Gun control laws. Reasonable or stupid?
 

Politics aside since we all know a lot of times gun laws are made for stupid reasons, but let's focus on the laws themselves and do they seem reasonable.

Like the Full auto restriction to civilians. In America, you can get full auto weapons in some states bear in mind with a class 3 license, background check, stamps, etc.

But do you think it's a reasonable gun law?

What about states or countries like Canada that have magazine capacity limits to no more than 10 round magazines despite how in a lot of crime, suspects with illegal possessions of guns have them anyway or uses guns that are below 10 rounds.

Do you think it is a reasonable law for magazine limits?


What about flash hiders? Telescoptic, retractable, or folding stocks?

Barrel length restrictions?

What do you think about these restrictions?

There's a ban on "military ammunition" like 5.56 NATO the military uses, but there is no restriction on buying .50 BMG or even rounds that are just a bit more powerful than the standard military weapons that are called "Armor piercing".

So tell me your opinions on gun laws. Do you think any of them have some merit or that most of them are stupid.

I think it's good that they have to registered. But the Pre-May, Post-May is bs. All that did was raise the prices of the pre-may samples (the ones civilians can own without a class 3 license).

No. You can reload so what's the point.

The only time a flash hider is going to do it's job is at night, it's hard enough shooting at night as it is. Retractable stocks make it nice for different size users.

hmm. That's a tough one. I guess anything shorter than a 16" barrel has to be registered is okay. But a tax stamp, no.

I not sure what you mean by this one are you taking about other countries that have a ban 5.56mm?

But my most hated restriction. A 3-day waiting period on a handgun. Some states even longer. (3 days in FL) but I can walk out with an AR-15 with no waiting period that will do way more damage than a handgun

Indiana has no waiting period to get a gun. You buy it and get it on the same day.

People would ask why do you need a full auto weapon? And some would say why not?

Things about our gun laws I agree with:

-Liscense to own a firearm - I don't think anyone should be able to walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun, and I think in the long term liscensing is less onerous than a background check every time.

-3 classes of gun liscense - Non-restricted = long guns; restricted = handguns; prohibited = full auto & other "scary" guns. This is an oversimplification, but it'll do for discussion. I don't think that a handgun is the same thing as a deer rifle, or that a submachine gun is the same thing as a handgun and it makes sense to have different levels on control on them.

-Storage requirements - I'm sorry, but I don't agree with storing a loaded gun in an unlocked area.

-Antique firearms - Our antique laws aren't perfect, but they're pretty rational. An antique firearm isn't treated as a firearm, but still has to be stored properly and when used in a crime it becomes one.


Things about our gun laws I'm indifferent to:

-Registration of firearms - the program is mismanaged and a huge waste of money, but it's not particularly onerous and done right it could be cost effective. I don't think it's necessary, but it doesn't bother me.

-Authorization to transport restricted firearms - same deal, it's not onerous so I don't really mind. I have a standing ATT for the range, anywhere else I need to take them I phone it in and they fax it to me. Takes 10 minutes.

-Lack of handgun carry - done responsibly I think concealed carry is a good thing, but working in a gun shop you deal with WAY too many people who should NOT be allowed to carry a handgun. And most of them would.


Things about our gun laws I dislike:

-Prohibition of certain firearms - if you owned one before they were prohibited you still can, but otherwise you're SOL. I can kinda see the rationale behind prohibiting full autos, but when they can be purchased by properly-liscensed individuals they become so expensive that criminals don't use them. I'd rather see prohibs just become a more-regulated class of restricted.

-Barrel length / caliber requirements on handguns - Unless you owned one before 1995, you can't own a handgun with a barrel under 4.1" or in .25 or .32 caliber. That's just stupid. Even if you're worried about concealability, make it based on overall length, not barrel length. I own guns a hell of a lot more concealable that a P.08 Luger or Bolo Mauser, but those are both prohibited. At the very least, I'd like to see a full exemption for pre-1945 pistols - we already have a partial in that they can be passed directly along the bloodline.

