Gun Control: Stupid Assumptions

[Spica75]

So... the Vice President tried to give some self defense advice.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... en-in-jail

And it ended up being felonious. Turns out that shooting into the air when you feel threatened isn't a wise or legal idea.

This is the man hand-picked to head a Gun Control effort. And he gives dangerous advice. When he's not chanting "Buy a Shotgun".

Ugh, Joe Biden... Well I always did say he was a complete moron. :roll:

[PCHeintz72]

It takes neither a genius nor a gun expert to realize that unlike in the movies, a bullet must go somewhere once shot...

Though hardly funny in real life, I always laughed when the movies never showed repercussions to obvious things like say terrorists that shoot straight up with machine guns in victory (saw a scene like that in True Lies, for example)

Read something like this just recently... a family that had called 911 due to bullets being fired through their walls... here it turned out a neighbor was shooting at targets in his yard... the bullets hit the target alright, and went through them, across the property line, and through the house of the family that called... they blew up a microwave, and shot multiple holes through the house...

[Sunshine Temple]

Yeah. That's why one of the 4 core rules of gun safety is "Be sure of your target and what is behind it."

It's not enough to know you hit the target. The question is always: where did it go next?

One has to be very careful, because morally (and legally) you own every single bullet that comes out of that gun.

[Spokavriel]

It takes neither a genius nor a gun expert to realize that unlike in the movies, a bullet must go somewhere once shot...

Though hardly funny in real life, I always laughed when the movies never showed repercussions to obvious things like say terrorists that shoot straight up with machine guns in victory (saw a scene like that in True Lies, for example)

Read something like this just recently... a family that had called 911 due to bullets being fired through their walls... here it turned out a neighbor was shooting at targets in his yard... the bullets hit the target alright, and went through them, across the property line, and through the house of the family that called... they blew up a microwave, and shot multiple holes through the house...

That person clearly didn't know how to properly establish a range. No berm to trap the bullets after they hit the target. No thought to getting Frangible ammunition so that it breaks up after hitting said target.

Some would say that is why no one should ever get a gun. I say that its proof that letting people become ignorant about using one safely is a greater danger. What century was it again when gun powder was invented?

[Spica75]

Some would say that is why no one should ever get a gun.

More like, no one should be allowed a gun without having proven they know at least the minimal safety basics.

[PCHeintz72]

That person clearly didn't know how to properly establish a range. No berm to trap the bullets after they hit the target. No thought to getting Frangible ammunition so that it breaks up after hitting said target.

Some would say that is why no one should ever get a gun. I say that its proof that letting people become ignorant about using one safely is a greater danger. What century was it again when gun powder was invented?

It was clearly a case of stupidity in motion. I would hardly blame all gun owners blindly for this... yet it is the 'bad apples' that stand out. Doing omething like that in todays charged climate makes it all the worse.

As I said... a bullet fired has to go somewhere. This is not a genius leap of logic but merely stating the obvious.

And even still... you would think they would have heard something... especially in this particular case the microwave exploding...

There are certainly other cases of stupid assumptions besides this one and others like Biden...

Consider that all the focus has been on the guns and not the people buying the guns. A gun in and of itself is capable of good or ill, it is merely the means to the end. It is the person that determines the intent.

How about the focus on smaller magazines. If somone had a gun that previously could take say 15 cap... and now maxes at say 10cap. What is the real difference if the person went on a rampage with it with 3 magazines instead of 2 magazines... 30 bullets is 30 bullets, and it is the same overall gun.

How about the focus of late on the accceptable list in the latest attempt. making a specific list for acceptable is stupid, what happens when new guns are released... it should be by general criteria for banning.

How about the huge annoyance of state specific rules in ownership, acceptable conceal carry law, and procedures... a single comprehensive federal bill to replace them all in one shot would be a 100x better than the mish mash of the state laws. it would avoid all the loopholes being taken advantage of by various purchasers. It hould also take into account even more rare or minor items from zip guns, fake guns, manufactured guns, and pellet guns. It is indeed possible to kill with a pellet gun, though it would have to be one heck of a shot. Yet there is mostly nothing in place for arms that small... (generally .17ish)

And as tragic as the CT shooting was... no gun legislation or tightening of restrictions really would have helped, considering the kid did not own the guns, but took them from his parent, whom owned them legally...

[Spica75]

How about the focus on smaller magazines. If somone had a gun that previously could take say 15 cap... and now maxes at say 10cap. What is the real difference if the person went on a rampage with it with 3 magazines instead of 2 magazines... 30 bullets is 30 bullets, and it is the same overall gun.

Well, there actually is a small piece of rationality in that thing about magazines, but for most bad stuff that happens it´s not very relevant.

Changing a magazine requires the mind of the shooter to switch between two markedly different tasks, this forces thinking, even if only a little. IF what the shooter was doing was on the edge of what he wanted to do, intentionally and consciously, then the act of changing clip is likely to cause a short thought about "did i want to do this" to happen, and if the answer was that "no i really didn´t oh shit oh shit" then it provides a point of stopping, earlier.

