Joe Biden proposals for banning some firearms, high capacity magazines, immunity changes

[Aldebaran]

Christchurch

in 2016 gun homocide per 100,000 List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia
NZ 0.2
USA 4.46

The USA rate per 100,000 of population is 22.3 times higher than in NZ

By your own statistics, New Zealand over-reacted.

Why go to that extreme?
Why not find a pragmatic middleground?

It's not seen as extreme when it actually happens. If someone in NZ were to go on a rampage with a shotgun and kill several people and wound many more, it would be at the top of peoples' emotions, and the cry for "more gun control" would seem reasonable at the moment.

Then they run out of bullets giving people time to either run away or attack them.

That's the case with any gun.

Why are you opposed to a ban on large magazines and guns that can take large magazines?
Why do you need so many bullets at the ready?

Because (as our own politicians like to say) it's just the first step. (First means it's not the last).

I'd be keen on people using bolt action guns where they shoot then need to expel the cartridge and reload another bullet rather than a gun where they shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot all the while concentrating only on aiming and pulling trigger.

Would you be keen on the idea of someone being able to shoot you from 300 yards distant and being able to escape because nobody near you could tell where the shot came from? We had a shooter here do that over and over again from his car, and kept people living in terror for quite some time before being caught.

I'm all for heavy restrictions on hand guns. People should not carry guns, especially loaded guns into populated spaces.
Store handguns locked up at the gun club or only carry then from home to the gun club and back.
They are for sport, not for hunting.

You're talking about rules and regulations but ignoring the ability of people to deal with those who don't obey those laws.

Are we having a serious conversation here or are you going to delve into silly talk?

I informed you that murder is already illegal. Don't you realize that people who don't care about obeying laws about murder are still doing it? What makes you think that outlawing the carrying of guns in populated areas is going to stop them? Do you also think outlawing certain types of guns is going to stop them from having them AND using them illegally?

If you are in the bush, hunting, i have no issues with you having a more serious knife.
If you are out partying in town, going to pubs and clubs, why do you need a hunting knife?

For defense against those who invented their own reasons, and then decided to use their knife/gun for reasons known only to them.
If you're so interested in reasons people have for committing crimes, why not ask the guy who shot up the mosque in Christchurch why he needed an AR15 in a populated area? Ask him why he needed to shoot people. But the people who became his victims won't be able to tell you why they couldn't defend themselves.

 

[stevil]

By your own statistics, New Zealand over-reacted.

No, I think the law is appropriate. People don't need guns with large magazines. Sports shooters don't need them, hunters don't need them.
For what purpose does a civilian need such a thing? And how does that weigh up with the danger that such a thing presents on society?

It's not seen as extreme when it actually happens. If someone in NZ were to go on a rampage with a shotgun and kill several people and wound many more, it would be at the top of peoples' emotions, and the cry for "more gun control" would seem reasonable at the moment.

Sure, people will be asking questions, how did this happen, what could be done to stop this happening in the future.
But I seriously doubt there will be a credible call to ban all shotguns.

That's the case with any gun.

Please try and have a civil conversation. One with reasonable questioning and statements.
A gun with just one bullet will run out of bullets more quickly than a gun with 30 bullets. You know this.

Because (as our own politicians like to say) it's just the first step. (First means it's not the last).

Am I right in interpreting this to be that you don't actually need a large magazine and wouldn't miss it if it were no longer available.
But you oppose a law banning them because you are worried that other laws will come in (slippery slope)?

Would you be keen on the idea of someone being able to shoot you from 300 yards distant and being able to escape because nobody near you could tell where the shot came from?

Strange way to word your question. "Would I be keen on someone shooting me?"
Of course not.
All guns present a risk, but we are looking for a pragmatic middle ground.
People use rifles and shoot animals from a long distance, they also do this for sport.
Sure people can be a "sniper" and murder people this way, but it is a very unlikely scenario.

You're talking about rules and regulations but ignoring the ability of people to deal with those who don't obey those laws.

I don't understand what point you are making here. "the ability of people to deal with those who don't obey laws"
Are you talking about people having guns for self defence?
Or are you talking about the police capability to deal with law breakers?

What makes you think that outlawing the carrying of guns in populated areas is going to stop them?

It would mean that if people see a person carrying a gun they can report this to the police, also alerts can be made so that other people in the area can take measures to seek safety i.e. leave the area, don't come into the area. Police would be able to stop that person, would be able to take their gun off them.
It also means people carrying guns can be charged with crimes. These could have severe penalties, and you could enact these on people without the need to wait for someone to be shot first.

Do you also think outlawing certain types of guns is going to stop them from having them AND using them illegally?

It will reduce the amount of that gun in circulation and this will reduce access. There are no guarantees, but this is a good start.
In NZ people gave up over 50K of these guns.
And they are no longer imported, they can be seized at the borders.

