day of their conviction.
We don't need more laws, we need punishment for the ones we already have and to restore society's value in human life.

Yes to that. If Democrats really cared so much about human rights and wrongful death they would be screaming to add breathalyzers to all new cars manufactured. Assault weapons are such a sliver of all wrongful deaths and even smaller percent of gun type used in crimes. Crack down on criminals and enforce laws on the books. Not selling guns to someone on the no fly list is debatable, but has it's problems as well.

 

[sbhooper]

A lunatic is a lunatic. Many mass killings are done with knives, bombs, machetes etc. It is not about gun control, but about CONTROL. Democrats want the government to control everything. They do not want to address the real issues. The problem is that our permissive society provides no consequences for being an idiot. Tell people in Chicago, Detroit-and the list goes on-that banning AR-15s will make a difference. There are already so many guns out there, that it is an impossible task that only brain dead people think is the answer.

The problem with the gun ban crap, is that it is only a start. If they get one gun banned, the next in line will be another type. It is a Pandora's box scenario for law-abiding gun owners. I am surprised that those idiots don't go after the ammo, instead of the guns. A gun without ammo is a poor club.

 

[Oneye]

I also do not support gun control measures fatehr from what we now have, but simply hardening crimes for laws already on the books. I just feel the unprecidented attack on high capacity firarms is going to continue and may one day get somewhere. I also agree this is nothing but political postering by our current members of the House on both sides. Why democrats are throwing such a political fit and why republicans won't allow the bills to be voted on is beyond me. Rob Bishop has blocked the LWCF just the same as what the republicans are doing to these gun measures. They won't pass, so let them get voted on and let them fail. Blocking bills from being voted on just seems completely ridiculous and shows just how disfunctional and locked up our congress is.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm new to the hunting scene this being my 5th season, and prior to my start I was raised in a family that was on the lukewarm to guns/ anti gun side of things. After getting into hunting and purchasing some firearms I my thinking on the subject has definitely evolved.

I only own pump actions and bolt actions and don't have any personal use for an Ar platform as that really isn't my thing, but I think banning a gun because of how it looks (which seems to be what the assault weapon ban is about) rather than how dangerous it is seems misguided. I think a 12 gauge with buck and and open choke is just as much an assault weapon.

Having purchased a shotgun in Aurora, Colorado at gander mountain and literally watched the 10-15 customers in front of me do straw buys, women on the phone with another person asking them what kind of gun they want and what features it should have, I'm pretty convinced that the gun laws we have just aren't enforced.

I do think that the CDC should be allowed to study gun violence I don't think allowing scientific study is ever a bad thing. I also think that the ATF should be allowed to keep electronic records so that they can quickly and accurately help the police in gun related crimes.

Also I felt like when I did my hunter's saftey as an adult I learned a ton and I am really glad that I had to do that before I was allowed to hunt. I definitely wouldn't be opposed to everyone having to take some sort of class before they can purchase a gun. You could make it something that people that can once they turn 10 or whatever just like hunter's saftey and grandfather in everyone who was born 1990 and older or something. I think it would probably cut back on the number of accidental gun deaths a bit.

I think a more relevant question is that of handguns, as if you look at the stats most people killed by guns and most crimes are conducted with handguns. Not sure how to deal with those but they seem to be a more relevant issue. Also to be completely honest I still don't feel very comfortable around semiauto handguns, they just have a lot more going on and they are ridiculously inaccurate in the hand of a novice like me. I bought a 22lr pistol to practice and get the basics and I still can't hit anything, definitely made me rethink the idea of getting a concealed carry.

 

[Oneye]

A lunatic is a lunatic. Many mass killings are done with knives, bombs, machetes etc. It is not about gun control, but about CONTROL. Democrats want the government to control everything. They do not want to address the real issues. The problem is that our permissive society provides no consequences for being an idiot. Tell people in Chicago, Detroit-and the list goes on-that banning AR-15s will make a difference. There are already so many guns out there, that it is an impossible task that only brain dead people think is the answer.

The problem with the gun ban crap, is that it is only a start. If they get one gun banned, the next in line will be another type. It is a Pandora's box scenario for law-abiding gun owners. I am surprised that those idiots don't go after the ammo, instead of the guns. A gun without ammo is a poor club.

Lets not stir up any ideas on ammo here, its already hard enough to get!

