The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)

[Cycle]

The NRA's version of the average gun owner.

The Brady Campaign's version of the average gun owner.

[Lustful Bride]

So the NRA's argument that California's "extremely strict" gun law failed to prohibit the San Bernardino actually proves the opposite to be true.

The AR-15 style weapons used by the shooters were not covered by that law because those weapns were designed to use a loophole based on how the ammo is loaded.  Obviously, if that loophole was closed--i.e., if the law was stricter--then those guns could have been blocked.

Conclusion: the NRA just proved that California's gun law should be more restrictive.

My conclusion is that the gun laws should be written by people who know and understand guns to make something better.

Or try and negotiate with the people and not the big, money hungry corporations that don't give a shit about people and only want more money. 
Try and see what the people feel would be good compromises.

Example
1: No ARs with semi or full auto.

2: No High Cap mags or mags beyond 10 rounds. No armor piercing ammo.

3: IF you're gonna have a "no gun zone" Have it with more security since those areas tend to be targeted more.

4:If youre gonna be a gun owner you lose the right if you commit a felony or end up on the FBI watchlist and your weapon will be confiscated till you can be proven to not be a threat. If you are found innocent it will all be given back to you.

5: No hollow Point rounds for handguns.

This is all stuff id personally be okay with giving up. Hell id even go with "No semi autos for handguns" but you know im just the person that politicians and business men hate the most, someone who actually wants compromise and not toddler level tantrums.

[Cycle]

All that sounds really reasonable to me.  If only Congress would listen.

[Darwishi]

Thing is, it doesn't sound reasonable to me.  Which is most of the problem.  Everyone has a different opinion of what "reasonable" gun laws would be.

[Kythia]

Thing is, it doesn't sound reasonable to me.  Which is most of the problem.  Everyone has a different opinion of what "reasonable" gun laws would be.

None of those sound reasonable? Or are there specific ones you object to and others that sound ok?

[Tairis]

Just as an example from my end?

Example
1: No ARs with semi or full auto.

1) What is an 'assault rifle'? What are you calling an assault rifle?
2) Fully automatic weapons have never been made illegal, they're just expensive, and there has literally never in all of US history, been one of those legally owned guns used in a crime. So what's the logic of banning them?

2: No High Cap mags or mags beyond 10 rounds. No armor piercing ammo.

Armor piercing ammo is also expensive and of limited legality. It's also never been used in a mass shooting that I'm aware of. In general though its a moot point because its something thats already restricted.

Hi capacity magazines have nothing to do with mass shootings. There are a list of the many many spree killers and most of them? Just used regular guns with regular capacity magazines because reloading is honestly a very simple process. In some cases, like the Colorado shooting that made everyone go crazy because he had a 100 round magazine, that magazine jammed with 1/3 of his rounds unfired. If he'd been using standard magazines he likely could have kept shooting.

3: IF you're gonna have a "no gun zone" Have it with more security since those areas tend to be targeted more.

This would work, but the problem is where do you get the money? Real gun free zones like federal buildings etc? You're talking about limited access buildings with armed security and metal detectors. So basically every building you're going to make a gun free zone is going to cost you hundreds of thousands of initial cost and another 100 grand a year to employ security.

4:If youre gonna be a gun owner you lose the right if you commit a felony or end up on the FBI watchlist and your weapon will be confiscated till you can be proven to not be a threat. If you are found innocent it will all be given back to you.

Which... is already exactly how the law works when it comes to felonies.

5: No hollow Point rounds for handguns.

This is all stuff id personally be okay with giving up. Hell id even go with "No semi autos for handguns" but you know im just the person that politicians and business men hate the most, someone who actually wants compromise and not toddler level tantrums.

No hollow points? Once again I have to ask: why? What is the actual, logical reasoning behind banning hollow point rounds other than 'housewives hear about them on dateline and they sound scary'?

