Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

:help:

This thread has pretty much jumped the shark.


http://youtu.be/MpraJYnbVtE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

I could be wrong, and I hate to put words in someone else's mouth, but since bicker hasn't answered I will, and he/she can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they intended simultaneous possession to mean "carrying around on their person at any given moment" as opposed to "all of the guns one owns".

---

I wish you would do it more, it makes more sense when you do.

With regard to the mass shootings, take Sandy Hook. The guy shot his mother 3 or 4 times in the head while she was sleeping. He was packing the car to go shoot 20 little school kids. Do you think such a law would have been been effective and caused him to leave extra guns at home?

For the day to day shootings, how would this type of rule affect things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yossarian

:help:

This thread has pretty much jumped the shark.


http://youtu.be/MpraJYnbVtE

---

Thanks for the laugh, Yossarian.....good way to start the day. Rob

Quote:

---

With regard to the mass shootings, take Sandy Hook. The guy shot his mother 3 or 4 times in the head while she was sleeping. He was packing the car to go shoot 20 little school kids. Do you think such a law would have been been effective and caused him to leave extra guns at home?

For the day to day shootings, how would this type of rule affect things?

---

I doubt those are the day to day shootings. The day to day shootings are probably criminal related or else "heat of an argument" type things. Really it takes a highly unusual person to plan a premeditated murder (and even more premeditated murder on people you don't even know, not even a revenge thing), it's rare and unusual enough, they maybe could come up with a pretty good profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yossarian

I wish you would do it more, it makes more sense when you do.

With regard to the mass shootings, take Sandy Hook. The guy shot his mother 3 or 4 times in the head while she was sleeping. He was packing the car to go shoot 20 little school kids. Do you think such a law would have been been effective and caused him to leave extra guns at home?

For the day to day shootings, how would this type of rule affect things?

---

If you extend this logic, any law that someone would be willing to break is ineffective. Why have laws specific to things like "armed robbery" or "assault with a deadly weapon" when it does not appear to stop people from using weapons comitting these crimes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

If you extend this logic, any law that someone would be willing to break is ineffective. Why have laws specific to things like "armed robbery" or "assault with a deadly weapon" when it does not appear to stop people from using weapons comitting these crimes?

---

Presumably people who break those laws think that the reward > (risk * penalty). They probably think that they won't get caught or if they do, hey, do your 5 years and get out. So either we need to increase the risk or the penalty.

In the mass shootings I have heard of I don't know any of them that had a real plan to escape death or capture. What is the incremental penalty that you are going to impose on top of suicide or 27 murder convictions that would have made a difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bicker

gun control opponents admit that semi-automatics cause damage faster than regular firearms. Earlier in this thread, a gun owner made it clear that semi-automatics save about a second per shot. .

---

That is NOT what was said. What was said is that a "regular" handgun - say a semi-automatic pistol and even a 6 shot standard revolver - can be fired exactly the same way as a semi-automatic rifle (these are semi-automatic not full autos we are talking about). You can shoot a handgun just as fast as you can shoot an AR-15 rifle - which is just as fast as you can pull the trigger. Reloading the handgun from multiple pre-loaded magazines (which hold approx. 8 - 10 rounds/magazine) or speed loaders. It takes less then a sec to discard one magazine (or speed loader) and put a new one in and continue firering. Thus enabling you to shoot hundreds of rounds in a "regular" handgun just as fast as with a semi-automatic assault-style rifle with a high capacity magazine like an AR-15 (AR-15's in Calif can only have 10 round magazines). And lets not forget that even a regular hunting rifle or pump action shotgun can be used to shot multiple rounds in seconds. They are just not as easily reloadable.

a "regular" handgun and low capacity magazines and a "regular" handgun I own with a 13 round magazine:

http://www.simplelivingforum.net/att...8&d=1357934320http://www.simplelivingforum.net/att...9&d=1357934613

Spartana - for reference, when I competed in PPC/IPSC competitions at the national level, I was still using a revolver when most others had switched to semi-auto pistols, and I was still *almost* competitive. I finally switched over because the courses of fire for matches were increasingly being designed to eliminate revolver competitors, and that extra 5% matters in competition.

I now prefer semi-auto pistols for self-defense use because I find they are far more reliable and easier to maintain. Probably some of the same reasons military and police have switched to them over the years. I still use revolvers for hunting, or fun, or training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Several additional thoughts on ammunition for you, Spartana:

- I used to work quite a bit with battered/abused people who were attempting to avoid the attentions of their pursuing ex-partner. These folks responded quite well to training in use of force, but I found that waiting periods for purchasing firearms definitely impeded their ability to defend themselves. They didn't need a tool in 3 days, or 2 weeks, or after the next scheduled certification class. They needed it, well, now. I suspect ammunition waiting periods would serve mostly to inconvenience law-abiding citizens, and have little measureable effect on crime. I frankly suspect inconveniencing is really the goal of some, to slowly-but-surely make firearms ownership and practice such a pain in the patoot that the firearms culture is stamped out. Judging from the demonization of gun owners that I constantly see, this is really about culture, not crime.

- I currently buy almost all of my ammunition mail-order, for several reasons. I live in a remote spot, and it requires at least 12-14 hours of my time, and about $50 in expense, to travel to the nearest store that sells ammunition. Mail-order prices by the case are lower than 1-box-at-a-time retail pricing, and it is far easier to procure ammunition in some of the obscure calibers I use, which WalMart typically doesn't carry. There is a de-facto waiting period in simply having to order the stuff, and waiting a week or two for UPS to remember to deliver something.

---

I agree that the waiting period for ammo is probably useless as most people who own firearms probably already have some. But I do think a waiting period to purchase any kind of firearm is a good thing to have in place. Not only does it give time to do things like criminal and mental health background checks, any training and safety course that may be required, etc... but it allows for a cooling off period if someone is angry. And while I agree there are people who may need them for protection asap - the abused person being stalked - it's hard to tell if that person is the stalkee or stalker. "Am I the abused woman who's hubby is trying to kill me for leaving him and I need to protect myself and my kids, or the angry wife who just discovered the home address of the new mistress and want to visit her with my shiney new gun"? Hard to tell, so having a couple of weeks cool down period is a good thing imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Well, there's always a discussion here about the effects of advertising, or its cohort, propaganda. I think our Attorney General laid out the strategy to be used against guns, and their owners, pretty well back in 1995.
]

---

Don't we just call him "The Walkin' man" :-)!