Contact your Rep about gun control!

Salanis wrote: Personally, I think it's clear that a 33-round handgun clip has no practical purpose.

sure it can, as someone posted back like 4 pages ago, a simple trip to the range with a few 33 round mags can really save your thumbs at the range during reloading. that's about as practical a purpose as i can imagine since i'm sure it actually makes the firearm a little unwieldy for other purposes.

and toyman those quotes are rather scary...

Salanis wrote: Should a child be allowed to purchase guns if they have the money? Should a person with a felony conviction or documented history of violent mental illness? Those are fairly extreme examples, but if you believe that a 6 year old or someone with a murder conviction shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, you believe in some amount of gun control, and it really is a "where do you draw the line?" game.

Uh I got my first gun when I was 5, no it was not a BB gun it was a Chipmunk rifle exactly like the one pictured below. It is a .22 single shot bolt action rifle specifically design for small children. I "bought it" (I handed over ever cent to my name to the man behind the counter, and my father covered the other $50 or so that I didn't have) and it was one of my proudest moments. So do I think a kid should a gun? If they are responsible and are using it under the supervision of their parents I have no problems with it at all.

I can't tell you how much I loved going into the hills with my dad and learning how to shoot, it was a great way for us to bond. I was also taught how to respect the gun for what it is and had safety drilled into my head.

In the last 26 years of shooting I have never once pulled the trigger on anything I did not mean to. I have owned everything from single shot rifles like the Chipmunk to things like AR's, AK's and even a Tommy gun. The Tommy gun fell into the category of "no one needs it" though it was fun on occasion and it was just a cool piece to own. In fact when I went to sell it most people were interested in purchasing it basically just to hang on the wall. The point is I have had all of these big scary guns and I have not gone out on a shooting spree like unlike many think is the inevitable outcome of owning such guns.

Lets face it as others have said if there were no guns some other method would be used if murder was on someones mind. Heck there are probably not many items that you could think of that someone could not think of a way to use in a murder.

You seem to have missed my point. I don't particularly disagree with you. I don't think we really need more "gun control". I was just playing a bit of devil's advocate.

I think the gun control issue is a sliding scale of what is appropriate and that it is reasonable to debate where exactly the line should be drawn. For example, I think that forbidding people convicted of violent felonies is a good thing. Maybe you feel differently.

Whatever. Doesn't matter. Every once in a while, I guess I forget why I try to stay out of political debates.

Oh I understand where you are coming from and I completely agree about violent offenders and the like. However I also personally believe that if kids are introduced to firearms from a young age and taught proper respect for what they are capable of it would be a good thing. How many times have you read a story about some kid playing with their parents gun and hurts themselves or someone else? In most cases these kids were never taught respect for the firearm and may have been only told its dangerous leave it alone. Now come on when you were a kid if you were told something was dangerous or to leave something alone what did you do? Kids are curious and the more "mysterious" something is the more curious they are about it.

Well, we agree very much then. I believe the best way to prevent a kid from being a statistic is to teach them to understand and respect a firearm.

I meant my earlier example in a "lone kid walking in off the street" asking to buy a gun. Granted, most gun shops wouldn't sell it to them. A kid "buying" a gun with a parent their to supervise makes sense.

To liken it to alcohol (and control of that), I'm fine with parents sharing sips of alcohol with their kids. You wouldn't want a kid ponying up to the bar and ordering a pint, though.

Ignorant wrote: no the real point here is that when I proposed something that I consider to be reasonable...

It isn't reasonable. You don't get it. I can KILL SOMEBODY WITH A KNIFE. It doesn't matter what size, shape, how many tips it has, I can still kill the person. Just like virtually anybody with any gun can kill a person. You are being unreasonable in that you are not treating the cause. The logical/reasonable suggestion (which very few people on this board would argue against) would be stricter screening for gun ownership. Not limiting how many bullets are in the clip. face berkeleying palm

Not only are you Ignorant (I've always dug the capital on your name, explained after this bracket) but you also have the most over-inflated ego I've ever had the displeasure of seeing on a forum.