-Wilderness carry only for liscensed trappers - The average person cannot carry a handgun in the woods, and that I actually disagree with. I like to hike in grizzly country, my mom likes to pick blueberries in grizzly country. I don't want to carry a shotgun hiking and she definately wouldn't. I'd like to carry a pistol in that case, but because I'm not a "wilderness professional" I can't. I don't consider this the same thing as carrying in a city.

-Magazine capacity limits - this bothers me more as a collector than a shooter. I like that there are exemptions for rare and historically significant magazines, but its a very short list (off the top of my head, Luger trommel mag, Bren anti-aircraft drum, Huot automatic rifle spool mag, and maybe a Lewis pan mag) and I hate putting a pin through ANY collectible. Of course, once you start allowing vintage, why not modern, and so on until to be rational everything has to be legal.

In general, my attitude is that any gun law that actually bans something is not even worth contemplating.

If it's a law that's intended to weed out the criminals and mentally ill from the responsible, law-abiding citizens, then I am willing to consider the law objectively (it doesn't mean I'll endorse said law, necessarily, just that I'm willing to discuss it in terms of its merits).

I agree with this. For years, I used to get into fights with other pro-gunners who swore up and down that there was no difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle. I think it's the most embarrassingly inept argument that comes from our side, and I hate it when people try to make it.

Speaking of which...

Yes. The FOPA is the only thing I disagree with.

There should be no magazine capacity limits. That being said, I hate it when pro-gunners argue, "There's no 'practical' difference between a 30-round magazine and three 10-round magazines", which is a retarded argument to make. There's a huge difference, and I should know.

I disagree with them all. Well, maybe the barrel length restrictions, except that I'd ditch the arbitrary 16" minimum limit.

3 days? Here you must wait for 5 months or more for a "civilian" weapon (.22lr, you must register it and have the permission to buy the ammo) or "conditional" weapon (semi and single shot shotguns, bolt-action and fixed magazine rifles). And if you want a semiauto rifle with detachable magazine, you must wait at least 2 years to get a civilian Fal, thanks to the post-1995 ban.

First, for use a gun you need your CLU (Legitimate user credential). Then, you can go to the gun shop and buy the gun, but you can´t take it to home. First you need to send the gun´s papers to the RENAR (National register of firearms) and wait for the gun´s credential. That´s... emm... 5 months or more.

Come on guys, your gun laws are one of the most flexible in the world.

Here in NC, we have to get purchase permits to buy handguns from the local Sheriff's Department. Typically, it takes them several days to process your application. I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't for the fact that you have to get two "references" (people who live in your county) to sign the permit application. It's a real pain in the ass, and it's the reason I've never bought a handgun in this state.

But just like you guys, we're able to buy AR-15s and AKs over the counter with no problem. I think it's retarded that I can't buy a 9mm Glock-19 without a purchase permit, but I can buy as many assault rifles and 30-round mags with almost no effort besides the 5 minutes it takes to fill out the 4473 and pass the NICS.

Yeah, I admit, no sense getting too greedy. It could be worse.

I wasn't saying comparing US gun laws to other countries, US laws are cake but we're here to discuss if some gun laws are reasonable or just plain stupid, like England and Australia completely banning guns

Waiting periods. I think that's stupid. Maybe a day so that the store can do background checks on the person if the law requires that, but if a law that requires a license to already allowing the person to own a gun, then there's no need for waiting period and certainly should not wait more than a day.

People say that some laws are made because some criminal had set precedences by doing something. So before the restriction on gun barrel lengths, someone was totting a 10in barrel AR-15 around to shoot up a place? Perhaps someone was using a sawed off shotgun and when the restricted barrels on that gun, they say why not all guns?

Then there's loopholes like you can get an AR pistol that doesn't have a stock and it has a very short barrel, but the moment a stock is put on it, it's a rifle again? Then a weapon like the PS90, the civilian FN P90 needing a long 16in barrel sticking out. The weapon by itself is expensive and most crooks wouldn't even save enough money to get more expensive guns like that. They'd be too busy with booze and drugs or trying to feed themselves. Most criminal don't even go the extra mile in getting good guns to commit crime, they just get whatever they can get their hands on.

