I don't think anyone here has argued that guns should be outlawed. Did the father in that case use an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine? I don't know, but I guarantee he could have accomplished the same with a pump action shotgun, handgun, semi-auto hunting rifle with a 10 round magazine, etc.
At least 20 people killed in shooting at Texas church
- Thread starter knight1fox3
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
No, but you are arguing that stronger restrictions should be put on the purchasing of a gun, and that has more of an effect on on the "good guy" than anyone else. Not just because it will limit what they can/cannot purchase but also WILL impact the hoops that will need to be jumped through.
I live in a state where it is extremely difficult to obtain a hand gun, yet the slightest variation form the letter of the law, my weapon gets seized and I'm looking at real jail time. Making it any more difficult than it already is in this state is ridiculous.
The fact remains that ANY change to a law will only impact the law abiding citizens. To all the rest it's just noise.
I disagree. It takes a lot of effort in addition to special connections to buy an illegal handgun or other weapon. You forget I lived in a place that had very strong gun control laws, and as a result gun crimes were extremely uncommon. Just about the only ones that did occur were organized crime - chinese gang killings of other chinese gang members. Everyday crazies, family disputes, drunken brawls would escalate only to the level of the weapons available (fists, bottles, machetes, and .22 rifles int he rare instances where the person had access to one). Now, you make semi-auto high capacity weapons available, suddenly you have a new option for anyone feeling aggrieved. So I completely disagree with you because I have lived it. You're just talking the NRA party line.
again, with NJ's law as they are, crime in inner cities like Paterson, Newark and Trenton, albeit are related to gangs, run rampant. And these are gun related crimes. Chicago- same. bad guys will get the guns because they don't care about the laws. Everyone else has to hope that no one will shoot within a "gun free zone."
I still do not understand your point. Are you just going off on the old NRA straw man that people are coming to take all yer guns? Because I am pretty sure that we (=US society in general) are mostly just talking about ways to limit the ability to purchase high capacity assault style weapons.
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
And meanwhile here I am, getting stainless steel bike pedals for my birthday.
Dexman PE PMP
Internationally PMP'n his PE-ness
Statistically speaking, that father who saved his daughter from getting kidnapped was more likely to have been shot by her...
I guess you could spin my words to say that I am after all yer guns, but my intent is to reduce the shear volume of weapons. Yes, the vast majority of those weapons that would be obtained would be legally purchased ones.
But remember, legally purchased weapons are used for crimes too. All 3 of the Australia examples KF posted were done with legal guns. Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Aurora Theater. All legally purchased guns.
At the end of the day, these shootings all had something in common: the availability of a gun.
I guess you could spin my words to say that I am after all yer guns, but my intent is to reduce the shear volume of weapons. Yes, the vast majority of those weapons that would be obtained would be legally purchased ones.
But remember, legally purchased weapons are used for crimes too. All 3 of the Australia examples KF posted were done with legal guns. Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Aurora Theater. All legally purchased guns.
At the end of the day, these shootings all had something in common: the availability of a gun.
While that may be so, I'm not sure its apples to apples. You have 100+ years of heavy manufacturing and sales of firearms in the US, likely more than any other country by a long shot. If you stopped sales and manufacturing today, it would likely take that long to eradicate them, if ever, assuming you don't get to a point where people are printing them at home (which already is happening, and is just going to get easier). I can guarantee that if I wanted to, I could have an "illegal" firearm in my hands, unregistered to me, by 5PM this evening by doing nothing more than browsing a few local message boards and making a few phone calls, without even dealing with a shady person.
Didn't say we would "legalize all guns", either. But do you think that any amount of legislation is going to get rid of drug use or child **** beyond where it is today? One can kill you, one can land you life in jail, yet the users of both still carry the risks due to the personal or financial gain associated with both. To that point (excluding soft drugs, e.g. marijuana for the sake of the argument), I think if you legalized "hard" drugs and child ****ography, your demographics of users would stay consistent within a few percentage points.
That said, I think eradication of drugs would probably be the most easily achievable of the three, since they are a single-use item, which even with the advancement of technology, would not be easily reproducible in the home.
Road Guy
Well-known member
I spent the weekend in a crazy rural area in a bank turned bed and breakfast / hostel. No locks on any of the doors and everyone was armed to the teeth with handguns, "assault rifles" and shotguns. There were no issues with anyone getting shot or anyone getting anything stolen?
So we're back to my original argument (that was ignored): If you're not talking about legalizing all types of weapons, then clearly you support drawing the line somewhere. Which is my whole point - what makes you think that we're at the "ideal" point where assault-style weapons and high capacity magazines are OK? When I was a kid, nobody was clamoring to be allowed to have AR-15s. They were available but they were a novelty, a military-type weapon that was not considered necessary. A shotgun or handgun was (and still is) an infinitely better suited personal defense weapon, and no hunter or homeowner needs the military firepower capability of an AR-15 with a large capacity magazine. They weren't illegal, but they also weren't in every gun store and certainly weren't the NRA "must have" toy that they are now. Times have changed, largely due to the firearms industry pushing these weapons as consumer products and the consumers eagerly taking the bait. I'll admit that I think they are cool and I'd like to have one. I also think miniguns are cool and I'd love to play around with one, but I don't think I should be able to legally own one. Same thing with flamethrowers, tanks, grenades. I also understand as well as anyone how these weapons work and I acknowledge that there are plenty of semi-auto rifles that have the same potential rate of fire, and that's why I don't necessarily support a band on "assault weapons" but I definitely support previously proposed (and implemented) bans on magazines larger than 10 rounds. I also fully support any move to increase the vetting requirements for gun purchases and to cut off the gun show loopholes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dexman PE PMP
Internationally PMP'n his PE-ness
The challenge with magazine limits is that it indirectly bans specific guns. For example, Colorado enacted a 15-round limit which means almost all 9mm handguns aren't legal unless you buy the aftermarket smaller magazine (very hard to find depending on make/model of gun). From the factory most 9mm and smaller guns have magazines that hold 15 (or more) but Colorado includes the additional round in the chamber which means the factory mags are illegal. The law grandfathered in previously purchased magazines, but they could not be sold within the state again. Because of this, I cannot sell my Beretta (has 17-round mags) without going to another state.
