What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gun Control Laws - Where are we really? Where to go? (1 Viewer)

it was. 

Without a confiscation plan (which I don't believe anyone supports), it will take some time for high capacity magazines to weed out of the system thru attrition.  Change can't happen over night, but it will happen.  Look back on your statistics in 20 years and see if this law made any difference.


ok but of all the murders/mass killings, how many high cap magazines are being used ? (that this ban would impact? )

again, I feel its a toothless laws, 10 round mags and having multiples on your person will results in many dead. Would it mean less dead yes, it might mean that in a few situations .... but my argument over and over is why not laws in laws to stop the murderer before he acts vs trying limit him to 10 shots reload vs 15 shots reload? That seems totally ignoring the core problem

 
We can't honestly talk about this #### if we can't even have common ground on what stats and metrics we are using.   

Same stuff as other topics- one group uses rates or x/100k numbers, and the other looks at total numbers or if a law "stopped" something.  

How do we fix this simple step? 


I do agree, its why links are important, its why information and facts and knowledge are important

anti-gun people still see automatic rifle in AR, they still don't understand the value AR's have for gun owners/hunters, they think a .556 round is super ultra powerful, they don't understand ballistics or bullets. I mean Biden saying .22 caliber the other day and 9mm blowing lungs out of the human body etc ...... so much is scare tactic

its on pro-gun side too - which is why you'll see me add links and definitions/facts ..... because an opinion without facts to support it isn't much IMO

 
ok but of all the murders/mass killings, how many high cap magazines are being used ? (that this ban would impact? )

again, I feel its a toothless laws, 10 round mags and having multiples on your person will results in many dead. Would it mean less dead yes, it might mean that in a few situations .... but my argument over and over is why not laws in laws to stop the murderer before he acts vs trying limit him to 10 shots reload vs 15 shots reload? That seems totally ignoring the core problem
no one is arguing that we shouldn't do both.  This doesn't have to be an either/or thing.

 
I'd like the age to be 21 for all guns as a start.

If parents want to buy a gun for their child or cosign on a gun purchase then they would held accountable for any illegal activities.

This still enables parents to buy hunting rifles for their children and won't affect responsible owners and maybe stop some unstable teens from emotional purchases.  Will it prevent everything, no but it's a starting point.   I'll even throw in an a possible exemption for military personnel able to private purchase under 21..... 

 
Yes, one for an inanimate object thats kills--the other to protect human rights.  But yeah --


guns are used - sometimes wrongly yes, but they do not commit actions themselves like kill

ACLU -

When analyzing gun control measures from a civil liberties perspective, we place them into one of three categories. First are laws that regulate or restrict particular types of guns or ammunition, regardless of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations generally raise few, if any, civil liberties issues. Second are proposals that regulate how people acquire guns, again regardless of the identity of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations may raise due process and privacy concerns, but can, if carefully crafted, respect civil liberties. Third are measures that restrict categories of purchasers — such as immigrants or people with mental disabilities — from owning or buying a gun. These sorts of provisions too often are not evidence-based, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues.

 
no one is arguing that we shouldn't do both.  This doesn't have to be an either/or thing.


but to a gun owner it doesn't have to be

again, ban 30 rounds and people use 15 round mag's and then, we ban 15 round mags. They use 10 round so we ban 10 round they use 6 round .... so we ban those and they use ....

the cycle continues - non-gun owners don't give anything and are not infringed upon at all. Gun owners keep having their rights chipped away, and criminals just keep doing what they want to do because they walk right through laws

only 1 group suffers - the gun owners

you can see how that is, right ?

