What if guns and ammo were free?

[Andara Bledin]

So, pretty much every cop show that has the star at the range with all of the rest of the stalls empty is pretty much totally accurate, I guess. >_<

[Rapscallion]

I'm trying to stay out of this, but I have to ask for clarification of what is meant by 'the star' above. Some sort of terminology I'm unaware of, I fear.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

"The star" is referring to the star of the particular cop show you're watching. There's often character building moments or decisions made after the cop has relieved stress at the range. Often, the cop and their partner are the only ones at the range. So, apparently, that's accurate to life.

[Andara Bledin]

"The star" is referring to the star of the particular cop show you're watching. There's often character building moments or decisions made after the cop has relieved stress at the range. Often, the cop and their partner are the only ones at the range. So, apparently, that's accurate to life.

Bingo. The "star" is in context of "cop shows." So, the star of the cop show is shown at the range for whatever reason, and is almost always completely alone other than someone interacting directly with them. It's rare to ever see a cop in a cop show actually practicing their marksmanship unless it's part of a plot (such as after missing a target or hitting the wrong one), which I fear is closer to reality than any of us would like.

Notable exceptions are usually scenes showing a difference in the star as compared to the rest of the force, such as an early scene in the original Robocop movie.

[s_stabeler]

yep. more or less, most cops only do the minimum of training on their firearms. It's understandable, in a way ( they don't necessarily have time, and as I said, mots cops won't ever need to shoot their weapon outside of training)

[Andara Bledin]

yep. more or less, most cops only do the minimum of training on their firearms. It's understandable, in a way ( they don't necessarily have time, and as I said, mots cops won't ever need to shoot their weapon outside of training)

That they probably won't need to fire their weapon outside of training is not a good reason to allow for training to be foregone.

They should train, regularly, for every weapon they carry, and not just the bare minimum to pass a semi-regular exam under "lab conditions."

[s_stabeler]

it's understandable in that they probably care more about solving crimes than spending time on the range, when they are unlikely to need the accuracy developed by the time on the range. The average cop will never need to fire their service weapon except in training. why SHOULD they put more time into training? Its' why SWAT and other similar units train more than other officers- they ARE likely to need to use their weapons, and so train more ( so are proportionately better at it)

[Andara Bledin]

Just because we can understand it, doesn't mean it should be allowed.

Most camp counselors will never need to use CPR, so does that mean we shouldn't require they keep up to date on their first aid training?

[Rapscallion]

Ah, modern pop culture reference. No wonder it went sailing over my head...

Rapscallion

[Tanasi]

well, to be fair, I can see some limits on what you should be able to buy. ( which is why I DO support a ban on full autos- there is little legitimate use for them. I WOULD however, have a more minor punishment for those who have a faulty semi-auto. ( basically, if you have a faulty semi-auto, if you get it fixed, then no other punishment. If you don't get it fixed...)

Why ban something that isn't being used in any crimes??? The only recorded criminal uses of registered class-3 (full-auto) firearms were committed by police officers. Reality is there isn't that many legimate class-3 weapons in civilian hands. They are very very expensive to buy, very very expensive to feed and owning one puts that person(s) life open to the BATFE. As of 1986 all class-3 weapons that were in circulation is all there is ever going to be so in a few years the newest class-3 weapon will be 30 years old.
The vast majority if not all class-3 weapons recovered at crime scenes were most likely smuggled in or stolen from LEOs or Military. Folks that own class-3 keep them locked up in good if not great safes and mostly have security systems. BATFE can come to the place of storage to inspect and they have removed weapons.
Now as to legitimate use the same argument can be made for a POS Prius and a Corvette.
Malfunctioning semis, I agree the owner deserves a chance to get the firearm fixed otherwise face the consequences.

[Tanasi]

This is a peculiar what if. Also, I am Canadian and am aware of what the NRA is and isn't. >.>

Yes, the NRA does want more money in its coffers as it is a political organization. It literally grades individual politicians and assigns them a ranking based on their voting history and stances on gun control. Then based on that ranking, contributes money to their campaigns.

The ranking is thus:

A+: "Excellent voting record" and "vigorous effort" on gun rights.
A: "Solidly pro-gun," backed NRA on key votes or has positive record on gun rights.
AQ: Pro-gun rating based solely on a questionnaire and without a voting record.
B: May have opposed "pro-gun reform" or backed some gun restrictions.
C: "Not necessarily a passing grade." Mixed record" on gun votes.
D: "Anti-gun" supporter of "gun control legislation" who "can usually be counted on to vote wrong on key issues."
F: "True enemy of gun owners' rights."