You don't want cops and civilians using full metal jacket rounds. See the view below for an example, but there's a very good reason all cops use hollow points. It does more damage to your target, but more importantly it stops you from killing bystandards when your full metal jacket round over penetrates and hits someone or something behind what you're shooting. Unlike Hollywood even FMJ pistol rounds are fully capable of punching through a human body and leaving with enough force to kill someone on the other side.

https://youtu.be/N8hbkXPdlks?t=205

All in all its always the same story. People want to ban things because banning things feels like 'doing something'. Except banning things is pointless when you cannot enact a blanket ban. Telling a crazy person they can't have 11 round magazines is not going to stop a spree killer. The only way to stop a spree killer is to focus on never letting them get a gun in the first place.

[Oniya]

The only way to stop a spree killer is to focus on never letting them get a gun in the first place.

How?

[Cycle]

How?

By banning all handguns countrywide?  ;D

[Oniya]

I was actually hoping for a serious answer.  How do we keep the guns out of the hands of spree killers?  Every method of screening currently in place doesn't seem to be doing it.  Any suggestions for improving/focusing those screening methods gets nipped in the bud by some group or other.  I'm not a gun owner, but I don't think banning is necessary either.  I believe in the concept of safe and sane gun ownership, and many of the gun-owners I've spoken to here on E seem to fall into that category.

[Cycle]

I was actually hoping for a serious answer.  How do we keep the guns out of the hands of spree killers?  Every method of screening currently in place doesn't seem to be doing it.  Any suggestions for improving/focusing those screening methods gets nipped in the bud by some group or other.  I'm not a gun owner, but I don't think banning is necessary either.  I believe in the concept of safe and sane gun ownership, and many of the gun-owners I've spoken to here on E seem to fall into that category.

Yeah, sorry, but that was a softball.  I had to hit it.  ;D

And I agree.  It'd be nice to hear folks propose solutions like Lustful Bride did, instead of just saying why X or Y is unacceptable.

[Lustful Bride]

*shrugs* I am unsure of what to say now. :/......im just gonna sit in the corner. I'm not ready to play with the big kids in this game yet. @3@

[Cycle]

Hey, don't feel bad.  I think your ideas have merit.  And while Tairis makes some interesting points, they aren't indisputable.

For example, the point about "assault rifles" is subject to dispute in at least two ways.  First, the whole "don't use the term assault rifles" argument was invented by the NRA.  I note this a while back.  So it's propaganda, not fact.  Second, the law uses not-wholly-defined terms all the time.  What is pornography?  A law can be written to ban assault weapons based on general characteristics and leave it up to the courts to decide in each specific case what is and isn't illegal.  Gun manufacturers who are concerned if their next hot item will pass muster can always seeks legal advice before designing a weapon to sell.

Similarly, Tairis seems to agree with you on the "no guns for no fly list people" point.  Really, why wouldn't someone agree with that?  Because it is taking away a right without due process?  Yeah.  That doesn't work.  There is something call the Right to Freedom of Movement.  It is in the Constitution.  And guess what you lose when you are put on a no fly list?  The government can infringe on an individual rights in appropriate situations.

My point is, I think your post is good, Lustful Bride.  :-)

[Lustful Bride]

Hey, don't feel bad.  I think your ideas have merit.  And while Tairis makes some interesting points, they aren't indisputable.

For example, the point about "assault rifles" is subject to dispute in at least two ways.  First, the whole "don't use the term assault rifles" argument was invented by the NRA.  I note this a while back.  So it's propaganda, not fact.  Second, the law uses not-wholly-defined terms all the time.  What is pornography?  A law can be written to ban assault weapons based on general characteristics and leave it up to the courts to decide in each specific case what is and isn't illegal.  Gun manufacturers who are concerned if their next hot item will pass muster can always seeks legal advice before designing a weapon to sell.

Similarly, Tairis seems to agree with you on the "no guns for no fly list people" point.  Really, why wouldn't someone agree with that?  Because it is taking away a right without due process?  Yeah.  That doesn't work.  There is something call the Right to Freedom of Movement.  It is in the Constitution.  And guess what you lose when you are put on a no fly list?  The government can infringe on an individual rights in appropriate situations.

