Suggs and Guns

[NCRAVEN]

NC, you can post all you like for a mile. I still am on your side, I simply think those guns need more control than other guns.

Ask any cop and they will all say they would be more worried about any hostile situation where there are guns of that type. When common citizens have more firepower than the cops, that tells me that I am right about this. Slice it however you like, but unless the S.W.A.T. team is called in, that kind of hardware isn't even brandished by the professionals.

You're still missing the point. A common citizens having more firepower than cops is irrelevant. It's the criminals, who by definition don't follow laws, that you have to worry about.

Making it harder for a common citizen to own a gun does nothing to the criminal who already doesn't follow the law.

[Captain Silver]

You're still missing the point. A common citizens having more firepower than cops is irrelevant. It's the criminals, who by definition don't follow laws, that you have to worry about.

Making it harder for a common citizen to own a gun does nothing to the criminal who already doesn't follow the law.

Two wrongs don't make a right. All I am saying is training and higher standards to own those type of weapons to me makes sense. Just because a criminal can get their hands on them easily doesn't make it any less dangerous. I could drive a big rig without a license right now, it would be a crime.

Just a difference of opinion my friend.

[NCRAVEN]

Two wrongs don't make a right. All I am saying is training and higher standards to own those type of weapons to me makes sense. Just because a criminal can get their hands on them easily doesn't make it any less dangerous. I could drive a big rig without a license right now, it would be a crime.

Just a difference of opinion my friend.

I know I am not going to change your opinion although I've shown (to which you agreed to) that your opinion will have little no affect on the people who should not have a gun.

BTW, I did ask a Cop friend about Shotgun vs AK

Depends on the distance. Past a certain point the buckshot would be less effective and you might catch a round or two but probably not all of them. Up close it would be a mess but typical buckshot is basically .380 rounds. Less than a complete shot and its not much stopping power.

AR/AKs make a mess but typically people around here just spray and pray. Someone trained would be pretty dangerous but AKs are also pretty unreliable. If you did get hit they tend to bounce around and chew up your insides pretty bad. Plus a vest would be pretty worthless against a rifle.

I'd be most afraid of a shotgun loaded with slug though.

[Captain Silver]

I know I am not going to change your opinion although I've shown (to which you agreed to) that your opinion will have little no affect on the people who should not have a gun.

BTW, I did ask a Cop friend about Shotgun vs AK

Yeah, I know and if it came down to it, which is the standard, err on the side of the 2nd Amendment.

[HoustonRaven]

I think people get confused by what they think is a so called "assault weapon" and a fully automatic weapon.

For one, except for the government definition, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. All firearms are designed for "assault". Second, full auto weapons are already banned from new purchase. If you want one, you must apply for a Federal Firearm License and Class III exemption and then have one that's already on file with the ATF transferred to you. When you do that, you give up your 5th Amendment right to search and seizure to the ATF, who can at any time, demand to see the weapon. People who take these steps are not the folks committing crimes. nor are people like myself who carry a concealed firearm on a daily basis.

What it boils down to are guns that look and feel as if they are military issue. This is a specious argument.

Google "Mini 14" and "HK 416". Take a long hard look at them. Tell me why one should be banned while the other should not and I will tell you whatever the reason you may have is nonsense and grounded in simply not knowing a lot about guns.

They both do the same thing. Shoot a .223 round with one squeeze of the trigger. The only difference is one "looks" worse than the other.

And as former LE, as well as having dozens of friends and family in and around law enforcement, I will tell you with 100% certainly the prevailing wisdom amongst the rank and file officers is NOT gun control. That line of thinking comes from the political bodies in LE such as the Chiefs of Police Association.

[JAB1985]

Could you rephrase that, I've read it 4 times and it just doesn't make sense (to me).

theres people out there that are irresponsible gun owners that still arent a criminal element either, as well as mentally unstable people that possible have not had prior issues where background and psychiatric checks would limit those while not hurting those that are capable of passing such screenings. I feel any argument for making it easier to obtain, while not limiting what you can obtain, is mostly just because its making it inconvenient for the gun owner, which is a poor argument. theres 0 disadvantage to saying you can own whatever you want, but you need to be screened first, besides the inconvenience factor unless im missing something else.

You're still missing the point. A common citizens having more firepower than cops is irrelevant. It's the criminals, who by definition don't follow laws, that you have to worry about.

