Gun Control: Where do you draw the line? - General

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39583956][b]No one can buy explosives or heavy weapons[/b] Red Jacket Firearms =/= civilians The thing is, while I support background checks and the like, I got to thinking about registering firearms That wont work; if the government ever comes to take my guns away (which I hope will never come to that) they will know exactly how many guns I have, what they are, and will catch on if I stash some So yea, background checks, good idea, gun bans and mandatory registration, bad[/QUOTE] Yes you can, they are Title II Weapons listed as Destructive Devices. Here is a list of the Title II categories: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons[/url]. It will boil down to what your individual state allows, but for the most part they are not that difficult to get if you have the money, it just requires waiting. Also, since you mentioned Red Jacket, most of the explosives that they use are freely available to the public market, without restriction. Here is another popular explosive that is unrestricted as well: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite[/url]

Shit what This is news to me And these people are off to ban "assault" weapons when this poses a bigger threat, if at all

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39583956]No one can buy explosives or heavy weapons Red Jacket Firearms =/= civilians The thing is, while I support background checks and the like, I got to thinking about registering firearms That wont work; if the government ever comes to take my guns away (which I hope will never come to that) they will know exactly how many guns I have, what they are, and will catch on if I stash some So yea, background checks, good idea, gun bans and mandatory registration, bad[/QUOTE] Red Jacket is a joke.

[QUOTE=Jagur;39601366]Red Jacket is a joke.[/QUOTE] Not really a joke i'd say but I get the feeling that some people watch that show and think everyone has access to those guns

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39602934]Not really a joke i'd say but I get the feeling that some people watch that show and think everyone has access to those guns[/QUOTE] No, Red Jacket is a joke. I don't know how the, like, 2 intelligent ones can stand working there.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39603093]No, Red Jacket is a joke. I don't know how the, like, 2 intelligent ones can stand working there.[/QUOTE] Okay look, this is going to get off-topic, but I am going to interject on this. The TV show has made Red Jacket look like a joke because it's purely for entertainment. I've lived less than 10 minutes from them my entire life. Prior to the show ever airing, Red Jacket was by far the best gun shop around for smithing/custom needs. Customer service and quality were second to none. However, due to the publicity of the show, they have become a supply company more than anything else. They turn out guns for shops and chain stores all over, which has taken almost 100% of their workload. Despite this, they still turn out quality firearms, albeit at a much slower rate. I've handled their shotguns at multiple gun shows in the area, and they do some of the best work possible to Saiga equipment. Everything is hand-tooled and fitted, and every gun is tested. They are a custom shop, and they are very good at what they do. Basing your opinion of them because of a reality show is not really fair to them in my opinion.

I think they mean Red Jacket is a joke because the projects they do (mostly for the entertainment value and suggested by the producer no doubt) are stupid. I also dislike them because they hardly glance over the restrictions on NFA items and present it as if you can very easily get such weapons, when in reality it much more difficult. Once again, the producer probably has something to do with it, who wants to watch a legal show about guns?

They're a joke because on the show a bunch of the staff act like idiots.

[QUOTE=download;39645130]I think they mean Red Jacket is a joke because the projects they do (mostly for the entertainment value and suggested by the producer no doubt) are stupid. I also dislike them because they hardly glance over the restrictions on NFA items and present it as if you can very easily get such weapons, when in reality it much more difficult. Once again, the producer probably has something to do with it, who wants to watch a legal show about guns?[/QUOTE] NFA items are not difficult to get by any means. Actual time invested on your part is going to be less than a day. The only other part is waiting, that's it. All of the class 3 dealers in Louisiana have someone that can draw a trust up for you in the store while you fill out the paperwork. In an hour or two you are out the door and the waiting game begins. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;39645569]They're a joke because on the show a bunch of the staff act like idiots.[/QUOTE] Taking any reality show serious is kind of pointless though. With the amounts of money they receive from the show, as well as all of the business they get because of the show's publicity, I would do whatever the hell the producers wanted me to do.

I know that, but they don't portray that in the show. They make it out as if you can walk in, get an NFA item, and be out the door in under an hour

I like guns. They go pew-pew, blam blam and sometimes even rat-a-tat-tat. Every responsible citizen should own one.