My point is, I think your post is good, Lustful Bride.  :-)

Thank you, I just feel like I'm trapped in a weird place, I want a gun for my own protection (seriously, rape statistics are horrifying) and at the same time I think we need a measure of control, our own gun laws were used against us. We need to be smart on this, while preserving the freedoms entrusted to us. Banning outright doesn't work, just look at prohibition and the drug trade.

But like I always say, that would require intelligent conversation and compromise from the people on capitol hill, which is impossible.

No joke, while working there my dad full on saw two congressmen giving each other the finger and one telling the other to go and die.

I can feel the founders spinning in their graves @_@

[Cycle]

Thank you, I just feel like I'm trapped in a weird place, I want a gun for my own protection (seriously, rape statistics are horrifying) and at the same time I think we need a measure of control, our own gun laws were used against us.

*nods* 

Honestly, I'm not seeing any current, urgent calls to ban pistols or shotguns or hunting rifles.  The proposals being tossed around in Congress seem to deal with gun show sales, terrorist watch/no fly lists, and guns like the AR-15.  I don't see any of these proposals impairing my or your right to buy and own a .38 or Remington shotgun, for example.  And either of those will do a darn fine job of self/home defense.

[Oniya]

I don't see any of these proposals impairing my or your right to buy and own a .38 or Remington shotgun, for example.  And either of those will do a darn fine job of self/home defense.

In some cases, without even bringing the weapon to bear.  There's something - visceral - about the sound of a double-barrel getting racked.  ;D

[Tairis]

Lustful: There's nothing wrong with proposing ideas. My point is more that this is where the problem arises: people that don't KNOW about guns deciding what should and should not be legal. The Assault Weapons ban was a joke for this exact reason. If you want to get a gun, I fully support you doing so. My recommendation is, however, to find someone that is already a practicing shooter to walk you through it and let you try it out.

You also need to examine your personal beliefs and stances, and determine that if it came down to it that you are willing to use the gun. Too many people buy them to feel safe but with no intention of actually firing them. They think a gun will 'scare people off' if they pull it out. ANd thats a recipe for disaster.

Also the 'assault rifle' designation was not an argument invented by the NRA. It was invented by people logically pointing out that there is no such thing as 'assault rifles'. You can't just make up a classification that has no actual definitions and then use it to ban things. That's where you get nonsensical loop holes like one gun by the same manufacturer being banned while the same gun with a different package of options (say a foregrip) is illegal.

I was actually hoping for a serious answer.  How do we keep the guns out of the hands of spree killers?  Every method of screening currently in place doesn't seem to be doing it.  Any suggestions for improving/focusing those screening methods gets nipped in the bud by some group or other.  I'm not a gun owner, but I don't think banning is necessary either.  I believe in the concept of safe and sane gun ownership, and many of the gun-owners I've spoken to here on E seem to fall into that category.

Most it means you need a real, comprehensive background check system at a federal level. No more 'state X doesn't check state Ys records' or 'mental health facility doesn't report to state Z'. This means you also need some very explicit laws on the side of the mental health industry that forces them to both report that information and to make it a major issue if that information is NOT provided because how many times have we heard 'well the shrink thought his journals were worrying but that didn't appear on a  background check etc'.

Everything needs to pass through the same source, the same requirements, with the same info. I also have no issue with requiring a basic competency course just like getting your motorcycle certification or drivers license. You wouldn't need to do it per gun, but you'd need to get it to own them at all and have it be renewed every X years. Much like your drivers license and the motor cycle endorsement you could then add on additional certifications like concealed carry, armed security, etc.

[Caehlim]

No hollow points? Once again I have to ask: why? What is the actual, logical reasoning behind banning hollow point rounds other than 'housewives hear about them on dateline and they sound scary'?

You don't want cops and civilians using full metal jacket rounds. See the view below for an example, but there's a very good reason all cops use hollow points. It does more damage to your target, but more importantly it stops you from killing bystandards when your full metal jacket round over penetrates and hits someone or something behind what you're shooting. Unlike Hollywood even FMJ pistol rounds are fully capable of punching through a human body and leaving with enough force to kill someone on the other side.

I agree with the FBI's assessment of this. If you're worried about over penetration, you're too confident in your accuracy.