The NRA spent 3.4 million dollars on supporting Romney last election. They spent 15 million total campaigning against Obama, including paying for negative attack ads, etc. This is the most they've ever spent to oppose a presidential candidate in history.

Currently, they pretty much straight up oppose any gun legislation regardless of how minor or how blatantly common sense ( Such as closing the gun show loop hole that lets people who are not allowed to own guns purchase guns ). While trying to repeal those laws already in effect. Such as the one that prevents firearms from being allowed in a school zone. They even oppose bills that simply permit Federal research into firearm safety and gun violence.
So yeah, they pretty much knee jerk oppose anything that even remotely comes near their guns. Even if its blatantly common sense things like background checks, gun trafficking, prohibiting the sale of firearms to known or suspected terrorists, prohibiting the sale of firearms to people who were convicted of violent crimes in other countries, etc etc.
The training and safety aspect of their organization is admirable, but its political lobbying side is aggravating and unreasonable.
I don't think that's the case just by sheer numbers alone of gun owners vs police officers. Although US police do have a pretty unsettling track record for the rate of which they are shooting or accidentally shooting people lately.
I'm kind of curious as to what the training requirements are now with US police and how it compares to the police up here.

Of courses NRA wants more money for in their coffers for political, educational and competition, so what??? Why is it wrong for them to raise funds for what every reason they want??? Folks can give or not, NRA is pretty up front about what they intend to use the money for. Is their desire to raise money to support like minded politicians any less legitimate than NAACP??? I think the biggest reason folks dislike the political wing (NRA-ILA) is that it's darned good at what it does and is effective. Did not King Billy say NRA was part of the reason Algore lost in 2000???
BTW NRA isn't against all changes being proposed to gun laws nor have they ever been. NRA was behind the passage of the current national back-ground check. And what you call common sense someone else will disagree. Does NRA not have the right to disagree??? Personally I think it's reasonable to show a photo ID to vote others do not, we can agree to disagree.
What you call gun-show loop-hole is also defined as a private sale of a firearm between one person and another. Most firearms that change hands in such a manner are not conducted at gun shows.
Now what about folks that live with 1000 feet of a school??? Why should their rights be lessened because of geography??? It's a BS law and always has been, maybe an alternative of not carrying a loaded firearm on school properties without permission would be a better compromise???
LEO training varies from state to state and agency to agency. I used to supervise both state and federal range training and qualification. Let's just say that for most agencies it would be best just to stand very still and let them shoot because you're more likely to run into the bullet and the agent hitting you with it on purpose. I've seen very very poor shooter and I've seen very very good shooters, therefore the bell curve is far from being equal.

[Gravekeeper]

Easy there, triple question mark.

Of courses NRA wants more money for in their coffers for political, educational and competition, so what??? Why is it wrong for them to raise funds for what every reason they want???

Did I say it was wrong?

Folks can give or not, NRA is pretty up front about what they intend to use the money for. Is their desire to raise money to support like minded politicians any less legitimate than NAACP???

The NRA spends the vast majority of its money hiring lobbyists and paying for negative campaigning against targeted politicians. Their direct contributions are actually a small portion of what they spend, especially individual contributions which only total some 30-40k a year. The majority of their contributions come from PACs to the tune of around 1 million a year. Meanwhile they will spend upwards of 10 million a year campaigning against Democrats. When it comes to influencing elections, the NRA are one of the bigger spenders.

I think the biggest reason folks dislike the political wing (NRA-ILA) is that it's darned good at what it does and is effective. Did not King Billy say NRA was part of the reason Algore lost in 2000???

People dislike the the political wing because it is unreasonable and dishonest.

BTW NRA isn't against all changes being proposed to gun laws nor have they ever been.

They are against practically any change. Also, I do call it common sense to crack down on illegal gun trafficking. The NRA however, does not. The NRA's position is that if someone illegally purchases a firearm for someone who is not legally allowed to own a firearm, law enforcement has to prove that the person intended to commit a crime or further the commission of the crime by purchasing it for someone else. They want ignorance of the law to be an excuse.

They have opposed this and gun show loophole fixes multiple times. Practically 1-2 times a year according to congressional records. They also oppose anything to do with background checks. They oppose virtually everything to do with improving the ability to stop illegal gun trafficking. They opposed the restriction of military grade armour piercing handgun ammunition ( The idea of the bill was to restrict handgun ammunition capable of piercing police officer's body armour ). They opposed increasing border security to try and stop illegal gun trafficking from Mexico. They opposed restricting the sale of firearms to known and suspected terrorists. They opposed restricting the sale of firearms to people who committed violent crimes in foreign countries.

Oh, and immigration reform. Just for lawls.

