While y'all are bickering about guns...

[Mad American]

Your idea makes some sense if looking at it from the perspective of controlling who buys. My question is how do you control who SELLS. Take several of my guns, they have passed down from as far as my great-grandfather and there are no records of them at all. Now, I'm not going to sell those but if I did how would it be traced back to me as the seller. You are basically asking that the sellers perform these checks on the honor system. Unless of course you are advocating a national registration program and that aint gonna happen.

[rstrong]

Your idea makes some sense if looking at it from the perspective of controlling who buys. My question is how do you control who SELLS. Take several of my guns, they have passed down from as far as my great-grandfather and there are no records of them at all.

Yes. The idea takes some time for a significant percentage of the guns to be tracked. But if you don't start, it'll never happen.

But it won't take generations for such a registry to be effective. Most of these massacres - like Columbine and Sandy Hook - let alone most convenience store hold-ups - aren't carried out with guns handed down from generation to generation.

Unless of course you are advocating a national registration program and that aint gonna happen.

You would have mandatory registration for assault weapons like the AR-15, so most of those would be in the system immediately. With strict penalties for anyone caught with one that's unregistered. Or caught *without* it, if it shows up with someone else unregistered.

[O Really]

There are some examples of people successfully (as well as unsuccessfully) defending themselves or their homes/business because they had quick access to a firearm. There are some examples of an armed person staving off a robbery in a public place. But the story I'd like to hear, if a true one exists, is an incident where a person used an AR-15 type weapon to successfully defend himself or his home/business and it could be shown that some lesser weapon would not have been successful. We're talking regular "law abiding" people here...not drug dealers, gang members or cartel people.

[DooHickey]

I too believe that certain types of firearms should be limited or prohibited. I like to hunt, but I'm not taking to the woods with an AK47 or a Bushmaster when a 30-30 or slightly larger gun is sufficient. Hell, I want something left to take home, not scatter an animals corpse all over Hell and half of Georgia. Anything over hunting capabilities should be banned because their only purpose is mass killing. A single shot .22 rifle or pistol will kill another human, but because of it's limitations, it's not likely to be used in a robbery or killing spree.

You do realize that a 30-30 is LARGER than the .223, which is a standard chambering in the Bushmaster, and that the 7.62 used in an AK-47 is very close to equal. How do you define what is for "hunting capabilities" and what is not? A properly loaded .223 is VERY capable of taking a whitetail deer so why the need to be so over gunned with the 30-30? Likewise your 30-30 would not be very effective against larger game where the 300 Win Mag would be. So again, how do you define "hunting capability" unless the ONLY parameter is capacity????

First off, let me tell you that I am not a gun expert, never claimed to be, don't intend to be. I have hunted with a 30-30 and found it to be sufficient for my needs. I didn't need a weapon that sprayed bullets faster than I could load them to bring down anything I ever shot. How do I define hunting capability? The same way I define camping capability. What's the point in "camping" if you're going "camping" in an air-conditioned camper with satellite HDTV and radio, a refrigerator, microwave, running water, and electric lights?? All I need when I go camping is the necessary gear for creature comforts and survival. The same with hunting. I don't need a weapon capable of destroying an entire village to hunt a deer, bear, hog, or whatever. Remember: what you're hunting does not have the opportunity to shoot back in self defense.

You can spout your macho gun knowledge all you want.....there is no useful purpose for rapid-fire automatic weapons except
to kill other humans who, with the exception of children, do have the capability to shoot back.

[Mad American]

I too believe that certain types of firearms should be limited or prohibited. I like to hunt, but I'm not taking to the woods with an AK47 or a Bushmaster when a 30-30 or slightly larger gun is sufficient. Hell, I want something left to take home, not scatter an animals corpse all over Hell and half of Georgia. Anything over hunting capabilities should be banned because their only purpose is mass killing. A single shot .22 rifle or pistol will kill another human, but because of it's limitations, it's not likely to be used in a robbery or killing spree.

You do realize that a 30-30 is LARGER than the .223, which is a standard chambering in the Bushmaster, and that the 7.62 used in an AK-47 is very close to equal. How do you define what is for "hunting capabilities" and what is not? A properly loaded .223 is VERY capable of taking a whitetail deer so why the need to be so over gunned with the 30-30? Likewise your 30-30 would not be very effective against larger game where the 300 Win Mag would be. So again, how do you define "hunting capability" unless the ONLY parameter is capacity????