[Tairis]

I agree with the FBI's assessment of this. If you're worried about over penetration, you're too confident in your accuracy.

Huh? The FBI uses hollow point rounds themselves. For the same reasons. And even assuming you missed, why would you want a round that could hit multiple bystanders?

[TheGlyphstone]

For that matter, if you're worried about hitting bystanders, even more reason to use hollow points - they deform/shatter on impact, so the chances of a dangerous ricochet are much lower than FMJ.

[Cycle]

Yeah, better to use a bullet that'll just properly mangle the bystander.   ::)

[TheGlyphstone]

It's not like an FMJ round punching through their guts would be any less lethal. ::) I was referring to the habit of a hollow-point to break up on impact, so any richochets would be, at best, small low-velocity shards instead of big nasty bullets. Also less likely to go through walls/windows, your target...really, the cops have the right idea by using hollow-points, regardless of accuracy (which was the counter-argument). In an urban or interior environment, shooting lines are typically going to be restricted, so the odds of your shot missing the original target and continuing on a direct line to 'mangle' a bystander are very low unless you are actively firing into a crowd or crowded situation (in which case you are an idiot for shooting at all if you're not a skilled marksman).

[Cycle]

It's not like an FMJ round punching through their guts would be any less lethal.

there's a very good reason all cops use hollow points. It does more damage to your target

[TheGlyphstone]

That doesn't make my statement untrue. A solid bullet through the guts and a hollow point in the gut are both lethal, but the latter deals more damage up-front, incapacitating the target faster. That is the cop's primary priority when firing their weapon, to put their target down, and the hollow-point is superior in that regard. The fact that if they miss, they are much less likely to harm a civilian - not impossible, but less likely - is a very valuable bonus.

I'm not sure what you believe you are arguing against...do you think cops should switch to using FMJ rounds?

[Cassandra LeMay]

Here's an idea about ammunition: Don't ban certain types - unless it is something clearly intended for military use. Let people have it if they want it so much. But restrict where and when they can use it. If you think you need exploding hollow-point kryptonite bullets to defend your home against intruders you can have them - as long as they stay in your home that you are intrested in defending. You want them to turn targets at a shooting range into toothpicks? You can have them - provided you store them either at the range or at your home, and in the latter case you carry them straight from your home to the range and back again. No detours, and you carry them separately, not already loaded into your gun.

Maybe that's the way to go about the whole topic: Identifying what should be legitimate uses for guns and then trying to find ways to ensure that those are the only uses people make of their guns. You won't get guns out of America. They are there to stay, be it for home defence, sports, or hunting. So maybe the law should focus on what people really need to go about those things and make sure they get what they need, neither less, but also not more.

[Caehlim]

Huh? The FBI uses hollow point rounds themselves. For the same reasons. And even assuming you missed, why would you want a round that could hit multiple bystanders?

Sorry I should have included my source there, I just didn't want to go looking for it but that was a bit lazy of me. Tracked it down. I'm referring to the Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness report from the Firearms Training Unit at Quantico. Specifically this quote on page 11: "Choosing a bullet because of relatively shallow penetration will seriously compromise weapon effectiveness, and needlessly endanger the lives of the law enforcement officers using it. No law enforcement officer has lost his life because a bullet over penetrated his adversary, and virtually none have ever been sued for hitting an innocent bystander through an adversary. On the other hand, tragically large numbers of officers have been killed because their bullets did not penetrate deeply enough."

To which I would personally also add that if your line of fire is so unclear that you could hit a bystander on an over penetration you shouldn't be taking the shot to begin with. Not because it might over penetrate (although it might) but because of the much more likely tragedy of you just simply missing and hitting the bystander anyway. With the statistic of how many rounds shot by police hit their target I think worrying about the over penetration is like shooting at someone and worrying you might scare them into a heart attack. It could happen, but you should really be worried about the much more likely cause of danger.

I apologize if it sounded like I was saying that hollow-points should be banned, I don't think that they should. I was being a bit over pedantic over an obscure firearms argument and unclear. Sorry.