For defense against those who invented their own reasons, and then decided to use their knife/gun for reasons known only to them.

If you don't aggravate people, if you don't get into confrontations then it is highly unlikely you will be in a situation where you need to defend yourself like this. There are other ways to avoid danger.
If you pull out a knife then things escalate, they pull out a knife or a gun, they go away and come back with a weapon, they take your weapon off you and use it against you, they are better at fighting than you and you lose. All sorts of things can happen. Having a weapon on you does not make you safe.

If you're so interested in reasons people have for committing crimes, why not ask the guy who shot up the mosque in Christchurch why he needed an AR15 in a populated area? Ask him why he needed to shoot people. But the people who became his victims won't be able to tell you why they couldn't defend themselves.

If Australia had the guns then this would have happened over there, not here.
If NZ didn't have the guns then this wouldn't have happened here.

If we let civilians walk around with loaded guns then our gun homicide rates would like go up to USA levels. Maybe one of those at the mosque might have stopped this guy sooner, but then we would have lots and lots and lots of other incidents of gun homicides. No Thanks!

 

[98cwitr]

by encouraging women to take up hobbies and pastimes that interest them in spite of traditional gender roles. That sounds terrific.

I think they can (and will) do that without a man's encouragement.

 

[Speedwell]

I think they can (and will) do that without a man's encouragement.

The thing to be avoided is men's' discouragement, which is still more widely imposed than it should be.

 

[98cwitr]

But what if the claim is to "reduce gun violence"?

Then there needs to be evidence. Study from the Brady Bill and after 10 years of the 1994 AWB concluded there was no real impact on gun crime: Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

What if reducing magazine capacity reduces the average amount of people dying in mass shootings?

We can play "what if's" all day long. Virginia Tech shooter reloaded several times. Focusing down on "mass shootings" while ignoring all the murder in Chicago is VERY telling of an ulterior motive behind this push.

Wouldn't that be nice? To save some lives?

Yes, guns save lives, and therefore we need guns.

Do sports shooters or hunters need large capacity magazines?

Non-sequitur, and yes.

A little concession that may save a life or two, isn't that a reasonable trade off?

Not when taking the 11th or 12th round from millions of people results in loss of life.

That is a poor assumption.

Why? Did they not prove, via their actions, they're willing to hurt and kill?

 

[High Fidelity]

A civilized population needs whatever it takes to hinder those who are uncivilized within that society.

That's what the police are for.

 

[High Fidelity]

ignoring all the murder in Chicago is VERY telling of an ulterior motive behind this push.

Localised gun control was never going to work. It's like assuming you're safe in a burning building because you're upstairs and the fire is downstairs.

It would need to be national and a decision made by today's generation to benefit the generation of tomorrow and so on.

 

[98cwitr]

Localised gun control was never going to work. It's like assuming you're safe in a burning building because you're upstairs and the fire is downstairs.

It would need to be national and a decision made by today's generation to benefit the generation of tomorrow and so on.

That's because gun control doesn't work. Why are murderous motives still being ignored? Why such a focus on the tool used?

 

[98cwitr]

That's what the police are for.

When seconds matter, police are minutes away.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No citizen in a civilised country needs access to an AR15.

I really don’t see what the big deal is with an AR15. It’s just another semi automatic rifle just like so many others that have been available to the public for decades. I think the main thing that scares people about the AR15 is it looks like an assault rifle. It’s not an assault rifle. There’s been a whole slew of semi automatic rifles out there for decades but no one seems to be concerned about them because they look like ordinary hunting rifles. People see an AR15 and freak out because they see rifles that look just like them on tv being used by the military and they think civilians shouldn’t have access to military assault rifles. They’re not military assault rifles they just look like one. By definition an assault rifle is a rifle that has selectable firing modes such as burst and fully auto. The AR15 does not have that capability.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's what the police are for.

When you wake up and hear a person inside your home it’s too late to call the police. They’ll never get there in time to protect you & your family and honestly you don’t want to be making any noise at all talking on a phone giving them your name and address and explaining what’s going on while the person is already inside your home looking for you. If your unarmed at that point your a sitting duck just waiting and hoping not to be killed by whoever has decided to enter your home for whatever reason. As a husband and a father it is my responsibility to protect my family and I’ll be damned if I’m going to fail them because I wasn’t prepared. A realistic police response is anywhere from 5-10 minutes at best. It only takes 2 minutes to walk through a home and kill everyone inside. People who aren’t prepared and rely on the police to save them in a situation like that are typically referred to as murder victims.

 

[Fantine]

The gun extremists must be running scared after the president's statement.

My state has already passed a sureshot unconstitutional law declaring all federal gun regulations, past, present, and future, invalid. No law enforcement officials--even federal agents--can enforce them.

Two other states will be headed to a Supreme Court loss along with mine.