 
I do agree, its why links are important, its why information and facts and knowledge are important

anti-gun people still see automatic rifle in AR, they still don't understand the value AR's have for gun owners/hunters, they think a .556 round is super ultra powerful, they don't understand ballistics or bullets. I mean Biden saying .22 caliber the other day and 9mm blowing lungs out of the human body etc ...... so much is scare tactic

its on pro-gun side too - which is why you'll see me add links and definitions/facts ..... because an opinion without facts to support it isn't much IMO
I think you are one of the worst offenders of exactly what I am talking about, hence me largely being done talking to you on this topic. You constantly go back and forth between overall #s and ignoring rates, while saying things like "it didn't stop anything".  So no, you dont agree with me. 

I am also seeing it elsewhere though - ie the narrative about California and Chicago and not taking into account rates and stats.  

 
but to a gun owner it doesn't have to be

again, ban 30 rounds and people use 15 round mag's and then, we ban 15 round mags. They use 10 round so we ban 10 round they use 6 round .... so we ban those and they use ....

the cycle continues - non-gun owners don't give anything and are not infringed upon at all. Gun owners keep having their rights chipped away, and criminals just keep doing what they want to do because they walk right through laws

only 1 group suffers - the gun owners

you can see how that is, right ?


Gun owners are so put-upon. Always having their rights taken away. If only everyone could see that right?

 
Both these links worth reading .... it shows how red flag laws can be used correctly and, why the NRA is against them and the ACLU neutral. I support the idea of red flagging - but if and only if in the cases of someone showing violence they don't just take guns, they commit them to a mental institution, ban driving cars, ban knives in homes ... that way, its not gun owners being targeted, its the PEOPLE who are a danger to themselves and others being targeted

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/florida-red-flag-law/index.html

Tampa, Florida (CNN)Twice a week from her courtroom, Florida 13th Circuit Court Judge Denise Pomponio decides who in Hillsborough County can no longer be trusted with a gun.

In just the last two months, she has taken away the firearm privileges of dozens of people, including a dad accused of threatening to "shoot everyone" at his son's school, a woman who police say attempted suicide and then accidentally shot her boyfriend during a struggle for her revolver, a husband who allegedly fired multiple rounds in the street to "blow off steam" after losing a family member, a bullied 13-year-old witnesses overheard saying, "If all of 8th grade is missing tomorrow you will know why," and a mother arrested for brandishing a handgun at another mom after a school bus incident between their daughters.

This is Florida's "red flag" law in action. Passed in the wake of the horrific 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland high school, the state law provides police a path to ask a judge to temporarily bar dangerous individuals from possessing or purchasing a firearm. Since its creation, Florida judges have acted more than 8,000 times to keep guns out of the hands of people authorities deemed a risk to themselves or others, according to data maintained by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.

On Tuesday, Pomponio added another one to the list: A man accused of pointing two guns at his stepfather.

"He was enjoying the whole thing," the stepfather told the courtroom. His stepson's wife even filmed the encounter, he said. "He said he wanted to eff me up." One of the guns was later found in the bed of the stepson's 11-year-old brother, a sheriff's deputy told the courtroom.

In the aftermath of recent massacres in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, those looking to change the country's gun laws see in Florida a blueprint to move forward -- not only because leaders moved to restrict firearms, but because it emerged out of a Republican stronghold unofficially known as the "Gunshine State."

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/09/04/red-flag-laws-spur-debate-over-due-process

Most red flag laws are vague on what constitutes a “significant danger,” which gives courts broad discretion to seize firearms, Parris said. And in some states, respondents are not guaranteed representation in court, since these are civil and not criminal matters.

Many defense lawyers say respondents fare much better with legal representation. Of Parris’ seven cases that have gone to a hearing, she has won five — which she said is a “vastly higher” success record than when someone represents themselves.

“Rather than find clear and convincing evidence, [courts are] basically saying, ‘Better safe than sorry,’” Parris said.

After these changes, the group shifted its stance to neutral on the bill, dropping its main objections, said Rhode Island ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown.

“We believe it’s very important that basic due process standards are considered when drafting measures like this,” he said. “It can have serious impacts on innocent individuals.”