Not sure if genuinely feels that way or if sarcastic

I don't have a comment for gun control in general, but about assault weapons bans I have something to say. Why bother? Most crimes are commited with handguns and it makes sense. They are concealable but can be just as deadly as a rifle or a shotgun. Although this report [url]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF[/url] is nearly twenty years old, it still states that handguns were responsible for 86% of reported crimes regarding firearms, and 57% of ALL murders were commited with handguns. Why bother place stupid restrictions on guns that aren't even used that much in crime while letting the ones that are responsible for most of them go free? If anything, ban pistols.

[QUOTE=download;39651483]I know that, but they don't portray that in the show. They make it out as if you can walk in, get an NFA item, and be out the door in under an hour[/QUOTE] There was a few episodes where Will has told the customer, "let's go back to the shop and do some paperwork then you can pick it up in a couple of months". One episode I remember specifically; it was the episode where they made that briefcase deal out of the Mini-Uzi (I think). They don't allude to the customer being able to take NFA items home right away, but they definitely don't elaborate on the wait time.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;39653682]I don't have a comment for gun control in general, but about assault weapons bans I have something to say. Why bother? Most crimes are commited with handguns and it makes sense. They are concealable but can be just as deadly as a rifle or a shotgun. Although this report [URL]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF[/URL] is nearly twenty years old, it still states that handguns were responsible for 86% of reported crimes regarding firearms, and 57% of ALL murders were commited with handguns. Why bother place stupid restrictions on guns that aren't even used that much in crime while letting the ones that are responsible for most of them go free? If anything, ban pistols.[/QUOTE] I think that has been established [QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39671706]There was a few episodes where Will has told the customer, "let's go back to the shop and do some paperwork then you can pick it up in a couple of months". One episode I remember specifically; it was the episode where they made that briefcase deal out of the Mini-Uzi (I think). They don't allude to the customer being able to take NFA items home right away, but they definitely don't elaborate on the wait time.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter honestly, it's a show for entertainment, it's not claiming to educate, it's just appealing to people who are interested in guns, and that's fine.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39653382]Not sure if genuinely feels that way or if sarcastic[/QUOTE] No no, I'm genuine. There is nothing wrong with a gun as long as you're responsible. Like with a Car or a Pet or something, clean it, practice and be safe.

[QUOTE=Ironic Man;39653274]Every responsible citizen should own one.[/QUOTE] I don't really agree with the implication here that not owning a firearm is irresponsible

[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39693207]I don't really agree with the implication here that not owning a firearm is irresponsible[/QUOTE] Well, living in a city I see news reports more frequently than I like about robbers and street thugs shooting people, and while police are there for a reason they aren't superheroes. I'd rather someone have the ability to protect their livelihood if need be. Conversely those in a rural area have the long police wait times compounded with other hazards, for example I was staying with an uncle for a few days and there were panthers on the roof scratching at a window. We couldn't get them to scoot and had to pop one, something like that needs immediate action. I'm not saying everyone carry and shoot every weekend, but it may be wise to own one and know how it works, at least. Edit:

[QUOTE=Ironic Man;39705373]Well, living in a city I see news reports more frequently than I like about robbers and street thugs shooting people, and while police are there for a reason they aren't superheroes. I'd rather someone have the ability to protect their livelihood if need be. Conversely those in a rural area have the long police wait times compounded with other hazards, for example I was staying with an uncle for a few days and there were panthers on the roof scratching at a window. We couldn't get them to scoot and had to pop one, something like that needs immediate action. I'm not saying everyone carry and shoot every weekend, but it may be wise to own one and know how it works, at least. Edit:[/QUOTE] While those are all good reasons for owning a firearm, none of them make someone irresponsible for not owning one. A responsible person should make the choice taking everything into account, including, but not limited to, the amount of crime in the area they live, whether they have the capability of keeping it out of the wrong hands (whether that's the hands of burglars or their own children), and they should be completely prepared to actually shoot a person with it. It's not black and white, and implying someone is irresponsible for not owning a firearm just because you [I]hear[/I] news reports of robbers and shootings is unfair. Context is pretty important.