First off, let me tell you that I am not a gun expert, never claimed to be, don't intend to be. I have hunted with a 30-30 and found it to be sufficient for my needs. I didn't need a weapon that sprayed bullets faster than I could load them to bring down anything I ever shot. How do I define hunting capability? The same way I define camping capability. What's the point in "camping" if you're going "camping" in an air-conditioned camper with satellite HDTV and radio, a refrigerator, microwave, running water, and electric lights?? All I need when I go camping is the necessary gear for creature comforts and survival. The same with hunting. I don't need a weapon capable of destroying an entire village to hunt a deer, bear, hog, or whatever. Remember: what you're hunting does not have the opportunity to shoot back in self defense.

You can spout your macho gun knowledge all you want.....there is no useful purpose for rapid-fire automatic weapons except to kill other humans who, with the exception of children, do have the capability to shoot back.

Fair enough but that is not what you said. You made a statement that framed the 30-30 as a smaller cartridge than the usual .223 chambering for the AR-15 or the 7.62 used in the AK. Rapid fire AUTOMATIC weapons are already illegal for civilians to possess. However, semi-automatic weapons are VERY popular in all platforms from shotguns to center fire rifles, from the Beretta Urika to the Browning BAR, and ALL of them are marketed and USED as sporting arms. It is that "macho gun knowledge" that allows me to adequately debate this issue because I am educated on the subject and know more about guns than the liberal media talking points say. Finally you did answer my final question...your only definition of "hunting capability" is based on the capacity of the weapon.

[mike]

...your only definition of "hunting capability" is based on the capacity of the weapon.

In defense of DooHickey, perhaps that is good enough ...

[Mad American]

So, in order to protect the rights and privacy of deadly weapons Mad American advocates making accessible to all potential gun sellers a federal database of the mentally ill, the vast majority of whom are not violent.

Better re-read the conversation vrede. It is rstrong that is advocating making the database available...not me. I only said it makes sense if you are looking to control who buys...there is still no way to enforce the sellers compliance. Unless, like I said earlier, one wants a national registry which aint gonna happen.

[Mad American]

You posted a bit stronger than that.

...I have no problem with adding mental health records to the NICS system...

And, rstrong is not opposed to all other reasonable steps, not does he support an organization that has consistently opposed doing anything at all.

Yes vrede, and the NICS system is available to LICENSED GUN DEALERS, not "all potential gun sellers". There is a difference.

[rstrong]

So, in order to protect the rights and privacy of deadly weapons Mad American advocates making accessible to all potential gun sellers a federal database of the mentally ill, the vast majority of whom are not violent.

Better re-read the conversation vrede. It is rstrong that is advocating making the database available...not me.

Correct. That is indeed a problem with my position.

Perhaps the seller should not be told WHY the buyer failed the background check; only that the check came back with a negative. Whether it's mental illness or a felony, in most cases buyer will know why they'd fail the check even before they try to buy a gun.

And obviously there should be a well-established procedure for the buyer to challenge a negative result. Credit agencies have (forcibly, by the government) made some progress here. The TSA has not. Database owners, like gun owners, have demonstrated that sometimes legislation is necessary for them to take responsibility.

[Mad American]

That's tens of thousands of gun profiteers that you think should have access to mental health records.

So, you think that the NICS system, for use by licensed firearms dealers, should NOT include mental health records?

[rstrong]

That's tens of thousands of gun profiteers that you think should have access to mental health records.

I'm the one argueing for all gun sellers to have access to NCIS background checks.

(And as noted after your post, your concern is quite valid. The answer may be to have the check return a yes/no result, without explaining why. While ensuring that the buyer can find out why, and challenge the result.)

[Mad American]

So, in order to protect the rights and privacy of deadly weapons Mad American advocates making accessible to all potential gun sellers a federal database of the mentally ill, the vast majority of whom are not violent.

Better re-read the conversation vrede. It is rstrong that is advocating making the database available...not me.

Correct. That is indeed a problem with my position.

Perhaps the seller should not be told WHY the buyer failed the background check; only that the check came back with a negative. Whether it's mental illness or a felony, in most cases buyer will know why they'd fail the check even before they try to buy a gun.