Whenever I think my state legislature can't go any lower, they prove me wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

I really don’t see what the big deal is with an AR15. It’s just another semi automatic rifle just like so many others that have been available to the public for decades. I think the main thing that scares people about the AR15 is it looks like an assault rifle. It’s not an assault rifle. There’s been a whole slew of semi automatic rifles out there for decades but no one seems to be concerned about them because they look like ordinary hunting rifles. People see an AR15 and freak out because they see rifles that look just like them on tv being used by the military and they think civilians shouldn’t have access to military assault rifles. They’re not military assault rifles they just look like one. By definition an assault rifle is a rifle that has selectable firing modes such as burst and fully auto. The AR15 does not have that capability.

Not it at all. People freak out because they see wanna-be Rambos in camo who must have semi autos which look like military weapons to parade around with or their 2A rights are being violated. They think they need to block all gun control measures so they can continue to have pretend army guns to play with. It's all just too weird. Personally I am opposed to weapons bans by type, but I can certainly see why liberals might want to ban AR-15s, and it's not because they are more dangerous than other semi-autos.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Localised gun control was never going to work. It's like assuming you're safe in a burning building because you're upstairs and the fire is downstairs.

It would need to be national and a decision made by today's generation to benefit the generation of tomorrow and so on.

That’s purely speculation because there are already too many guns in circulation in the United States to be confiscated in a reasonable amount of time and criminals will still be able to get guns just like they get drugs thru illegal smuggling. So how many innocent lives will be lost during this period where the criminals know that the law abiding citizens are disarmed? As it stands now the fear of being shot actually acts as a deterrent from breaking into a person’s home. How much worse will it get when that fear is removed?

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's because gun control doesn't work. Why are murderous motives still being ignored? Why such a focus on the tool used?

I’d expect murderous motives to increase when criminals have the peace of mind that their victims are unarmed and the threat of being shot by law abiding home owners is removed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think they can (and will) do that without a man's encouragement.

Agreed -- so let's take a man's discouragement out of the equation.

 

[98cwitr]

They’re not military assault rifles they just look like one. By definition an assault rifle is a rifle that has selectable firing modes such as burst and fully auto. The AR15 does not have that capability.

It should, as US v. Miller concluded, the 2nd affords the right of the people to keep and bear arms made for military service. I understand that there is a large populous of gun owners who simply wish to hold the line and are possibly "freaked out" by the idea of Americans, once again, legally owning full auto and/or short barreled rifles. For some reason, I suspect out of the lack of knowledge around why the 2nd was included in the Bill of Rights, are completely fine with current federal gun laws. I say enough...push the line back...way back. Repeal the NFA!

 

[98cwitr]

Agreed -- so let's take a man's discouragement out of the equation.

I don't see it. Every husband I know who is progun wants his whole family armed and knowledgable, including his wife and daughter(s)...and women more so, as the physically weaker sex (on the whole), they need a force multiplier possibly even more so than a man. That's true for me and my neighbor up the street, we want our wives armed but they currently have both refused...because guns either scare or don't interest them. IDK of this misogynistic boogie man you speak of keeping women from having guns.

 

[Speedwell]

It should, as US v. Miller concluded, the 2nd affords the right of the people to keep and bear arms made for military service. I understand that there is a large populous of gun owners who simply wish to hold the line and are possibly "freaked out" by the idea of Americans, once again, legally owning full auto and/or short barreled rifles. For some reason, I suspect out of the lack of knowledge around why the 2nd was included in the Bill of Rights, are completely fine with current federal gun laws. I say enough...push the line back...way back. Repeal the NFA!

What is it about current gun laws which prevents American citizens from protecting "the security of a free state?"

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't see it. Every husband I know who is progun wants his whole family armed and knowledgable, including his wife and daughter(s)...and women more so, as the physically weaker sex (on the whole), they need a force multiplier possibly even more so than a man. That's true for me and my neighbor up the street, we want our wives armed but they currently have both refused...because guns either scare or don't interest them. IDK of this misogynistic boogie man you speak of keeping women from having guns.

Yeah same here with my wife. I bought her a small Ruger SR22, I even got the purple one so it would look cute enough for her lol. She fired it one time and refuses to shoot it again. However I was able to at least show her how to use it and make sure she understands how to operate it safely and I bought a couple BB guns so she could practice aiming and hitting a target. That’s about the best I could do in my situation. Every once in a while I’ll test her and ask her what’s the code to the gun safe and how do you fire the pistol and she gets it right every time. The thing I worry about is I told her that’s good you know how to use it but if your too scared to use it it’s not much use especially if you close your eyes every time you pull the trigger your not going to hit your target. Now my 15 year old daughter is another story. She loves to shoot and is pretty dang good at it I’m proud to say. She is definitely not scared of the gun and I’m confident she’d have no problem defending herself and her family if the situation should arise.