Making it harder for a common citizen to own a gun does nothing to the criminal who already doesn't follow the law.

that was kind of my point as well. The criminal aspect will remain no matter what, but by making it easy for them to attain legally, theyre just not going to be called criminals any longer for illegal gun ownership, which coincidentally is pretty common charge on getting said criminals behind bars. what lowering it would do is even those that werent willing to break the law to obtain one, but not capable of being a healthy responsible gun owner, can go get a gun he wasnt going to be able to beforehand.

Side note, Silver is correct about law enforcement. I have numerous friends that are cops ranging from small town Pa to Baltimore city/county. To my knowledge the small town actually has 1 AR for about a dozen or so cops (which is usually signed out on weekends for private use coincidentally), and my patrol officer buddy in Baltimore has only his pistol and i believe a shotgun at times but not always. However, like NC said, all guns have the ability to kill, which is why stricter background checks and required safety classes are really the only preventative measures possible, for those that arent good/healthy gun owners but dont want to be part of the criminal sect.

Being pro-guns I can see where people take "gun control" and think its going to effect criminals but really ANY gun law is for law abiding citizens which is why I dont think there should be limits on what you can have, but there can be on if youre healthy and law abiding.

[HoustonRaven]

theres people out there that are irresponsible gun owners that still arent a criminal element either, as well as mentally unstable people that possible have not had prior issues where background and psychiatric checks would limit those while not hurting those that are capable of passing such screenings. I feel any argument for making it easier to obtain, while not limiting what you can obtain, is mostly just because its making it inconvenient for the gun owner, which is a poor argument. theres 0 disadvantage to saying you can own whatever you want, but you need to be screened first, besides the inconvenience factor unless im missing something else.

Aren't you and NC basically arguing the same point then?

There's already screening mechanisms in place in most states, in some form or another, to purchase a firearm.

[JAB1985]

Aren't you and NC basically arguing the same point then?

There's already screening mechanisms in place in most states, in some form or another, to purchase a firearm.

I think were pretty close on thoughts about what guns one can own and some other issues, but i get that hes not for stricter screening and ok with what we have currently, where i think its not really good enough or broad enough as is, which I think is Silvers opinion as well (although he wants to handle it another way with higher licenses fees). Any state where you can go in and just buy a gun that day, any gun, without proper background check and psychiatric screening is pretty much defeating the purpose of such things. to my knowledge, and i may be wrong, Psychiatric aspect is not currently apart of the screening process which I think would be beneficial to the purpose of such things, as we both agree these laws arent for criminals but to keep guns away from those that arent responsible or danger to themselves or others without obvious intentions of bypassing the law.

The system im describing wouldnt change anything for criminals and would not be 100% effective for those small percentage of law abiding citizens either, but i think it would cut down on some of those crazies that go on shooting sprees, which in turn may actually lessen any gun control laws we do have over time, by limiting those instances to call for gun control.

[HoustonRaven]

I think were pretty close on thoughts about what guns one can own and some other issues, but i get that hes not for stricter screening and ok with what we have currently, where i think its not really good enough or broad enough as is, which I think is Silvers opinion as well (although he wants to handle it another way with higher licenses fees). Any state where you can go in and just buy a gun that day, any gun, without proper background check and psychiatric screening is pretty much defeating the purpose of such things. to my knowledge, and i may be wrong, Psychiatric aspect is not currently apart of the screening process which I think would be beneficial to the purpose of such things, as we both agree these laws arent for criminals but to keep guns away from those that arent responsible or danger to themselves or others without obvious intentions of bypassing the law.

The system im describing wouldnt change anything for criminals and would not be 100% effective for those small percentage of law abiding citizens either, but i think it would cut down on some of those crazies that go on shooting sprees, which in turn may actually lessen any gun control laws we do have over time, by limiting those instances to call for gun control.

Not sure how you would implement a psychiatric screening for potential gun owners, or how that would even be effective.

I know in Texas, if you have a diagnosed condition and you were confined to a mental health facility or eligible to be confined to one, you can't get a gun. I believe 30 or so other states have similar laws. If you're referring to those type of restrictions, I agree with you and they are already in place.

But are you suggesting potential gun owners actually sit down and speak with a mental health professional prior to buying a gun? If so, that's incredibly burdensome and wholly ineffective.

Mentally unstable folks will act very much like criminals. They wont care about the legal way to obtain something and, instead, will opt for whatever means of getting a gun to accomplish their goal. The only thing such a meeting will do is slow down the purchase for already law-abiding, sane citizens.