Basically, yes. Barrel lengths were another provision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was long before AR-15s existed. Sawed-off shotguns and some rifles had a reputation for being gangster weapons. So they made it mandatory to have a 16" barrel (or 26" over length) for long guns.

Yes. And technically, it's not illegal to buy a 10" AR upper and get it sent in the mail. But if you own an AR-15 lower with a stock attached, and it goes on the lower, then you've committed a felony. It seems ridiculous, but that's because, again, the NFA was passed before AR-15s existed. In 1934, nobody would have figured that in the future, somebody would invent a rifle that can easily be converted to another version by simply replacing the upper unit and stock.

What's your point? They can't pass a law that reads, "All long guns must have a 16" barrel, unless it's an expensive gun which costs over $1,000, because criminals can't afford them." They have to just say ALL long guns.

I'm just saying, some of the laws as you have pointed out can be kinda stupid. What was that one politician that wanted to ban barrel shrouds but didnt even know what they are?

I believe that you should be able to own a full auto gun if you haven't commited any felonies and take a one time class

16" minimum barrel lenth for rifles, 18" for shotguns. Anything less is a SBR/SBS (short barreled rifle/shotgun) and needs a tax stamp.

I don't remember anyone who didn't know what barrel shrouds are. I do remember that Chuck Schumer didn't know the difference between a "magazine" and a "stock". He once participated in a debate where he said that the AWB imposed a law on "more than 10-bullet stocks".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U this is the lady that doesn't know what a barrel shroud is.

Oh and I found this vid to be funny to listen to. These are the kind of women that makes men think women don't know anything about guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQN1u_aPgcM&NR=1

Oh and THIS is the funniest attempt at "gun free zone" I have ever seen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI_7a...eature=related

And I just found this about Canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2MW...eature=related

The laws themselves aren't necessarily stupid, but most of the time the reasoning behind them is. I don't know if this is actually true or not, but I've heard .50 cal rifles were made illegal in California after a criminal shot an LAPD helicopter out of the sky with one in SWAT.

The guy must have been skilled

I've never heard that, but it sounds absurd. Or at least, the Wikipedia page on the ban says nothing about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Cal...on_Act_of_2004

As for .50-caliber rifles, I'm not sure if they shouldn't at least be regulated under the NFA.

I do think that any large caliber weapon should at least be kept track up. You'd never know what kind of idiot would go around blowing shit up with a .50 BMG, but I've never heard of anyone criminal or terrorist using a .50 to harm people. Sounds like a stupid weapon to use on the general public

In the U.S.? No. Outside of this country? Yes. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_A...2%80%931997%29

The Barrett rifles that they used were originally purchased from American FFLs (which is also how the IRA got most of the "Armalites" it used).

More recently, we've learned that some of the Mexican drug cartels have also purchased Barrett rifles in the U.S., and those weapons have been recovered in raids. They haven't actually used them so far, but that could change.

Well the idea that a man can purchase a 50 and use it on people is very realistic, but even though it hasn't happened yet, doesnt mean a law should be in place to ban people from getting the rifle

Nobody's calling for a ban. I do think it's worth considering whether the Barrett should be regulated by the NFA.

And as the link I've posted shows, it has happened. The IRA used Barrett rifles to kill British soldiers in Northern Ireland during the 1990s.

I remember reading a report during New Orleans when they were cleaning up after Katrina and then asking people to surrender their firearms, a group of Nation Guardsman went to some rich guy's place, big mansion and all and were kind surprised to see that the guy living there with his buddies got bigger guns than them and noted at a Barrett among them. I don't know if they surrender their guns or not, but it actually scared the guardsmen.

I kind of feel like the price and the amount of training/skill it takes to properly utilize a Barrett are regulatory enough on their own. I don't know any people who have on in the U.S. at least on the civilian level, and if we don't, I doubt criminals do.

