What if guns and ammo were free?

[Tanasi]

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)

Would an investment in the ownership of class-3 be a legitimate use??? Heck just having one to shoot for just because is good enough for me. They're fun to shoot, just a fast cars are fun to drive. Even way back in gangster prohibition/Bonnie-Clyde days full auto use was rare because the guns were even more rare then than they are now and most of those used were stolen from the police and military. Clyde used a cut down BAR and he didn't buy it at a hardware store but from someone that stole it from the Army.
Unlike your country in this one I don't have to provide a reason to own a firearm regardless of type. If I can pass the background check(s) and can pay for it then that's good enough. Having some faceless drone in a office somewhere that applies the laws in an arbitrary manner isn't living free, sometimes that freedom comes with a price. That's a price that I've paid for and still willing to do so.
As an aside until my state's department of safety took over the handgun carry permitting getting an HCP was an arbitrary process. It was always controlled by the county sheriff. In some counties it was available for the asking, in others you had be donate to the sheriff's re-election fund, in other's you couldn't get one to save your life. It was all within the law but TN gun owners organized and got the state involved and now you take and pass the class, pay your money, pass the back-ground check and nearly $200 and 30 to 60 days later you get your permit.

[s_stabeler]

it's arguable- yes, they may be fun to shoot, but is the inherent danger ( both due to the rate of fire and the inaccuracy of full-autos) justified? there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough. As you say, a price must be paid for freedom. The question is, how much of a price is too much? THAT is what must be decided- the right to bear arms must be balanced against the legitimate public interest in avoiding criminals bearing arms.

I DO agree that the process should not be arbitrary, though. If you meet the requirements, you should receive any license required. I just think that some weapons should not be in civilian hands.

[Signmaker]

I was all set to make a series of rebuttal posts, but then I got to this part.

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? -.-.

This shows you have very little knowledge of the source of this debate to base your opinions on, and I can only assume you are parroting opinions from some sources you trust, rather than making your own informed decisions. Since I am not a trusted source (see anonymous voice comment), there is no point in me trying to dissuade you.

For the record, hollow points do not defeat armor. They are actually terrible at penetrating intermediate barriers. Hollow point ammunition is needed/used to create terminal expansion, reducing the chances of overpenetration, and making the round more efficient.

Hugs and kisses,
the average anonymous voice dickwad

[HYHYBT]

Because background checks do not prevent violent felon firearms ownership.

It would if it were harder to bypass the check. *Every* transfer of ownership should have one, with records kept to make genuine enforcement possible. Private sale included. Gift included. Inheritance included, within a reasonable timeframe and allowing for the sale or regift to someone who passes if the heir doesn't.

[Tanasi]

it's arguable- yes, they may be fun to shoot, but is the inherent danger ( both due to the rate of fire and the inaccuracy of full-autos) justified? there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough. As you say, a price must be paid for freedom. The question is, how much of a price is too much? THAT is what must be decided- the right to bear arms must be balanced against the legitimate public interest in avoiding criminals bearing arms.

I DO agree that the process should not be arbitrary, though. If you meet the requirements, you should receive any license required. I just think that some weapons should not be in civilian hands.

It's not arguable they are fun to shoot. I have a blast everytime I shoot mine so does everyone else that I allow to shoot them. So basically your argument is that it's better for some to have some freedoms taken from them so others can feel safer from those that weren't going to harm them in the first place??? Never mind those that would use full auto against them are more likely police types and criminals, gotta protect the public against those that follow the law.
What's next you want to take my flame-thrower from me too???
Should you ever get the chance there's a machine-gun shoot in Kentucky the second weekend in April and October. I'm not sure the entry price but it's not much. Please go for few hours and see the fun those folks are having and they're do it safely as possible. Just check out www.KCR.com

[Tanasi]

It would if it were harder to bypass the check. *Every* transfer of ownership should have one, with records kept to make genuine enforcement possible. Private sale included. Gift included. Inheritance included, within a reasonable timeframe and allowing for the sale or regift to someone who passes if the heir doesn't.