[JAB1985]

I know in Texas, if you have a diagnosed condition and you were confined to a mental health facility or eligible to be confined to one, you can't get a gun. I believe 30 or so other states have similar laws. If you're referring to those type of restrictions, I agree with you and they are already in place.

This is good to know, which i wasnt fully aware of, but not much unlike convicted felons, its past the fact and pretty obvious at that point that they shouldnt possess a weapon. Nothing was stopping them from buying a gun before they were diagnosed which a psychiatric screening possibly could have.

But are you suggesting potential gun owners actually sit down and speak with a mental health professional prior to buying a gun? If so, that's incredibly burdensome and wholly ineffective.

I disagree on both counts. Its not really burdensome, go see a psychiatrist or even take a simple test. not unlike doing a physical before a certain sport or extreme activity. Just making sure youre capable and pointing out any possible red flags as to not go forward. Many employers already do something similar, both physical and psychiatric. It would be no different. The effectiveness is without question going to be better at stopping more wrongful owners than doing nothing, not sure how you can argue otherwise. I dont think theres any question that guys like Aurora and VT would not pass such a screening and would save many lives if its only taking away that small percentage, it would totally be worth it.

Mentally unstable folks will act very much like criminals. They wont care about the legal way to obtain something and, instead, will opt for whatever means of getting a gun to accomplish their goal. The only thing such a meeting will do is slow down the purchase for already law-abiding, sane citizens.

I think thats a little bold to say mentally unstable act like criminals. Maybe the most extreme id be willing to say that about, but theres mild cases where people arent at all unlike you and me but still would be harmful to themselves or others if given a gun (suicidal, bipolars, etc). again this seems to be the biggest disapproval of any such screening process, "itll just take me longer to get my gun," which is true but really just comes down to the owner not wanting to be inconvenienced vs a system that would actually be beneficial to the whole. its not "gun control" limiting you from getting your gun or even saying what you can get, itll just take you more than a day or two to actually get it, which i dont think is asking that much.

[HoustonRaven]

When you give up liberty for security you soon have neither.

You can claim that a psychiatric evaluation *may* have saved lives in Aurora, but it's a 100% guess on your part.

Nut jobs have been killing folks far longer than the gun has been around. This focus on the tool and not the person doing the deed is what gives folks like myself more aggravation -- constantly jumping through hoops when I am not the problem.

[JAB1985]

When you give up liberty for security you soon have neither.

You can claim that a psychiatric evaluation *may* have saved lives in Aurora, but it's a 100% guess on your part.

Nut jobs have been killing folks far longer than the gun has been around. This focus on the tool and not the person doing the deed is what gives folks like myself more aggravation -- constantly jumping through hoops when I am not the problem.

wouldnt a psychiatric evaluation be doing just the opposite and focusing on the person and not the tool?

I dont think what youre saying is too far off from what im proposing, but it is hoops to jump through, which the gun owning community doesnt want to be inconvenienced by.

[HoustonRaven]

wouldnt a psychiatric evaluation be doing just the opposite and focusing on the person and not the tool?

I dont think what youre saying is too far off from what im proposing.

Yes, it would. But I did a poor job of delineating the two points.

My issue is with liberty and my rights as a responsible gun owner. Lemme answer a question with a question ....

Why not install breathalyzers in every car? Sure, it's an increased cost, something else that can break in the car, but it "may" save lives in a "few" instances. Right?

If you're ok with that, then we have a philosophical difference we're not going to solve here. I shouldn't have to prove to the government I am sane. The government should prove that I am not. The government answers to me (us), not the other way around.

[NCRAVEN]

When you give up liberty for security you soon have neither.

You can claim that a psychiatric evaluation *may* have saved lives in Aurora, but it's a 100% guess on your part.

Nut jobs have been killing folks far longer than the gun has been around. This focus on the tool and not the person doing the deed is what gives folks like myself more aggravation -- constantly jumping through hoops when I am not the problem.

I know the guys bombs in his apartment didn't go off. But it only proves the point, bad guys don't need guns, guns are not the problem, if someone wants to kill people, they'll find away.

[NCRAVEN]

Yes, it would. But I did a poor job of delineating the two points.

My issue is with liberty and my rights as a responsible gun owner. Lemme answer a question with a question ....