I also agree that the regulations on machineguns are fair, though the Pre 86 deal is a bit stupid. On the other hand I'm on the fence about whether or not the current requirements for obtaining a machinegun, along with the price drop that would come, would stop people from just buying the machinegun instead of the semi-automatic variant; if the Pre 86 clause was abolished and modern machineguns were available, it might botch the "civilian market". It would be nice to have a fully automatic Assault Rifle, but to know that nearly anyone else can have one too makes it a bit more frightening. If they do fall into the wrong hands, they could potentially mean much more trouble than their semi-automatic counterparts. I can think of any well known shooting incident (except maybe North Hollywood where they DID have automatic weapons) and say "what if they had a machinegun too?" and only imagine how much worse it might have been.

I want to be clear about this, I'm not against the ownership of machineguns by responsible civilians, but as of now I can't justify allowing them to be as available or abundant as the semi-automatic variants, at least not with the current laws.

Well the bankers at North Hollywood got those AKs illegally and the ammo illegally so what's to say they wouldn't have tried to get a machine gun as well. It would have made the situation a lot worse for the cops if the robbers had a browning or even a SAW

He was former SWAT.

He's talking about Jeremy Renner in the SWAT movie guys, it didn't actually happen as far as I know. Even so, I doubt that they'd pass a law because of events that happened in a movie.

Also, when I say "machinegun" I mean it as a general word for automatic weapon, like in civilian context, not the specific classification of frearm like the M249 and the M60 fall into. The North Hollywwod guys had automatic weapons i:e "machineguns".

Or the term "Assault Weapon"

Assault Weapon: anything from a toothpick to an ICBM

Yeah, in the movie. But with how paranoid the anti-gun crowd is these days, it wouldn't surprise me if it is true.

I think you should be able to buy pistols at 18, not just long guns.

I've always found that law to be a bit stupid too. At 18, you're considered to be an adult, yet you can't get a handgun or drink until 21.

but you can have an ak-47 or ar-15 clone but no sig or 1911? makes no sense

Never made sense to me, either. I've always believed the long gun to be the more dangerous.

Well handguns and shorter guns can be concealed very easily under clothes, but then again, if it's cold enough, you can wear a large jacket or trench coat in the city and still carry around an AK or AR-15 carbine under it and still not be suspicious

Yeah, that's true. Didn't think of that.

Semi-auto military-style rifles may be more dangerous (in terms of the number of people you can potentially shoot with one), but statistically, pistols are by far the most common guns used in crime. I'm guessing the logic is to keep them out of the hands of teenage thugs.

Plus, AKs and AR-15s are big, heavy, and expensive. You can hide one beneath a trench coat, but that looks quite suspicious, and it's pretty unwieldy (no matter what you see in the movies).

They hide those M733s and Sizemore hid his Gaili pretty well in Heat.

You're not serious, right? Please use emoticons if you're being sarcastic.

A guy at work had one of those crazy law calendars a few years back, and one stood out to me. I don't remember what state it is in, but the law states that it is illegal to carry concealed a weapon over six feet in length!

If you look at it, most looney laws were made for a legitimate reason (such as it is illegal to shoot camels in Phoenix city limits). So, I want to know the reason for this one, and I would really like to see the person that could successfully conceal a weapon over six feet long.

Why is it illegal to shoot camels in Phoenix city limits? After the U.S. Calvary tested camels in the late nineteenth century, they just released them, and the camels multiplied. There were still wild camels in Arizona as late as the nineteen forties.

David.

This is a very complicated issue.
On the one hand, restricting lawful citizens from having guns is just plain silly. The background checks I understand, but some of the more arbitrary limits(like waiting periods) are sort of pointless seeming.
The same with high-cap magazines. On the one hand, yeah I can just reload if I'm target shooting. But on the other hand, why bother restricting it?

It all comes down to illegal guns; if you make it impossible(or very hard) to get guns legally, the bad guys will still get guns illegally, and then the law abiding citizen loses.