HiTempguy wrote: You don't get it. I can KILL SOMEBODY WITH A KNIFE.

Yeah, but it's pretty hard to rob a bank or hold up a liquor store with a knife. It would be tough to climb to the top of a clock tower and throw them at people either. Drive by's would be interesting as well. Maybe gang bangers would go back to lances or something. Would bows and arrows still be allowed? It would be pretty sweet if the LAPD had to crack down on Mongolian gangs hanging out their windows shooting arrows into Chinese restaurants.

Guns don't kill people, it's just that sound they make: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914

Ignorant wrote: I guess heres another way of looking at it.. What is the real incremental benefit of 33 rounds in a handgun over say 10 or even 6 in a standard self defense situation? IIRC most situations are defused by just producing the weapon and holding the other person until the police arrive....

uh, i have to call this out right here. in a self defense situation, if you pull a gun, you had darn well be prepared to use it.

example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZrdbSJVSVM&feature=fvst

Strizzo wrote:

Ignorant wrote: I guess heres another way of looking at it.. What is the real incremental benefit of 33 rounds in a handgun over say 10 or even 6 in a standard self defense situation? IIRC most situations are defused by just producing the weapon and holding the other person until the police arrive....

uh, i have to call this out right here. in a self defense situation, if you pull a gun, you had darn well be prepared to use it. example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZrdbSJVSVM&feature=fvst

I agree with you. I just saw a statistic years ago and can't fully remember it. I think you'l find that in most situations just producing the wapon diffuses the situation.

But you didn't answer me on that incremental benefit. Try to draw or conceal that thing. Nor can you use it at the range with a rest...

Maybe I'm biased because of the range I grew shooting up on. No yahoos allowed. The range near my house is a family farm where the guy took a bulldozer and plowed up a big round of dirt. Million dollar homes could be seen on the surrounding hills and the farmer was fairly used to being sued. I'll bet the place is gone now. But he had some rules that were pointed at keeping the place open and around for most people who enjoyed shooting. No black rifles were allowed. No firing faster than one round every 5 seconds or so. No more than 4 rounds in a magazine. The whole Idea behind the rules was to make sure the place stayed open, and it did for years while other places closed around it due to pressure of the infringing yuppie McMansions in the late 80's early 90's/ No other range100 yard range within nearly 100 miles without spending big money on a rod and gun club membership.

HiTempguy wrote: \ The logical/reasonable suggestion (which very few people on this board would argue against) would be stricter screening for gun ownership.

Actually I did suggest that a few pages ago, but people want to harp on other things I discussed. I think you should pass a functional test and background check to be able to own a gun. It's on page 4.

As to your other comments... ehh? Nothing I haven't heard before. How do you guys know that I don't love constructing this ridiculous online persona and then being completely different in real life? Some folks on here have met me.. Maybe you should ask them, If I'm the egotistical maniac that most believe here. Under promise and over deliver.

There are times when I am in favor of more gun control. That's when I use two hands.

Salanis wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: Again the high horse from someone who was trying his darnedest to get us to say that we like killing babies.

Wait... what kind of babies? Baby cows are darned tasty. I hear that baby pigs are too. Seriously: I don't know what I think the best action is. I do believe that *some* amount of "gun control" is good. There are some pretty libertarian people here, but I doubt many people (if anyone) believes that any person should be able to purchase any weapon at any time. Should a child be allowed to purchase guns if they have the money? Should a person with a felony conviction or documented history of violent mental illness? Those are fairly extreme examples, but if you believe that a 6 year old or someone with a murder conviction shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, you believe in some amount of gun control, and it really is a "where do you draw the line?" game. Personally, I think it's clear that a 33-round handgun clip has no practical purpose. It seems like a good idea to control something like that. Problem is: how? Where do you set a number saying that a certain amount of rounds is gratuitous in a certain type of firearm? Would such a law do more harm than good? I don't know the answer. I don't think anyone *really* does. I do think that making snap legislations based on emotional arguments is not a healthy thing.

ok, you should read up on the actual laws that are already in place. Convicted felons (any felony), mentally unstable and clinically diagnosed people, anyone under the age of 18 (for long guns) or under the age of 21 (for handguns) are not allowed under Federal law. They have to fill out the paperwork and submit to an FBI phone screening before purchasing a firearm.