 

[Straight Arrow]

After having spent thirty years with the US Army, including a couple of combat tours, I am in favor of limitations associated with ownership and use of assault type rifles such as the AR15. I do not support a ban on semi-auto assault rifles, but just as I am in favor of precluding persons from driving on public roadways, flying an aircraft, supervising children and other such activities requiring a sense of reason and responsibility, I favor strict limitations on those who have demonstrated poor and dangerous judgement in their rhetoric and actions because their heads are not screwed on straight. You may view ownership of assault rifles as a pure unrestricted right ... but I view that right as being accompanied by responsible strict limitations imposed to ensure responsible ownership and handling of such firearms. The monitoring and enforcement of such a process to assure responsible ownership is the challenge, but likely includes controls, legal process, and stiff penalties. If that translates into undesirable gun control, then so be it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Also think it's relevant to add that recently a UK MP was assassinated with a homemade/ antique gun (facts aren't clear yet), but I think this goes to the idea that laws won't stop criminals from doing hateful things. Also many of the perpetrators of mass killings in countries with strict gun laws just used bombs...

 

[smarandr]

I read an interesting blog post today by Scott Adams:

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.

Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.

Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.

If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.

So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”

 

[Gunner46]

One look at the FBI's own annual statistic's of gun related fatalities clearly shows that 'the gov't' is doing NOT A D@MN THING to curtail the true root of the problem. Every Call for More Control is nothing more than some Numb Nut politician showboating, in the face of their own incompetence, and demeaning the loved ones lost, due to THEM.

Fight Criminals, Terrorist...NOT Citizens !

 

[maxx]

I read an interesting blog post today by Scott Adams:

Do you have a link to this? Thanks.

 

[noharleyyet]

More exploding head zombie flics from the Hollywood hypocrites that pay 33k per plate 2 nights ago for Madame President...

 

[BuzzH]

One look at the FBI's own annual statistic's of gun related fatalities clearly shows that 'the gov't' is doing NOT A D@MN THING to curtail the true root of the problem. Every Call for More Control is nothing more than some Numb Nut politician showboating, in the face of their own incompetence, and demeaning the loved ones lost, due to THEM.

Fight Criminals, Terrorist...NOT Citizens !

Pretty tough for the FBI to fight a guy that has no criminal background, is a legal U.S. Citizen, and not a terrorist.

Quit blaming the FBI and "gov't" when a guy legally buys a firearm, as a U.S. Citizen, and shoots up a nightclub killing 49 people.

Live with the fact, and OWN the fact, that when you want little to no restrictions on firearms, these type of events are the price we have to pay. Nobody's fault, no way to stop it, and just the hard reality of living in a "free" society that wants virtually unfettered access to firearms.

Cost of doing business...

 

[JoseCuervo]

One look at the FBI's own annual statistic's of gun related fatalities clearly shows that 'the gov't' is doing NOT A D@MN THING to curtail the true root of the problem. Every Call for More Control is nothing more than some Numb Nut politician showboating, in the face of their own incompetence, and demeaning the loved ones lost, due to THEM.

!

Hell, you can't even get statistics as the GOP and the NRA have blocked any funding of research into gun related deaths.


And then you complain about inaction.....

 

[jzeck2]

I have absolutely no problem with some sensible gun control that is being talked about today. Every purchase of a firearm should have a background check. If you can't legally get on a plane you probably shouldn't be able to purchase a gun of any kind. If you beat your wife, same goes for you. If you have been convicted of a violent felony - no gun.

Now saying that we do need methods to correct mistakes and to allow people to demonstrate they have been rehabilitated and do not pose a danger to themselves or others. And I assume we can come up with some language to allow this in any future legislation.

I own over 30 firearms including 1 AR15, heavy barrel and 2, 20 round magazines. Everyone of them except a 22 rifle and a 20 gauge shotgun I received as gifts in my youth I have had a background check performed. If I couldn't purchase the AR today would my world end, No. If the govt. banned them and purchased it back I would probably sell it back to them (un-depreciated). Is it fun to shoot, yes, would I purchase another, No.

Just got a phone call from the NRA (by the way I'm a life member) and talk about lunatic fringe, that certainly qualified. Everything they said was at best the worst exaggeration in human history and at worst propaganda, lies, and fear mongering. I have been tempted for the last several years to turn back in my life membership but part of me still believes there may be room for some common sense and moderation.

The supreme court just acknowledged (by not hearing the appeal) that common sense gun control is constitutional. But unfortunately Mark Twain is probably correct common sense is indeed an uncommon virtue in today's world. You have to be on either fringe we are not allowed to be in the middle anymore.

 

[1_pointer]

If you can't legally get on a plane you probably shouldn't be able to purchase a gun of any kind.

How is one placed on the "no-fly" list? My very limited understanding of it has me against that being a criteria for the ability to purchase a gun until that process is greatly changed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Food for thought:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our