Gun Control

[PopeyesPappy]

I may be going through another NICS background check shortly because we're going to go shopping for a gun for Karen after work today. She's never really been around guns and doesn't particularly like them, but now she lives in a home with guns and has decided she should probably be more familiar with them including how to shoot one. BTW, this is not a straw purchase. I'll be buying it. It will be my gun. It will sit in my safe most of the time. I'm just trying that add something that will be easier for her to shoot to my collection.

Today we'll be looking at a Taurus Tracker 991SS4 in 22 magnum. One the plus side it's a DA/SA revolver. Operation is about as simple as handguns get. It's a small frame for a big gun so hopefully it will fit her small hands. It holds 9 rounds of 22 magnum which should have very little recoil in a 38 oz. revolver. On the minus side it's a Taurus which aren't renowned for their quality. The weight could also be an issue. While heavier guns kick less (all other things being equal) 38 ounces is a lot to hold out there. You also have to hit a rimfire rounds like the 22 mag harder than a center fire round to make it go bang. In a revolver that means a stiff trigger pull. The Taurus is the cheapest of the bunch at about $350.

Option 2 is a Ruger LCR in 22 magnum. It is smaller and lighter than the Taurus. Lighter means it wont be as hard to hold out there. It will kick a little more, but that shouldn't be an issue with the 22 mag. The shorter sight radius will make it harder to shoot accurately though. Plus it only holds 6 rounds versus 9 for the Taurus. An LCR will cost about $500.

Option 3 is one one I'm rooting for. It's a Browning 1911-380. Browning's 1911-380 is a polymer framed 85% scale 1911 type pistol chambered in 380 ACP. The 380 will kick a little more than a 22 but should still be manageable in what amounts to a full size pistol. It holds 8 rounds in the magazine which is more than most smaller 380's. The scaled down 1911 design should fit her smaller hands well, and the trigger pull much lighter than the revolvers. But a 1911 is less reliable and a lot more complicated to operate than a revolver. There are two manual safeties to manipulate. One of them is a grip safety which means you have to hold the gun just right in order for it to fire and to avoid failure to feed issues. These run about $600 for the non-compact non-A1 versions. Add another $100 for one with night sights.

Here is a pic of the Browning on top of a full size 1911.

[PopeyesPappy]

It's one of the reasons that nothing is ever done: stricter gun regulations won't solve much - an argument used effectively by those who oppose any gun regulation. IMHO,  only a total ban would make a real difference.

I tend to agree that stricter regulations are going to help a lot, but I don't object to trying much that is just short of bans.

[Jannabear]

Just a reminder that 60% of gun related deaths are suicides, an uncomfortable statistic that seems to get lost in the political rhetoric. Politicians and the general public can argue back and forth about gun control, which is important and necessary, but that doesn't address the reasons why so many Americans kill themselves, their families or their neighbors. There are social dynamics in the US that are not as prevalent in other countries and what works for another country may not be as effective here. It is a complicated problem with no easy solution but I think the first step is getting people to agree this is a serious problem and that none of us, no matter what political party, want more dead friends and family members.

I personally think the executive actions obama's trying to take are the best course of action.

[GSOgymrat]

I personally think the executive actions obama's trying to take are the best course of action.

It is definitely a step in the right direction. Even though Obama's executive order simply aids in enforcement of existing laws he is still getting push back and criticism, which shows just how difficult it is to make any major change related to gun control.

[Sylar]

It's one of the reasons that nothing is ever done: stricter gun regulations won't solve much - an argument used effectively by those who oppose any gun regulation. IMHO,  only a total ban would make a real difference.

If people want to kill they will find a way to do so, with or without strict gun regulation and with or without a total ban on guns. California, a state with the strictest gun control policies, still has mass shootings. However, if there isn't going to be a total ban (and no one but a tiny minority I reckon will actually agree to a total ban), then I suppose stricter gun control regulation is the way to go.

I don't really know the laws on gun ownership in California (or other states for that matter), but:

-More extensive background checks, including checks for mental health.
-Mandatory course(s) on gun safety, gun handling, and gun laws.
-Ban on sale of assault rifles and other heavy duty weapons to the general public, but allow them on gun ranges.
-...

I've never lived in a State other than California, so I do not exactly know why easy access to guns is desirable to people in those States. I suspect because no one wants to wait a few weeks until the background checks are done, and no one wants to pay all those extra fees. I think public safety trumps those. Sort of like how the transportation and similar industries have many codes and standards to ensure public safety, and often those come at greater cost.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, it is common sense. People can't be controlled. But then you also think the common violence in your country is just media hype.

I haven't been killed at all today.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

BTW, if "sense" was "common" we wouldn't need traffic laws.

[Baruch]

In a criminal society, criminals do what they do.  If they have guns, they will use them.  The problem is sociology, not psychology or criminology.  The problem with a feral government, is that both sides have guns and use them.  I just try to duck, and don't plan on living forever.  Maybe only Christians should be caught in the "cross-fire" ;-)

A total ban means that the police and military can't have guns either.  With nothing to provide physical protection, the government will evaporate, and Somalia will be the result ... and we are back to guns in every little garter and purse.

[PopeyesPappy]

-Ban on sale of assault rifles and other heavy duty weapons to the general public, but allow them on gun ranges.