I disagree lists shouldn't be kept because there's no other reason to keep the list that to later confiscation. CA and NY have both done it. I'm not a criminal and it's no body's business what I own within the law.
I'll try to track it down but there was a series of articles written by a lady that lives in Washington DC and what all she had to go through just to buy a cheap handgun to keep at home. The process took a very long time and it was very expensive on top of what the gun cost. If I remember correctly the process cost more than the gun and that's not counting potentially lost time/money from work.
Do you know what someone in good standing has to go through to buy a gun from a dealer???
Why isn't there background checks and associated fees for those that drink booze??? There's a heck of alot more people killed each year from drunks than shooters.

[Tanasi]

Hollow points bullets are much less likely to defeat body armor than full-metal-jacket bullets. The idea behind hollow points was initially for hunting but the nose of the bullet has a hollow cavity that expands and opens up upon impact or in simpler terms it mushrooms. If it works as designed the bullet expends all it's energy within the target. You shoot a deer with a FMJ and that's almost like shooting with an ice pick, not a big wound track and not much bleeding even with a fatal wound unless bone is also hit. With hollow-point a much bigger wound track is created, more bleeding and certainly more shock damage.
Now can a hollow point defeat body armor, yes in some cases of very light armor. The cavity of an HP can also be filled with debris that in effect will make it more FMJ like.
The Geneva Convention bands the use of HP on the battle field, police in this country specifically carry HP for it's knock down power. Heck even hitting someone that has armor on with a round that doesn't penetrate will still put them on their ass. Bones can be broken through hits on armor, I'd say in some cases non-penetrative hits still cause enough shock damage for death.
Now personally I don't carry HP in my carry guns, I use soft-point semi-jacketed rounds made by Winchester in 140grain .38 special. I don't want to shoot anyone if I can keep from it and I certainly don't want to be shot again and I'll get away if I can but I also believe in being prepared and I'll do what I must. I also carry a pocket knife and a flash-light that also aren't used except when needed.

[Andara Bledin]

I disagree lists shouldn't be kept because there's no other reason to keep the list that to later confiscation. CA and NY have both done it. I'm not a criminal and it's no body's business what I own within the law.

Don't forget that it's also expensive, it doesn't actually help with protection or prosecution (hell, the US barely bothers to check serial numbers because the rate of return is almost nothing), and let's not forget that the data thus collected becomes susceptible to theft, which actually is a boon to criminals.

If there was any compelling reason to have a registry, I'm sure Canada would have kept theirs instead of voting to repeal it last year.

[Gravekeeper]

This shows you have very little knowledge of the source of this debate to base your opinions on, and I can only assume you are parroting opinions from some sources you trust, rather than making your own informed decisions. Since I am not a trusted source (see anonymous voice comment), there is no point in me trying to dissuade you.

You've got to be kidding. I make a mistake in terminology late at night and you think that somehow disqualifies me from this entire debate and a winner is you?

You seem to be new to these here parts, so let me let you in on a little secret. We have discussed gun control, at length, to death and beyond over the years. Half the people in this thread have done so much research on the subject any of us could write you a thesis. Including myself. For this thread alone I've been pouring over congressional records, bill text, lobbyist money trails and gun trafficking research. Whereas you showed up made a few declarative statements with no explanation and patted yourself on the back.

So if you want to declare yourself the winner and run off because I said episode 10, Balance of Terror instead of episode 9. Then by all means, whatever makes you happy.

[Gravekeeper]

If there was any compelling reason to have a registry, I'm sure Canada would have kept theirs instead of voting to repeal it last year.

^ That. Ours was a bureaucratic nightmare and a massive money sink that has not been proven to effectively do much for us. Officers in more rural areas like it because it lets them know if they're walking into a gun filled domestic dispute off in the woods somewhere. But other than that many officers don't think it does anything and the majority of the Canadian public agrees that its useless.

I would much rather an effective system that makes it more difficult for the wrong people to get guns than one that just tells us all the people who legally own them. If Frank wants to buy a shiny new hunting rifle at the store, good for him. But if Bob the alcoholic manic depressive suddenly tries to buy 8 guns. 5000 rounds of ammunition and some body armour the day after getting fired from his job that might warrant a few questions.

[HYHYBT]

I disagree lists shouldn't be kept because there's no other reason to keep the list that to later confiscation.

The ability to audit, to prove that checks were done properly for each and every sale, is a reason. You can argue it isn't a good enough reason, but that confiscation is the only reason is obviously false.