And obviously there should be a well-established procedure for the buyer to challenge a negative result. Credit agencies have (forcibly, by the government) made some progress here. The TSA has not. Database owners, like gun owners, have demonstrated that sometimes legislation is necessary for them to take responsibility.

As it stands now, the seller is NOT told why the buyer failed the background check. The usual way things go is on the initial call to NICS the seller will be told to call back in x number of days (usually a week). On the follow up call, the seller will then be told to go ahead with the sale or to stop the transaction and that is all the information that is given.

[Mad American]

Database privacy ain't all it's cracked up to be, and the checks are just for handguns and full autos, right?

Mostly, I'm posting about it because of the irony in Mad American's willingness to sacrifice others' rights and privacy in order to preserve his without any intrusion. That's the difference between him and rstrong - rstrong puts it in a basket of things we could do re gun violence.

No the NICS checks are for ALL firearms purchases and to claim that you are posting about "irony" is an irony in itself. You have blabbered on for days about the "mental health" issue and when I AGREE with one of your buddies that mental health records SHOULD be included in the NICS system for use by licensed dealers all of a sudden you are against it because is "sacrifices their rights"???? Seems like you just troll around looking for who you can disagree with in order to argue so you can pad that enormous post count.

[O Really]

There are some examples of people successfully (as well as unsuccessfully) defending themselves or their homes/business because they had quick access to a firearm. There are some examples of an armed person staving off a robbery in a public place. But the story I'd like to hear, if a true one exists, is an incident where a person used an AR-15 type weapon to successfully defend himself or his home/business and it could be shown that some lesser weapon would not have been successful. We're talking regular "law abiding" people here...not drug dealers, gang members or cartel people.

Well, if you guys aren't going to help, let's see what I can find. Here's a list of instances where lawful gun-carrying civilians have helped police, possibly saving their lives... http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/officers_peril.htm No AR-15 type rifles used - mostly handguns, with some shotguns.,

More examples - "8 horrible crimes stopped by legal gun owners" ... http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-horrib ... wners.html Opps, no AR-15 type rifles used there, either, except for at least one maybe two of the bad guys.

Here's some from a pro-gun guy saying that ..."there are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don't stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that "the shooter took the lives of at least four people." So then, consider the following:

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented. I'm sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian—or in some cases, an off duty cop—was present." Opps, no defenders apparently used AR-15 type rifles.

Here's a pro-gun guy who says guns are good for self defense because there are from 800,000 to 2.5 million incidents per year in which a gun is used defensively. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html Maybe, maybe not - the study is in dispute - but still no statistical or anecdotal evidence of the necessity of an AR-15 type firearm.

These stories may be somewhat enhanced for the entertainment and dick-enlargement factors, but they are purported to be "Real Life Armed Self-Defense" stories. Opps, nobody seemed to be carrying around an AR-15 type firearm here, either... http://www.streetpro.com/usp/stories.html

Surely there are a few stories where a poor helpless grandmother couldn't have withstood the marauders at her gate without her AR-15, aren't there?

[Mad American]

Surely there are a few stories where a poor helpless grandmother couldn't have withstood the marauders at her gate without her AR-15, aren't there?

O Really, you are asking the wrong question. The AR-15 platform has become one of the widest used and widest ranging guns for sporting purposes. While the .223 is a standard chambering, the AR platform is now being used for many other calibers with many other uses. The AR is small, light, accurate, and a great gun for female or youth hunters/competition shooters. The difference could be compared to differences seen in modern archery equipment, a Mathews Creed is far more technologically advanced than a Bear Whitetail II. Looking for specific instances of AR use for personal defense is the same as looking for a Browning BAR or Remington 700 that has been used for the same purpose.

[Mad American]

My guess is that just about everyone other than police and military that uses an AR-15 against people here ends up dead or in jail.

Shouldn't that apply to ANY gun and not just the AR-15??

[Mad American]

No, O Really just provide a long list of self-defense incidents that did not involve AR-15s. Try to keep up. My point, if the guess is correct and in support for O Really's, is that in the real world vs. people AR-15s are not used for personal protection - they're used for crimes.

Vrede, in the real world ANY GUN, not used for personal protection, vs people is used in crime. Why such a focus on the AR-15? Just like I said trying to find specific instances of AR's used in personal defense is the same as trying to find a Browning BAR used for the same.