 
I think you are one of the worst offenders of exactly what I am talking about, hence me largely being done talking to you on this topic. You constantly go back and forth between overall #s and ignoring rates, while saying things like "it didn't stop anything".  So no, you dont agree with me. 

I am also seeing it elsewhere though - ie the narrative about California and Chicago and not taking into account rates and stats.  


when have I mentioned Chicago lately ?  they do NOT have the hardest anti-gun laws anymore - they are still very high on murders/crime 

you might associate me as one of the worst offenders - but you can't ever say I don't add links supporting what I'm saying nor can you say I don't try and look at other links given and why they are or are not valid/accurate

maybe we don't agree - its not for lack of me having honest debate though

 
All gun laws are infringement. :D  

It's just how much infringement we are willing to accept. 


this is true

and we gun owners have accepted a lot which is why I ask over and over what non-gun owners are giving? Often, they're giving nothing (armed guards, teachers having guns, red flag laws targeting non-gun owners, forced mental commitments etc)

 
when have I mentioned Chicago lately ?  they do NOT have the hardest anti-gun laws anymore - they are still very high on murders/crime 

you might associate me as one of the worst offenders - but you can't ever say I don't add links supporting what I'm saying nor can you say I don't try and look at other links given and why they are or are not valid/accurate

maybe we don't agree - its not for lack of me having honest debate though
I can say all that, and do.   One of the 1000s of things that we disagree on though I guess.  

Imo anybody who looks at the stats of states and countries with tighter gun regulations and claims they don't work work, or try to "but Chicago" are doing just that.  

They work, and we have a ton of links.  Now if you don't want more regulations for whatever reason, cool.  But to say that they don't work and or that more guns don't correlate to more gun violence should be a non-stsrter for this conversation.  The two sides aren't talking the same language at that point.  

 
I reply with the other sides rebuttal when this comes up that 65% of guns used in Chicago are bought in Mississippi or Indiana where the gun laws are lacking.....

Its the same tired points by both parties
We need federal gun legislation so that we avoid this patchwork of state laws. 

 
We need federal gun legislation so that we avoid this patchwork of state laws. 
Correct, this is my take on situations like Chicago.  Especially when you look at their rates of gun violence/100k and see they aren't nearly as bad as people want to frame it.   Some things should be federally and uniformly enforced. 

 
I can say all that, and do.   One of the 1000s of things that we disagree on though I guess.  

Imo anybody who looks at the stats of states and countries with tighter gun regulations and claims they don't work work, or try to "but Chicago" are doing just that.  

They work, and we have a ton of links.  Now if you don't want more regulations for whatever reason, cool.  But to say that they don't work and or that more guns don't correlate to more gun violence should be a non-stsrter for this conversation.  The two sides aren't talking the same language at that point.  


I disagree they work - especially when talking AR15's

Getting murderers to use different guns to kill isn't working - that's failing

We can talk about how the USA tackles other issues like DUI or texting/driving or anything like that resulting in dead people and how, as a society, we have common sense laws that address the situations. If we do this, this and that for those things .... maybe that's how we need to handle violence?  Its just a thought because asking someone to not go a school and kill people .... its not working it just isnt

 
I'm sure it has been mentioned but we can work on  gun control laws and mental health issues together.

Its whether the powers that be are really interested in spending money on one issue and others are willing to concede certain things.   

 
I'm sure it has been mentioned but we can work on  gun control laws and mental health issues together.

Its whether the powers that be are really interested in spending money on one issue and others are willing to concede certain things.   
Idk if they can be lumped together.  Now what can be done is to tax guns and ammo more, with those funds going to mental health.