Why? Assault rifles are rarely used in US homicides. According to FBI data collected from 2007 through 2011 rifles were used in less than 3% of homicides. That's all rifles. Assault rifle were only used in a small percentage of those. Nearly five times as many people were killed with knives than with all rifles. More than twice as many were beat to death with hands and feet than with rifles. If you want to cut down on gun violence by banning types of guns you should be talking about handguns. They accounted for 48% of the homicides during the period in question.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I suggest we give everybody a gun. Then we watch and see who is smart enough to lock it up where other people can't take it from them and kill them with it.

[Baruch]

When Admiral Yamamoto said "if we invade America, there will be a gun behind every blade of grass" he wasn't being rhetorical.  The world then, and now ... should have been or should still be ... scared shitless of our psychosis.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

[Jannabear]

Why? Assault rifles are rarely used in US homicides. According to FBI data collected from 2007 through 2011 rifles were used in less than 3% of homicides. That's all rifles. Assault rifle were only used in a small percentage of those. Nearly five times as many people were killed with knives than with all rifles. More than twice as many were beat to death with hands and feet than with rifles. If you want to cut down on gun violence by banning types of guns you should be talking about handguns. They accounted for 48% of the homicides during the period in question.

My argument against having assault rifles is that there's literally no point in having them legal.
It serves no logical purpose, and it would reduce the amount of gun deaths, even if it's a small amount.

[Mr.Obvious]

My argument against having assault rifles is that there's literally no point in having them legal.
It serves no logical purpose, and it would reduce the amount of gun deaths, even if it's a small amount.

While I'm not a big gunnut myself... (Don't get me wrong, I'd love to fire a sniper rifle one day on a firing range, it's on my bucket list, but I've got no intention of ever buying one.) There are many things that can be concidered a more dangerous option that holds no logical purpose to have. For example, what's the point in having an oldtimer? They are usually responsible for relatively more polution (sorry, dutch source: https://zqcentral.nl/index/news/show/8999) and most often, at least here in Belgium, they are totally unecessary as most people who own one already own a newer car for driving in the week.

Two different things, I know, with different problematic outcomes. But it's the first thing that came to mind. And what I'm trying to convey is that we keep things that are 'illogical' to have. Why? Because some of us simply like them and want to own them. The swords on my girlfriend's godfather's wall serve no purpose and are potentially dangerous. He still keeps them. That's why, even if as an outsider I look at America and see a gun-obsessed nation at the surface, I don't think gun-ownership itself is the problem. I do fullheartedly support having to prove your mental and psychological stability and maturity before being allowed to own a gun. I support having to go through exams to prove you are responsible and carefull enough with them. Kind of like a driving-exam.  And though this doesn't exist for driving, I support it for both  gun-ownership and your drivers-license: periodic exams to evaluate if you're still capable of driving or handling and owning a gun.
Here it's pretty expensive to go and get a driver's license, especially if you don't get it by your second go.  I've got a friend who'se lost a lot of savings in trying to obtain his license. But once he has it, he'll be allowed to drive till the day he dies. Even if he has a stroke or his eye-sight goes south or age makes his reflexes slow or whatever... That's the wrong way around, getting a driver's license should be cheap but you should be checked up on your ability to drive frequently and periodically. And if you fail for some reason, you should be able to try and obtain it again if you pass all the tests. Same with gun-ownership.

Anyways, sorry for the long rant.

[FaithIsFilth]

The state of emergency in France is now permanent, or until ISIS is defeated, so yeah, permanent. This is the future of the United States, and you guys deserve it for begging to have your rights taken. You already have both main presidential candidates at the moment saying free speech needs to go, and talking about closing up the internet. And oh yeah... by confiscating guns, you are going to have hundreds or thousands of gun owners die refusing to give up their rights. You guys don't care about those deaths though. All lives matter, except for the lives of gun nuts. Those won't be the only lives lost though. Even if you don't care about these gun nuts dying, cops will be dying too, and these gun nuts have children. How many of them will be collateral damage during the gun confiscation? Hundreds of kids could die here. Neighbours will also die in the crossfire, and other innocent bystanders. Why don't people ever think of this?

You take guns away from the people, and the gang bangers and police state are still going to have theirs. Not counting suicide, the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by gang bangers. You are not going to solve the gang problem by confiscating law abiding citizens guns. The government doesn't even want to solve the gang problem. Obama doesn't give a shit about blacks. Blacks being the least well off is how the US government wants it, and that's how it will stay. For profit prisons aren't going anywhere. The US government wants blacks right where they are. In jail or killing eachother. The government isn't going to be fixing poor black schools anytime soon. Blacks are doing as well as they are meant to be doing. So yeah.. criminals are still going to have theirs. A husband who has snapped and might have shot his wife before, is now just going to strangle her or stab her to death instead. Strangling your wife is pretty much just as easy as shooting her. People are not going to stop gang banging or killing their wives with gun confiscation. Criminals are probably going to be less worried though, if they know there are less people out there armed. It becomes a lot easier carrying out robberies after breaking into people's homes, when you don't have to worry about them being armed. You will prevent some school shootings and you will prevent some accidents at home. I'll give you that. At what price though? Thousands dead during confiscation? You think your rights like freedom of speech are safe, when you have both leading presidential candidates openly mocking free speech? Are you sure you want to give up all the guns to the US government, who are the biggest terrorists in the world? Is this really a good idea? If I was living under ISIS territory, would I want to hand my guns in to the terrorists? Probably not. If I was in the US, would I want to hand my guns over to those terrorists? Probably not. The terrorists being the ones with all the guns doesn't sound like such a good idea for some reason.