Hypothetically lets say that they get a magazine ban passed and ALL magazines for the AR-15 greater than 5 rounds are destroyed. So ALL (civilian) AR-15's are totally incapable of carrying more than 5 rounds what then???

[O Really]

No, O Really just provide a long list of self-defense incidents that did not involve AR-15s. Try to keep up. My point, if the guess is correct and in support for O Really's, is that in the real world vs. people AR-15s are not used for personal protection - they're used for crimes.

There are "sporting" uses for AR-15 type firearms, but sporting activities of any sort aren't necessarily legally protected in and of themselves. My argument is that AR-15 type firearms are commonly used in killings of lots of people quickly, and have no demonstrated value for self/home defense. Sure, if you have one in your hand or beside the door when you get a break-in, you're going to use it, but you could also have used a shotgun. In instances where people have successfully defended home invasions, car-jackings, street attacks, etc., there are rare (I couldn't find any, but there probably are some) instances where an AR-15 type firearm did the work, or would have done the work better. So you want to use it for target fun or hunting - fine - do you really need a 30-shot magazine?

[Mad American]

No, O Really just provide a long list of self-defense incidents that did not involve AR-15s. Try to keep up. My point, if the guess is correct and in support for O Really's, is that in the real world vs. people AR-15s are not used for personal protection - they're used for crimes.

Vrede, in the real world ANY GUN, not used for personal protection, vs people is used in crime.

Whoosh, the specific point being discussed is whether people need AR-15 type weapons for personal protection.

Why such a focus on the AR-15? Just like I said trying to find specific instances of AR's used in personal defense is the same as trying to find a Browning BAR used for the same.

Hypothetically lets say that they get a magazine ban passed and ALL magazines for the AR-15 greater than 5 rounds are destroyed. So ALL (civilian) AR-15's are totally incapable of carrying more than 5 rounds what then???

No one wants to discuss your picayune hypotheticals about a bill that has not been written yet. Give it up.

...It's funny how he keeps dwelling on the minutiae of a proposed law that does not even exist yet as proof that it can't work. Meanwhile, in the real world there are dozens of mostly successful examples of gun restrictions greater than America's that we can choose from.

Yes vrede, I understand the topic is "AR-15 for protection" and I have said over and over that the AR-15 is one of the most popular sporting platforms on the market today. So attempting to show specific instances of AR's used for protection is the same as attempting to use any other sporting platform such as the Browning BAR or Remington 750. So again why the tremendous focus on the AR. I even gave you a hypothetical scenario in which the AR would be reduced to the same capacity of any other sporting platform and you ducked that with more of your usual junk.
Yes, there are many other countries that we could choose gun restrictions from...We could look at Hitlers Germany, the Soviet Union between 1929-1953, 1915-1917 Turkey, China 1948-1952, Guatemala 1960-81, Uganda 71-79, Cambodia 75-79. The common link? 55 MILLION people murdered by their OWN GOVERNMENTS AFTER massive gun control initiatives and civilian disarmament. We could even look at "'modern day" Germany and Great Britain....Very stringent gun control laws and the proud owners of three of the top five mass school shootings in the WORLD.

[Mad American]

No, O Really just provide a long list of self-defense incidents that did not involve AR-15s. Try to keep up. My point, if the guess is correct and in support for O Really's, is that in the real world vs. people AR-15s are not used for personal protection - they're used for crimes.

There are "sporting" uses for AR-15 type firearms, but sporting activities of any sort aren't necessarily legally protected in and of themselves. My argument is that AR-15 type firearms are commonly used in killings of lots of people quickly, and have no demonstrated value for self/home defense. Sure, if you have one in your hand or beside the door when you get a break-in, you're going to use it, but you could also have used a shotgun. In instances where people have successfully defended home invasions, car-jackings, street attacks, etc., there are rare (I couldn't find any, but there probably are some) instances where an AR-15 type firearm did the work, or would have done the work better. So you want to use it for target fun or hunting - fine - do you really need a 30-shot magazine?

AR-15's are COMMONLY used for hunting a sport shooting. You have not shown any data that shows AR-15's responsible for more murders than say a Ruger SP-101. In order for your argument to hold water you need to find the data that shows the nationwide total of gun murders and then show that the AR-15 was the most used gun in those cases.
I presented vrede with a hypothetical scenario in which the AR-15 was permanently reduced to no more than a 5 shot magazine. So the same question to you...that happens....what then?