NRA was behind the passage of the current national back-ground check. And what you call common sense someone else will disagree.

The president of the NRA supported universal background checks 14 years ago. Now, not so much. The president of the NRA has a laundry list of excuses for why that is ranging from it being inconvenient to straight up lying about it. He claimed its too expensive ( It costs anywhere from nothing to $5 ). He claimed its too much paperwork ( It's electronic, no paperwork is involved. )

He said background checks don't work because they're not well enforced. Then he said background checks don't work because they're TOO WELL enforced. He said both of these things in the same senate hearing.

Other excuses are that crazy people will avoid the checks, that non-crazy law abiding responsible gun owners will avoid the checks because it costs $0-5. That it will lead to the government taking everyone's guns. That big government is bad.

He has a new excuse every week when asked about it -.-

What you call gun-show loop-hole is also defined as a private sale of a firearm between one person and another. Most firearms that change hands in such a manner are not conducted at gun shows.

I'm not calling it a gun show loop-hole. Congress is. I also fail to see how most firearms that change hands in such a manner not being conducted at gun shows affects bills specifically about fixing loopholes in gun show sales.

Now what about folks that live with 1000 feet of a school??? Why should their rights be lessened because of geography??? It's a BS law and always has been, maybe an alternative of not carrying a loaded firearm on school properties without permission would be a better compromise???

The law already allows for a school to grant permission/exemption. It also does not apply if you're licensed to open or conceal carry, or if you're on private property within that 1000 feet. Its not a perfect law by any means ( 1000 feet is a bit much, that's a good block away. Should probably be more like 250-500 feet but no discharge within 1000. ), but at the same time its sad there even has to be a law telling you not to bring a loaded weapon onto school grounds.

[Signmaker]

They are against practically any change. Also, I do call it common sense to crack down on illegal gun trafficking. The NRA however, does not.

Because the laws proposed will not have a positive effect on illegal gun trafficking.

The NRA's position is that if someone illegally purchases a firearm for someone who is not legally allowed to own a firearm, law enforcement has to prove that the person intended to commit a crime or further the commission of the crime by purchasing it for someone else. They want ignorance of the law to be an excuse.

No, they want the requirement to be knowledge of the recipient's prohibition in order to prosecute the seller. In other words, if the seller had no knowledge that the buyer was a prohibited person (felon), they cannot be charged with the sale, because it was conducted in good faith. Since most straw purchases are commited via parent, spouse, or family member, this is a pretty solid law.

They have opposed this and gun show loophole fixes multiple times. Practically 1-2 times a year according to congressional records.

Because there is no gun show loophole.

They also oppose anything to do with background checks.

Because background checks do not prevent violent felon firearms ownership.

They opposed the restriction of military grade armour piercing handgun ammunition ( The idea of the bill was to restrict handgun ammunition capable of piercing police officer's body armour ).

I remember that one, it made me 'lol'. That was going to be a back-door ban on all level IIIa defeating ammunition from intermediate calibers on down, essentailly a "assault rifle" ammo ban. Fun bit of reality; hot loadings of plain jane .357mag defeat IIIa soft armor.

They opposed increasing border security to try and stop illegal gun trafficking from Mexico.

Because gun trafficking from Mexico isnt as big of a problem as Hollywood and the gun control lobby would have people beleive.

They opposed restricting the sale of firearms to known and suspected terrorists.

When the DHS sends around a memo detailing 90% of the NRA's constituents as being "potential domestic terrorists", I'd say they have good reason.

They opposed restricting the sale of firearms to people who committed violent crimes in foreign countries.

Because we dont trust what other countries various forms of courts say...about anything, guns or no.

I'm not calling it a gun show loop-hole. Congress is. I also fail to see how most firearms that change hands in such a manner not being conducted at gun shows affects bills specifically about fixing loopholes in gun show sales.

Did you even read the bill? It doesnt only limit transactions that take place at gun shows, but all transactions that would otherwise take place sans BGC. And Congress calls it a gun show loophole because it's a better buzzword than "private sale". Private sale doesnt sound very concerning, but gun show loophole sounds downright dangerous! Also, there is no gun show loophole.

The law already allows for a school to grant permission/exemption. It also does not apply if you're licensed to open or conceal carry, or if you're on private property within that 1000 feet. Its not a perfect law by any means ( 1000 feet is a bit much, that's a good block away. Should probably be more like 250-500 feet but no discharge within 1000. ), but at the same time its sad there even has to be a law telling you not to bring a loaded weapon onto school grounds.

No school would ever go out of their way to grant exemption. Some places, like my state, does not require liscencing for carry by some owners. And finally, it would not have a positive effect on school firearm violence.