It´s the same kind of psychological thing that causes a lot of people to easily forget what they were thinking when they walk through a door. The brain takes that action as going into a new situation and because of that "resets" to some degree to prepare itself.

So, amazingly, it´s actually based on scientifical evidence, it´s just not commonly all that meaningful.

[PCHeintz72]

I do not really buy it... Oh I understand, but to me by the time a shooter on the rampage has all his guns loaded, ready, placed on his person (by straps, holsters, sheaths, etc), transported to the scene, and walking onto the scene of choice (school, theater, mall, etc)and starts shooting... I feel it it far to late to be thinking intent... it is not nearly a spontaneaous thing and as such a mere couple second change of magazine is *not* really going to make a difference.

[Sunshine Temple]

There's also that the rampager is the aggressor and for most of an attack will be unoppposed (police haven't arrived and there's no guards or citizens with guns there).

That makes reloading easier.

If you recall in Virginia Tech that mutant only had a couple 13 round magazines. If I recall correctly the vast majority were 10 or so.


A Federal "universal" for Carry regulations would be more convenient. I have a whole book that's nothing but the differences in state laws.

The problem is that the states have a huge divide. There are some like Illinois where carry is illegal (though the Federal Court said that's unconstitutional). And others like Hawaii where carry is technically legal but they don't ever issue permits. And then there's the Constitutional Carry states where you don't need a permit at all.

Though the biggest problem would be Shall Issue versus May Issue. About 41 states and 70% of the US population live in Shall Issue style (where as long as you aren't a prohibited person and take the training, if required, you can get a permit). The others are May issue, where the police get to decide if you can carry (knowing the Mayor or donating to the police chief's funds are very helpful in those places).

A "standardizing" federal bill would have to come to a consensus on this. So you'd have New York, Cali, DC, Chicago, Mass, and the other May Issue states versus the vast majority of the country.

And neither side would want to compromise on that.

[PCHeintz72]

It is more than the user side though, it is the production side...

For example many gunmakers have to make special versions of guns just for sale in California... that has to put a strain on production and development.

[Sunshine Temple]

It is more than the user side though, it is the production side...

For example many gunmakers have to make special versions of guns just for sale in California... that has to put a strain on production and development.

That's a good point too.

For a really convoluted example take Massachusetts

They're in a weird situation where there are several gun makers that make guns (fully legally) in Mass that they can't directly sell to people in Mass, due to them lacking certain things like a safety (well revolvers don't have to have safeties but semi's do.)

Well... those guns can be sold to policemen. Even for a personal arm. And then the cop can sell to someone else (provided that person has a Firearms Owners ID card and passes check ect, ect).

Or someone from out of state can own the gun, move to Mass get their ID card, bring their gun in, and then sell it, as above.

So yeah, there's some real strangeness.

[PCHeintz72]

That's a good point too.

For a really convoluted example take Massachusetts

They're in a weird situation where there are several gun makers that make guns (fully legally) in Mass that they can't directly sell to people in Mass, due to them lacking certain things like a safety (well revolvers don't have to have safeties but semi's do.)

Well... those guns can be sold to policemen. Even for a personal arm. And then the cop can sell to someone else (provided that person has a Firearms Owners ID card and passes check ect, ect).

Or someone from out of state can own the gun, move to Mass get their ID card, bring their gun in, and then sell it, as above.

So yeah, there's some real strangeness.

Exactly... because of differing state laws and regs... tons of oddball loopholes exist.

Of course, MA and CA are oddball states no matter how you look at them... for example, MA is one of the few I can think of that take into account road conditions where you live when figuring out auto insurance. They also have disclaimers in auto insurance on what they will cover for terrorist and war related damage, nuclear and radiation damage, and missle and grenade damage (my own thoughts are if you have any of those, I doubt that is your primary concern).

[Spokavriel]

California's gone nuts recently. They already made it so that all guns have to require a tool to remove the magazine. Now they want to make the "Bullet Button" the release that requires a tool to press which a bullet can reach in to do so illegal. Their suggestion weld a piece of metal over it.

In which case the gun can never be loaded again. Oh and that magazine will never be able to removed again either without breaking the gun in 60% of previously California legal guns.

[Sunshine Temple]

They've also got some bills to ban, of all things, combination shotguns and rifles and shotguns with revolver style loading.

Which is just mean. As the former are double barrel hunting/farm guns, and the other are recreations of historical oddities.

[PCHeintz72]

All of which is just stupid..

I can certainly see states wanting some guns banned...

I can maybe see states wanting things like storage requirements from a safety standpoint.

I could possibly see a cottage industry grow into place if some states wanted gun insurance... (I can see potentially states wanting the availability of liability, medical, and physical damage coverage on a gun.)

I can see states suing a gun maker on bad designs of guns, if it is proven they do something wrong or cause injury due to defect/mistake in production

But IMHO, no state should be allowed to issue a directive to a gun maker on how to *make* a gun.u