We already have these laws IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. It's already illegal to wield a firearm in public, it's illegal to commit murder, it's illegal to commit atempted murder, it's illegal to discharge a firearm inside city limits, it's illegal to use a firearm in the act of commiting a felony, it's illegal to use any weapon in the act of commiting a felony. How many more laws do we need? Criminals don't give a chit. They're CRIMINALS.

Hate to say it, but I agree with Iggy on the some type of functional/competency test.

full disclosure, I do not have my CCL, but do know the requirements in my state

The training is an absolute joke. A few hours of classroom work on the laws surrounding CCL and then firing 50 rounds, split between 3 yards and 10 yards I believe. In my humble opinion, that is not nearly enough training.

Granted I'm not saying this for owning a rifle/shotgun/handgun in your home, but for a CCL yes.

waits to see how many will lambaste this idea, whilst continually praising the German model of driver training

In reply to z31maniac: Not lambasting the idea at all but it would require that states give over control of that to the fed - I imagine that would light some huge fires under the opposition which are likely very well funded by the arms trade.

Read: Political Suicide. So... not happening.

Also find it interesting no one is talking about the guy being expelled from college in September and the school indicating he needed a "mental-health certificate" to be able to return to class.

So the police are called to the school 5 times between Feb and Sept for this guy, and the school deems him to crazy to attend class.

Yet, he's still "sane" enough to buy a gun.

It will be interesting to see what an FOIA request turns up in all the documents that Sheriff Dupnik is refusing to release at the moment.

^ Remember if he's not clinically diagnosed there is no records for the FBI background check to go from. The local police should have sent him in for a psych eval long before this point.

IMO, the local police dept dropped the ball in dealing with a suspected dangerous person. Of course, that's not uncommon with Tucson Police. Just ask my inlaws.

^That's my point and that's why the Dupnik is blocking the release of documents.

The police have to physically remove the guy when he is expelled, and after all the previous run-ins, death threats, etc, nothing is ever done just because his mother works in the Parks Dept?

What a joke.

z31maniac wrote: Also find it interesting no one is talking about the guy being expelled from college in September and the school indicating he needed a "mental-health certificate" to be able to return to class. So the police are called to the school 5 times between Feb and Sept for this guy, and the school deems him to crazy to attend class. Yet, he's still "sane" enough to buy a gun. It will be interesting to see what an FOIA request turns up in all the documents that Sheriff Dupnik is refusing to release at the moment.

Bobzilla has a valid point; no records, no problems when buying a gun. And, there is no legal recourse if someone doesn't seek or refuses treatment.

It does make one wonder if Dupnik's accusations (against the political climate) are an attempt to deflect attention away from his own department's actions.

^ Trust me, of all the crap my inlaws have had happen in the last few years there, I'd say an internal investigation would probably be the last thing he'd want to happen.

No disagreeing with the no records/FBI thing, I'm saying there was an obvious and complete failure from local law enforcement.

^ tHAT I can agree with. Sadly that local law enforcement has been lacking for many years.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

ahahaha that's gonna hurt

Bobzilla wrote: ^ tHAT I can agree with. Sadly that local law enforcement has been lacking for many years.

I'm sorry, so now we are arguing we need more government control over our lives?

Just trying to point out a slight irony of the flow of this conversation.

(I'll just sit here stirring this pot)

When you start to have repeat interactions with LEO's, there is a problem. Period. 5 times they have been called to deal with this guy in the last few months. That's a pattern. At the least they should have had him evaluated considering he had shown violent behavior and an unstable mental state.