If criminals gave a shit about the darling little "common sense gun laws" these people come up with, they probably wouldnt be committing the much larger crime that they were using the firearm for. Yanno, like robbery, rape, and murder, which have far worse penalties than breaking a gun law.

[Gravekeeper]

Because the laws proposed will not have a positive effect on illegal gun trafficking.

Well, I'm glad a random anonymous voice on the Internet settled that.

No, they want the requirement to be knowledge of the recipient's prohibition in order to prosecute the seller. In other words, if the seller had no knowledge that the buyer was a prohibited person (felon), they cannot be charged with the sale, because it was conducted in good faith. Since most straw purchases are commited via parent, spouse, or family member, this is a pretty solid law.

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing here ;p

Because there is no gun show loophole.

Gun shows are the second most common channel for illegal gun trafficking specifically because of the ability to purchase and transfer weapons without the normal Federally regulated background check. In fact 17 states have actually addressed or closed this loophole in some way.

Because background checks do not prevent violent felon firearms ownership.

Then why is a gun show where they can evade background checks the second most popular method for said felons to obtain firearms? ;p

I remember that one, it made me 'lol'. That was going to be a back-door ban on all level IIIa defeating ammunition from intermediate calibers on down, essentailly a "assault rifle" ammo ban. Fun bit of reality; hot loadings of plain jane .357mag defeat IIIa soft armor.

Actually, it only mentioned 2 calibers. Also, is the average dickwad really going to hand load a high pressure .357 in the hopes of defeating IIIa armour? Plus its hollow point that really defeats armour. What do you need hollow point for? -.-

Because gun trafficking from Mexico isnt as big of a problem as Hollywood and the gun control lobby would have people beleive.

Seriously? A ton of guns go over that border to them. They only have one gun store, remember.

When the DHS sends around a memo detailing 90% of the NRA's constituents as being "potential domestic terrorists", I'd say they have good reason.

Citation Needed. I can find the leaked memo in question and unless the NRA's constituents are 75% lunatics, that's not what it says.

Because we dont trust what other countries various forms of courts say...about anything, guns or no.

What part of "violent" eludes you? I wasn't aware the US had a different definition of the word than the rest of us.

Did you even read the bill? It doesnt only limit transactions that take place at gun shows, but all transactions that would otherwise take place sans BGC. And Congress calls it a gun show loophole because it's a better buzzword than "private sale". Private sale doesnt sound very concerning, but gun show loophole sounds downright dangerous! Also, there is no gun show loophole.

Which bill specifically? The one that enjoyed majority support from everyone and still got axed by the GOP?

And finally, it would not have a positive effect on school firearm violence.

Good to know, random anonymous Internet voice. What would we do without you to settle these complex issues? >.>

If criminals gave a shit about the darling little "common sense gun laws" these people come up with, they probably wouldnt be committing the much larger crime that they were using the firearm for. Yanno, like robbery, rape, and murder, which have far worse penalties than breaking a gun law.

Ease of access, ease of use. This isn't rocket science.

[s_stabeler]

Why ban something that isn't being used in any crimes??? The only recorded criminal uses of registered class-3 (full-auto) firearms were committed by police officers. Reality is there isn't that many legimate class-3 weapons in civilian hands. They are very very expensive to buy, very very expensive to feed and owning one puts that person(s) life open to the BATFE. As of 1986 all class-3 weapons that were in circulation is all there is ever going to be so in a few years the newest class-3 weapon will be 30 years old.
The vast majority if not all class-3 weapons recovered at crime scenes were most likely smuggled in or stolen from LEOs or Military. Folks that own class-3 keep them locked up in good if not great safes and mostly have security systems. BATFE can come to the place of storage to inspect and they have removed weapons.
Now as to legitimate use the same argument can be made for a POS Prius and a Corvette.
Malfunctioning semis, I agree the owner deserves a chance to get the firearm fixed otherwise face the consequences.

A) I said there was NO legitimate use for an auto as opposed to a semi-auto. there ARE legitimate uses for a Prius and/or Corvette. ( yes, there may be other cars which are better. let's not get into that.)

b) criminals HAVE used automatics in the past- for example, the tommy gun. It is the rarity of them that means they aren't used in crimes, not any particular inclination of criminals not to use them. the ban on automatics is actually a success of gun control, in that it has made the type of gun rare to use in criminal activity. ( note that in the UK, yes we get more stabbings. however, a stabbing is generally easier to treat- and less likely to be done in the first place, since you have to get right up close to kill with a knife. Not everyone can kill if they actually have to watch the person die in front of them. It means that it tends to be more hardened criminals that commit murder)