Why not install breathalyzers in every car? Sure, it's an increased cost, something else that can break in the car, but it "may" save lives in a "few" instances. Right?

If you're ok with that, then we have a philosophical difference we're not going to solve here. I shouldn't have to proof to the government I am sane. The government should prove that I am not. The government answers to me (us), not the other way around.

The right to bear arms is just that "a right".

The moment you have to go through all kinds of hoops and test and PAY to see a psychiatrist to prove you're cool to own one, it stops being a right.

[JAB1985]

Yes, it would. But I did a poor job of delineating the two points.

My issue is with liberty and my rights as a responsible gun owner. Lemme answer a question with a question ....

Why not install breathalyzers in every car? Sure, it's an increased cost, something else that can break in the car, but it "may" save lives in a "few" instances. Right?

If you're ok with that, then we have a philosophical difference we're not going to solve here. I shouldn't have to proof to the government I am sane. The government should prove that I am not. The government answers to me (us), not the other way around.

a car is not designed to be a weapon though. a gun is designed to kill. its your right to have that gun, but to have that right you should have to prove youre capable of such a choice, imo. two parts of government, as defined by the constitution, are at play here.

1. promote the general welfare: constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the American people with services and regulations that are for the public good.
2. Insure domestic tranquility: The government must provide order in society and allow for domestic peace.

Its well within its constitutional rights to ask people if theyre sane enough to have their constitutional right to own a gun. at the end of the day, I dont see how giving guns to those not sane or responsible enough to own one can be considered a good thing in any way. youll have your liberty but youll also have less security than we already do.

[JAB1985]

The right to bear arms is just that "a right".

The moment you have to go through all kinds of hoops and test and PAY to see a psychiatrist to prove you're cool to own one, it stops being a right.

Nobody is stopping your Right to own a gun, unless youre unfit, which isnt any different than taking away a convicts right or taking away a persons drivers license after too many citations or even never giving them one because they couldnt prove capable. If youre going by the Natural Right definition, were not even suppose to stop convicts from having a gun. is that what we should resort to?

[NCRAVEN]

Nobody is stopping your Right to own a gun, unless youre unfit, which isnt any different than taking away a convicts right or taking away a persons drivers license after too many citations or even never giving them one because they couldnt prove capable. If youre going by the Natural Right definition, were not even suppose to stop convicts from having a gun. is that what we should resort to?

If someone is convicted of a crime that will show up on their record.

I don't have a record so if you're purposing I need to go for a psych eval. to get a gun, than that does affect my right. What if I can't afford it?

[HoustonRaven]

a car is not designed to be a weapon though. a gun is designed to kill. its your right to have that gun, but to have that right you should have to prove youre capable of such a choice, imo. two parts of government, as defined by the constitution, are at play here.

1. promote the general welfare: constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the American people with services and regulations that are for the public good.
2. Insure domestic tranquility: The government must provide order in society and allow for domestic peace.

The preamble is not legally binding.

And you didn't answer my question. Are you ok with breathalysers in every car? What does it matter what a gun is designed to do anyway? It's their simplest forms, both a car and gun are mere tools, both capable of good and bad in the hands of a human.

FAR more folks are killed across the country by drunk drivers than they are by a gun. So why not apply your same standard to something as every day as driving?

Its well within its constitutional rights to ask people if theyre sane enough to have their constitutional right to own a gun. at the end of the day, I dont see how giving guns to those not sane or responsible enough to own one can be considered a good thing in any way. youll have your liberty but youll also have less security than we already do.

No it's not within the constitution to deny rights without due process. Requiring someone to see a shrink caters to the few exceptions all the while placing an undue burden on the vast majority folks who are doing the right thing (note the word "undue" and it's literal definition; something that is outside the bounds of due process is "undue").

And nobody is advocating giving guns to those who should not have them. What I am saying is there's a way to do it without infringing on my rights.

[JAB1985]

If someone is convicted of a crime that will show up on their record.

I don't have a record so if you're purposing I need to go for a psych eval. to get a gun, than that does affect my right. What if I can't afford it?

so youre saying you wont pass a psych eval? because than no you should lose your right just like a convict. a convict proved he was incapable of being responsible. a psych eval does the same thing as a background check but would be a preemptive measure as opposed to reactive. thats all.

as far as who pays and if you cant afford it, well thats no different than a car and car insurance, imo. you cant afford it you dont get one. can afford it but not the insurance, you still dont get one. i dont see how thats any different regardless of the law.