[s_stabeler]

It's not arguable they are fun to shoot. I have a blast everytime I shoot mine so does everyone else that I allow to shoot them. So basically your argument is that it's better for some to have some freedoms taken from them so others can feel safer from those that weren't going to harm them in the first place??? Never mind those that would use full auto against them are more likely police types and criminals, gotta protect the public against those that follow the law.
What's next you want to take my flame-thrower from me too???
Should you ever get the chance there's a machine-gun shoot in Kentucky the second weekend in April and October. I'm not sure the entry price but it's not much. Please go for few hours and see the fun those folks are having and they're do it safely as possible. Just check out www.KCR.com

I live in the UK, so no, I am not likely to go to a machine-gun shoot in kentucky

but what I am saying is that you need to balance the restriction on freedom with the benefit it brings. In other words, if you want to restrict gun ownership, what will be the benefit? Specifically, is the benefit large enough to offset the restriction on freedoms? In the case of full-autos, I believe the restriction on freedoms is less than the benefit to public safety. In the case of requiring universal background checks for every transfer of ownership of a firearm, I believe the restriction on freedoms is less than the benefit to public safety. In the case of arbitrary restrictions (basically, where you can be denied because someone just doesn't feel like it) I believe the restriction of freedoms is more than the non-existant benefit. Therefore, I support requiring background checks on every transfer of ownership of a firearm, and a ban on owning a full-auto weapon without the relevant license. I also support "shall-issue" license laws.

[Tanasi]

The ability to audit, to prove that checks were done properly for each and every sale, is a reason. You can argue it isn't a good enough reason, but that confiscation is the only reason is obviously false.

That's the excuse the FBI used for the NIC. The thing was they never did the audit and just kept the info. The law was written to allow for this but after no many days they were to discard/delete the info which they didn't do and broke the law. So they weren't using the info for the purposes they were allow to temporarily keep then kept the info from the beginning of the program. Sounds to me like they were creating a list for other means than intended. When this was discovered congress held hearings and the FBI really didn't have an answer but it was suggested that it was done for political reasons but wasn't "ordered" to do so by the White House. The result was congress passed other laws specifically addressing this and created watch-dog to keep on eye on them.
So forgive me if I don't trust them.

[Gravekeeper]

That's the excuse the FBI used for the NIC. The thing was they never did the audit and just kept the info.

Got a source for that one? I can't find anything on it. I can find the record of the going back and forth in court between the NRA, DOJ and the FBI as they hammered out the length of record retention. Plus a lot of congressional fuckery with the records after 9/11. But nothing specific to what you're saying.

Oh, and an odd number of FBI sexting scandals...

[wolfie]

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.

I guess you'd apply the same treatment to double-barreled weapons that "double" (recoil of one barrel shakes the hammer off the sear on the other, so it fires too). Also, have some common-sense limits. Weapon malfunctions on the range? Get it fixed before using it again. You're on a 5-figure hunting trip to Alaska, sighting it in after transport, and it malfunctions? Load it with one round at a time (can't go automatic in that condition, since there's no second round to chamber and fire) for the duration of the trip, and get it fixed when you get home. After all, with a simple precaution, there's no need to throw away an expensive trip.

While trying to repeal those laws already in effect. Such as the one that prevents firearms from being allowed in a school zone.

Someone's already dealt with the issue of people living within the 1000 foot "ring" around a school (legal on private property), but how are they supposed to get the gun from the store to their home, or from their home to the range or hunting field? After all, they need to go off their own property. Also, what about people "just passing through", when the school is adjacent to the main road?

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)

But considering that for the few who DO need to shoot outside of training, their lives (and the lives of innocent bystanders) depend on their ability to shoot accurately, there needs to be a STRICT standard of competence they have to meet at all times. Base it on the model of random drug testing - by the "luck of the draw" (say on an average of once every 2 years), a cop reporting for duty will, instead of being sent to their normal assignment, be sent for a firearms qualification test. Fail it and they're suspended until they can pass it. Avoids the issue of officers only taking range time immediately before a test that they KNOW is coming, to bring themselves up to minimum standards for the purposes of the test - they'd need to keep themselves at minimum standards (or better) all the time.