Most gun manufacturers actually completely stopped selling smaller-caliber handguns in CO because it was too much of a burden to break-up their factory setups.
So instead of buying a 9mm with 15 rounds, buyers will get a .40 or .45 cal because they only hold 12 rounds (or less). Bigger gun, less rounds.
A full-size .22 handgun has a magazine with 20 rounds because the rounds are so small.
For hunting purposes, shotguns are prohibited from carrying more than 3. So if I want to take my shotgun out, it needs a plug because it's actually designed to hold 6 (grandpa bought it back in the 50's).
Hunting rifles rarely hold more than 5 or 6 rounds.
Most gun manufacturers actually completely stopped selling smaller-caliber handguns in CO because it was too much of a burden to break-up their factory setups.
So instead of buying a 9mm with 15 rounds, buyers will get a .40 or .45 cal because they only hold 12 rounds (or less). Bigger gun, less rounds.
A full-size .22 handgun has a magazine with 20 rounds because the rounds are so small.
For hunting purposes, shotguns are prohibited from carrying more than 3. So if I want to take my shotgun out, it needs a plug because it's actually designed to hold 6 (grandpa bought it back in the 50's).
Hunting rifles rarely hold more than 5 or 6 rounds.
Road Guy
Well-known member
There already are "lines"
In 94 the logic on semi automatic rifles was that the police are being gunned down a- claim which was never supported in crime statistics and currently they are responsible for an incredibly small number of crimes (not gonna look it up but i guess 1% or so)
They should make it a crime to sell a gun for less than $500. Make it so the 1% can only afford them... talk to any cop and most crimes are committed with cheap guns not "semi automatic rifles"
I don't own one but will probably grab one just to irritate the anti constitution / huff post crowd.
In 94 the logic on semi automatic rifles was that the police are being gunned down a- claim which was never supported in crime statistics and currently they are responsible for an incredibly small number of crimes (not gonna look it up but i guess 1% or so)
They should make it a crime to sell a gun for less than $500. Make it so the 1% can only afford them... talk to any cop and most crimes are committed with cheap guns not "semi automatic rifles"
I don't own one but will probably grab one just to irritate the anti constitution / huff post crowd.
csb
Well-known member
^ My father-in-law buys a gun every time there's a big mass shooting because the NRA tells him guns are going to be outlawed.
Then he realized he had too many guns, so after the last few, he's been buying my son guns.
The NRA is the best marketing tool the gun industry has and they operate totally on fear.
Then he realized he had too many guns, so after the last few, he's been buying my son guns.
The NRA is the best marketing tool the gun industry has and they operate totally on fear.
I did not ignore it, just forgot about it. that said, where is my line? My line is not drawn with the weapons but with the current vetting, specifically those conducting it. How many people have slipped through the cracks because someone got laxed and was asleep at their desk? Plenty. Often it's as simple as the parents. There are signs and people miss them. IMO, just another attempt to shift the blame onto someone else, and in this case the govt is forced to make stricter rules to envelop all issues.
And as RG posted above, it's not "military-style Assault rifles" which is causing most of the problems, but instead the everyday handguns. how many times you hear about hand grenades, flamethrowers, tanks, etc? You don't. But in your attempt to prove your point, just like the media used sensationalism to do so. See it's juicier to report if its a AR-15 because of it's appearance.
We started this discussion about the Texas church shooting. That event, as well as all the other high--profile mass shootings since Columbine, were all carried out with military-style assault weapons. Those weapons (and venues) were apparently chosen by the perpetrators as a means to maximize casualties. They were, for the vast majority , carried out using legally purchased assault weapons (I can't think of any exceptions). The killers did not go to the black market to buy belt-fed machine guns, grenades or flame throwers, despite the fact that those would have undoubtedly caused even greater casualties. So in other words, gun control laws did have an effect - it prevented them from seeking machine guns, even though as you say a determined criminal can get their hands on them. Bottom line, these types of mass shootings were vastly less common in the days prior to the commercial popularization of assault weapons. Laws DO have an effect, otherwise why don't we just give up on drugs?
That said, I don't disagree with any other attempts to regulate the sale of "ordinary' weapons. Sure, increase the price to where they aren't affordable to the criminal class. Restrict the location of gun shops. I'd even say restrict the ownership of guns to people who pass a class and even then only for specific purposes - a hunter's shooting license for a rifle or shotgun, a home defense license for a handgun or shotgun, and membership in the State National Guard to be able to utilize the issued assault weapon (aka "a well regulated militia".)
That said, I don't disagree with any other attempts to regulate the sale of "ordinary' weapons. Sure, increase the price to where they aren't affordable to the criminal class. Restrict the location of gun shops. I'd even say restrict the ownership of guns to people who pass a class and even then only for specific purposes - a hunter's shooting license for a rifle or shotgun, a home defense license for a handgun or shotgun, and membership in the State National Guard to be able to utilize the issued assault weapon (aka "a well regulated militia".)