 
I do agree, its why links are important, its why information and facts and knowledge are important

anti-gun people still see automatic rifle in AR, they still don't understand the value AR's have for gun owners/hunters, they think a .556 round is super ultra powerful, they don't understand ballistics or bullets. I mean Biden saying .22 caliber the other day and 9mm blowing lungs out of the human body etc ...... so much is scare tactic

its on pro-gun side too - which is why you'll see me add links and definitions/facts ..... because an opinion without facts to support it isn't much IMO


Have you ever shot a deer with something with a boat tail?  It can look like you ripped it's guts out.  There are MJ round in 9 that can deliver similar to the M193.  The confusion comes in when you talk about what the mil rounds are, which tend to be ACP M855 and are meant to have some effective power vs. armor, but don't tear up stuff as much.

The consensus among those that watch this is he used green tip stuff, which is a cheap trick to try to get the 556/223 round out further.  It's also very inconsistent in damage against a hard target.  If he gets one of the kids sternums maybe it balloons, but not consistently.  Probably chose that for cost, not the job.

I try to stick with old school FMJ x193 for deer/hogs since it does not make nearly as much a mess.  You gut shot a hog with some of the boat tail stuff you have a cat in a blender mess on your hands.  

You can 100% create similar damage with a 9 to a 223/556 round indoors, in fact you can get favorable ballistics out to 50 yards.  I carry a 45 as a just in case but with ballooning rounds.  I am confident I could get a 9 to have similar results vs. a charging boar.

 
Idk if they can be lumped together.  Now what can be done is to tax guns and ammo more, with those funds going to mental health.
I wasn't meaning to lump them together per se  ...... more of tackling different prongs of a problem.

As in we don't need to address one or the other - we can address both in hopes of fixing the "bad outcomes"

 
I’m not going to say what’s truly on my mind, because I don’t want a permaban, but I will say that even as a responsible gun owner, I’m at least partially of the mindset that nobody anywhere should have them, at the very least unless we have a serious talk about mental health and why that system needs to become a much, much bigger priority in our lives. It’s transparently clear that because people can’t be trusted with blunt instruments, there should be much stricter federal gun laws, and I’m talking an outright ban on rifles capable of carrying more than a handful of rounds, a serious background check on any and everyone who wants to purchase anything that goes “bang,” like going through and looking at everything down to school discipline actions of the person in question, and regular mental health checks for everyone. 

 
We can't honestly talk about this #### if we can't even have common ground on what stats and metrics we are using.   

Same stuff as other topics- one group uses rates or x/100k numbers, and the other looks at total numbers or if a law "stopped" something.  

How do we fix this simple step? 
Stop responding to people like SC who do this over and over and over?

 
Have you ever shot a deer with something with a boat tail?  It can look like you ripped it's guts out.  There are MJ round in 9 that can deliver similar to the M193.  The confusion comes in when you talk about what the mil rounds are, which tend to be ACP M855 and are meant to have some effective power vs. armor, but don't tear up stuff as much.

The consensus among those that watch this is he used green tip stuff, which is a cheap trick to try to get the 556/223 round out further.  It's also very inconsistent in damage against a hard target.  If he gets one of the kids sternums maybe it balloons, but not consistently.  Probably chose that for cost, not the job.

I try to stick with old school FMJ x193 for deer/hogs since it does not make nearly as much a mess.  You gut shot a hog with some of the boat tail stuff you have a cat in a blender mess on your hands.  

You can 100% create similar damage with a 9 to a 223/556 round indoors, in fact you can get favorable ballistics out to 50 yards.  I carry a 45 as a just in case but with ballooning rounds.  I am confident I could get a 9 to have similar results vs. a charging boar.
I really wish people here would stop responding in any fashion to Stealthycat. He is ruining these discussions because he is not a legitimate actor. He is disingenuous. He believes Sandy Hook may not have been real. He repeats the same arguments over and over and never acknowledges rebuttals. 
 

There a plenty of anti-gun control posters here who are legitimate and will  discuss these issues with honesty and integrity: @[icon], @John123, @BladeRunner among others. 

 
This will just be viewed as another infringement. 
I would look at it as the same as smoking. You can still have it, but it’ll cost you.  
 

