Gun Control, what is reasonable?

[perdidochas]

Theoretically, I agree that full auto (or large calibers or even RPGs) shouldn't be extremely restricted as they currently are. Keeping them virtually banned is a compromise. It doesn't decrease crime. People who don't obey the law will (and do) obtain pretty much what they wish to have, from full auto weapons to illegal drugs.

[packsaddle]

Then let's apply a logic to RPGs that is often mentioned with regard to other weapons. Do you think that having a greater number of RPGs in the hands of the law-abiding public would make society safer?

[WasE61]

So, some believe that assault weapons are already banned in the US. This is not true. The 1994 Federal ban expired in 2004. The ban was extremely limited, and the gun manufacturers quickly worked around it so they could keep selling weapons that were intended to be banned.

[perdidochas]

I don't buy the arguments that guns=safe society, so no, I don't think that RPGs would make things safer. I also don't think that RPGs would cause many problems.

 

I think current gun laws are reasonable. I really don't think we need any more. I think a more important thing is that conviction of using a gun to commit a crime should result in draconian penalties. I don't think that any laws will stop crazy rampages. In the 2000s, Germany (which has extremely strict gun laws and little or no gun culture) had more of a problem with school shootings per capita than we did.

[Eagledad]

Local option.

 

Barry

[Eagle732]

RPGs are explosives so continuing to try to make a point using them as your example is not logical. Sorry.

 

We're talking about INCREASING controls on firearms, not decreasing the controls. We law abiding gun owners accept the laws on the books and ask that they be enforced.

 

Prove to me how increasing gun control will increase my safety? That is the question. I have the right, if you want to take it away than right then the onus is on you to prove that it will be beneficial. The '94 Assault Weapons Ban (which didn't actually ban assault weapons, only certain semi-auto weapons with too many of certain specific features) expired in '04 because it was not proven to be effective.

 

[perdidochas]

WasE61,

 

It depends on your definition of assault weapon. Using the strict definition, assault weapons have never been legal for widespread use in the U.S. (The strict definition is that they are selective fire (meaning that they can either be full or semi-auto, depending on shooter choice) weapons chambered for an intermediate round). Those have been for the most part illegal since before assault weapons were invented during WWII.

 

You are correct that the assault weapons ban, just banned the sale of certain weapons with certain features. The "ban" was so easy to get around because the law was nonsensical, as the features were merely cosmetic (but that's the problem with gun laws written by people ignorant of technical knowledge of guns).

 

 

[packsaddle]

Eagle732, no, the question is in the thread title. What is reasonable? If you maintain that INCREASED controls will not improve safety, then all I did was turn the question around. Do you think that DECREASED controls will improve safety? This is a reasonable question which addresses the thread topic in the other direction.

Yes or no.

 

So forget RPGs. You can run from that if you want. Answer the previous question substituting fully automatic weapons for RPGs. Would making them freely available to all law-abiding citizens increase our security and safety? Would it improve the security and safety of society if by some miracle, I could throw a switch and all those legal semi-auto rifles were replaced with fully automatic ones?

[perdidochas]

I don't believe that increased access to full auto weapons would make things any safer in terms of crimes and madmen. I also don't think it would make things less safe in terms of crimes and madmen. Very strict gun laws did nothing to prevent madmen shooting up schools in Germany in the 2000s.

[Eagle732]

I can assure you I run from nothing.

 

The topic of the thread is "GUN CONTROL, what is reasonable?". Just look at the top of the page, it's right there. You don't need to use misleading partial quotes to make your point.

 

I don't believe it would have an impact either way. Full auto weapons have been strictly regulated since the '30s.(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[packsaddle]

So why are you just chewing your cud in acceptance of the ban on fully automatic weapons? Why not rise up in outrage at the loss of freedom?

[packsaddle]

Eagle732, if you will reread my post, you'll see that I wrote that the question is IN the thread title.

Same comment to you. If you're so ready to push back on any new restrictions, why are you so complacent about the ones already in place? You just stated your belief that the effect is neutral either way. If so why do you run away from pushing back on those restrictions as well?

[OldGreyEagle]

Well pack, after all, a scout is thrifty and even a "slow" fully automatic firearm would use up quite a bit of ammo is a very short time

[OldGreyEagle]

personally I have a few guns a 12 gauge and a 22 pistol but my good friend Pierre has three 50 caliper rifles, of course they are muzzle loading black powder, one flintlock and two percussion cap

[acco40]

packsaddle, I'm with you 100%. I would feel much safer if guns (all) were banned for use except for our armed services. Yes, all private citizens, police forces, etc.

 

So my question to those that disagree is this. If arming the citizenry is a good thing, why limit a good thing. Why can't I have 0.50 cal gun turrets mounted on the four corners of my house to stop home invasion? Why can't my high school age daughter carry an Uzi to school? Why can't I take my Glock to mass on Sunday?

 

For those who may be analytically inclined, we use this philosophy all the time. To see if a formula is correct, take it to their limits. To me, we would have a safer society if no guns existed as opposed to having everyone armed to the teeth.