Ten years ago my uncle got robbed at home, he didn't own guns at the time, he sure does now. And just last week, my grandfather had his house broken into, he repelled the intruder with his revolver. Downtown Baltimore and Edgewood respectively, I'll assume you are a Maryland man as well. I have reports from neighbors up north in Hampstead as well. An emergency can happen anywhere at any time, no matter how safe you think you may be. And storing your gun in a safe place is part of being a responsible owner. One owes it to themselves and their family to be prepared, just like keeping extra food and water around the house for any other emergency.

Personal anecdotes =/= irrefutable evidence for the need to own a firearm Someone living in downtown fucking Baltimore has significantly more reason to own a firearm than someone living in some posh gated community. Like I said, it's about context. There's more to the decision to buy a firearm than the possibility that someone could break into your house. Guns in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. Of course you should lock up your gun and educate your kids, but not everyone can afford it. Calling them irresponsible because they can't is, again, unfair. And please, never, ever, ever compare the need to eat and drink to owning a firearm again.

"Guns in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense." Prove it

[QUOTE=download;39708065]"Guns in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense." Prove it[/QUOTE] The only source I've ever heard of for that claim was the Kellerman study, which has been disproven so many times Kellerman himself has backed off of parts of it.

Because the majority of America can afford to live in a posh gated community? Gated communities likely have guards at the gates or on the ready, they'd probably get there faster than police if there was an unlikely break in. Whether there is an armed guard nearby or an armed homeowner, there's still a weapon nearby, if not a gun a tazer or baton, some sort of weapon. Also this just in, "guns shoot things"? Obviously if your gun is being used in a shooting it wasn't stored properly, which is a part of being responsible. If you can't afford it then you're not ready at that time, just like owning a vehicle, don't buy a car if you can't pay for insurance and service. Don't buy a gun if you can't store and lock it, and train your family. As for depressed or suicidal folk, they may not be themselves obviously and not in control of their actions. I've been there myself and It certainly would not have been responsible for me to go buy a gun to look at while I contemplated dark things! [QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39707984] And please, never, ever, ever compare the need to eat and drink to owning a firearm again.[/QUOTE] Anyone who needs to swear in a debate has no say in MY LIFE. Obviously you won't die without a gun but it would be foolish to go around your life without some sort of protection. And to me, if used appropriately and safely a gun is efficient. My argument still stands. Thank you.

[QUOTE=Ironic Man;39708158]Obviously you won't die without a gun but it would be foolish to go around your life without some sort of protection.[/QUOTE] I thought generally that most people don't carry weapons? Like, protection can mean anything, and most people get along fine without carrying them everywhere (mainly because the likelihood of being attacked is so low).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39708233]I thought generally that most people don't carry weapons? Like, protection can mean anything, and most people get along fine without carrying them everywhere (mainly because the likelihood of being attacked is so low).[/QUOTE] Very true, but I like guns, personally I would like a gun for protection, therefore I encourage others to because that is how I feel!

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39708233]I thought generally that most people don't carry weapons? Like, protection can mean anything, and most people get along fine without carrying them everywhere (mainly because the likelihood of being attacked is so low).[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter if its low. Precaution.

[QUOTE=Ironic Man;39708415]Very true, but I like guns, personally I would like a gun for protection, therefore I encourage others to because that is how I feel![/QUOTE] Right, but other people might not think it's worth bothering with. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39708695]Doesn't matter if its low. Precaution.[/QUOTE] Yes, but in some cases the risk is so low that people don't buy guns at all. I could become sick from smallpox, but the risk of having it is so low that I don't bother with being vaccinated because it's extinct in the wild.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39712991]Right, but other people might not think it's worth bothering with. [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] But clearly there are more goons in the world than people who catch smallpox? Yes, but in some cases the risk is so low that people don't buy guns at all. I could become sick from smallpox, but the risk of having it is so low that I don't bother with being vaccinated because it's extinct in the wild.[/QUOTE] But Clearly there are more goons in the world than there are people infected with smallpox.

[QUOTE=Ironic Man;39713328]But Clearly there are more goons in the world than there are people infected with smallpox.[/QUOTE] Yes, but the risk is still so small that people think that spending all that money and time on a firearm and knowing to properly use one isn't worth the effort. Gun ownership for self-defence is only going to decline as violent crime rates drop (something that's been well recorded for the past few decades).