Kal El brings up some interesting points.  Maybe what can be done also is limit the type of gun a first timer can buy.

 
but to a gun owner it doesn't have to be

again, ban 30 rounds and people use 15 round mag's and then, we ban 15 round mags. They use 10 round so we ban 10 round they use 6 round .... so we ban those and they use ....

the cycle continues - non-gun owners don't give anything and are not infringed upon at all. Gun owners keep having their rights chipped away, and criminals just keep doing what they want to do because they walk right through laws

only 1 group suffers - the gun owners

you can see how that is, right ?
I'm not sure the kids of Uvalde would agree that its the gun owners who suffer.

 
you asked last time...I provided them....clearly they didn't matter then and I'm not wasting my time doing it again.  You can go google on your own.  


I'll take that as no links then  - If I make a claim, I prove it with links, I don't expect you to have to disprove it do I ?

I mean I guess I could make wild claims and then just say "google on your own" but that's kind of the opposite of how it normally goes

If I don't know exactly what bill / law / restriction you are saying the NRA fought hard, I don't know how to google it

I suspect it was a violation of Rights - those links i just posted shows why the ACLU and NRA and others fight such laws

 
I'm not sure the kids of Uvalde would agree that its the gun owners who suffer.


kids can't argue much at all  to be honest but they might also argue why wasn't someone there to protect them ? why did that teach have the back door opened/unlocked? I'd think they'd ask why did people watch and do nothing for 80 minutes? 

 
I'll take that as no links then  - If I make a claim, I prove it with links, I don't expect you to have to disprove it do I ?

I mean I guess I could make wild claims and then just say "google on your own" but that's kind of the opposite of how it normally goes

If I don't know exactly what bill / law / restriction you are saying the NRA fought hard, I don't know how to google it

I suspect it was a violation of Rights - those links i just posted shows why the ACLU and NRA and others fight such laws
The links aren't any different than the last time you asked...I'm not going through all them again :shrug:

Here is a link to the bill though:  https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/07026

It's common sense and law enforcement believes it's helped them prevent several incidents (one of which YOU provided as an example).  But this is going to go in one ear and out the other like last time.  The NRA fought this for over two years in court backed by YOUR membership dues and donations.  My last post to you on this topic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really wish people here would stop responding in any fashion to Stealthycat. He is ruining these discussions because he is not a legitimate actor. He is disingenuous. He believes Sandy Hook may not have been real. He repeats the same arguments over and over and never acknowledges rebuttals. 
 

There a plenty of anti-gun control posters here who are legitimate and will  discuss these issues with honesty and integrity: @[icon], @John123, @BladeRunner among others. 
You are right.  I'm done.

 
I would look at it as the same as smoking. You can still have it, but it’ll cost you.  


a sin tax on a Right ? Can we tax registered voters extra ?

Kal El brings up some interesting points.  Maybe what can be done also is limit the type of gun a first timer can buy.


sigh ... again, its like stopping shooters isn't a concern, you just want them to work a little harder by using different kinds of weapons to murder :(   or by being limited a little bit (and that's legally having guns, look at all the illegally having/acquiring)

I don't understand that reasoning, I just don't

 
a sin tax on a Right ? Can we tax registered voters extra ?

sigh ... again, its like stopping shooters isn't a concern, you just want them to work a little harder by using different kinds of weapons to murder :(   or by being limited a little bit (and that's legally having guns, look at all the illegally having/acquiring)

I don't understand that reasoning, I just don't
I’ve never owned a gun, is it a good idea for me to buy a AR15?   Probably not.   

 
I really wish people here would stop responding in any fashion to Stealthycat. He is ruining these discussions because he is not a legitimate actor. He is disingenuous. He believes Sandy Hook may not have been real. He repeats the same arguments over and over and never acknowledges rebuttals. 
 

There a plenty of anti-gun control posters here who are legitimate and will  discuss these issues with honesty and integrity: @[icon], @John123, @BladeRunner among others. 
Wait, what?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top