Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history
That would allow the state to enter your home to check, so no. It's enough to have laws that a posteriori judge you guilty as a parent if after a crime is committed with a gun you owned, by minor people in your household, you are found to have left the gun easily accessible.
Which btw is what allows to prosecute parents in this cases *already*
In the states that have the law, to my knowledge, there is no checking of the homes. It is only investigated in the event of a minor's use of a gun.
If there was no safe or locking device for the gun then the parent who owned the gun is arrested and held accountable for the disaster that occurred on their watch. Currently in the states that I am aware of the penalty is roughly up to 1 year in jail and/or fines.
The reason for these type of laws is because parents won't protect their guns from their children on their own initiative. They will continue to assume that their children won't use the gun. In some cases it is because they don't want to have to spend the money on the protective items. In other cases it is because they just aren't all there (like alcoholics, drug addicts, etc.). Making it a requirement will vastly increase the number of safe measures taken to prevent minors from accessing weapons. It will also encourage the sellers of guns to provide the safety devices which will also increase their profits.
lil' mussolini does not have States and can only own 200 rounds of handgun ammo.
your opinion is meaningless
Ah yes, who can forget the tried and tested "duck and cover" method of protecting yourself from a nuclear explosion.
Well, it won't save you from gamma rays or the main blast itself, but it can save you from minor structural collapses or failure due to shockwaves. Bits of falling ceiling do also kill.
And being outside is not an option. Walls and ceilings won't do much against neutron radiation, but it will be effective against alpha and beta radiation, thick barriers will also block a lot of gamma radiation.
So, hiding under the desk does indeed sound a bit silly when we're talking about trying to mitigate the outcome one of the most powerful weapons that exist, but there is a reason for the advice.
For the third time in the last eighteen months, the public school system where my brother lives has received threats of a school shooting that are not tied to a specific student. The school system responds with some version of the following: "We have received a threat of violence against the schools in our area. We are taking the threat seriously. Security will be increased. Your child can come to school. Or not."
I guess that's the only practical response, which is revealing.
do they go to school that day?
For the third time in the last eighteen months, the public school system where my brother lives has received threats of a school shooting that are not tied to a specific student. The school system responds with some version of the following: "We have received a threat of violence against the schools in our area. We are taking the threat seriously. Security will be increased. Your child can come to school. Or not."
I guess that's the
Call the national guard
There should be a national law that requires guns to be locked in homes that have children.
.
In the states that have the law, to my knowledge, there is no checking of the homes. It is only investigated in the event of a minor's use of a gun.
How successful do you think a national law that requires guns to be locked up but won't be enforced unless its come to law enforcement's attention that a minor was using gun going to lower the gun crime in your opinion?
For the third time in the last eighteen months, the public school system where my brother lives has received threats of a school shooting that are not tied to a specific student. The school system responds with some version of the following: "We have received a threat of violence against the schools in our area. We are taking the threat seriously. Security will be increased. Your child can come to school. Or not."
I guess that's the
Last year we had an anon call that there was going to be school shooting at our particular school and closed the school. Like 4 days later, we apparently had another call and the school notified us and said we can all still come to school if we wanted.
How successful do you think a national law that requires guns to be locked up but won't be enforced unless its come to law enforcement's attention that a minor was using gun going to lower the gun crime in your opinion?
It would reduce the availability of guns to many minors. For kids who are bonkers it might help because they may not have any acquaintances who could get them guns illegally. They are just going off and need a gun to kill people.
Also, there are like 300 child deaths each year in the US where the kids who are killed are killed by other kids who are playing with a gun in their house like it is a toy.
I have no idea if it would work because parents would actually obey the law when they hear about it or if it would work because when parents saw other parents going to jail for a year because of their stupidity then they would start locking up their guns.
I realize that there are a ton of libertarians out there who wouldn't lock up their guns because they think they should be allowed to do whatever they want with their guns. And their teenagers would have access to guns and would use them to kill. That's life with the 2nd amendment.
In the end I do think it would save lives. How many I have no idea. Just like the elimination of assault rifles saved lives for ten years in the US. Were there still mass murders? Yes. Could as many people be killed in a mass murder? No.
Can anyone tell me what kind of guns this is for the bank robbers?
Ar15 ?
Semi auto ?
Auto ?
2 of them are either using civilian AR-15 style rifles converted for full auto or they are some type of military M4 carbine derivative. They're used in full auto mode, but fired in manually controlled bursts.
Someone more into details on this stuff could probably give you more specifics about models.
The third one is using a Galil, an AK-47 derived Israeli rifle chambered for NATO ammunition. It is sometimes called "the Balashnikov". Not just for a joke, but because its designers original name was actually Balashnikov (but later changed).
So when I hear we can’t ban guns for hunter purpose , hopefully they don’t hunt with those guns huh ?
If those guns are legal for civilians I just don’t get it .
it's a movie
assuming they were shooting 5.56 (they were), the holes in the cars were VERY lol.
Converting to fully automatic is a felony in the USA, montrealcorp. Those movie guys are criminals.
My feelings (I am a life member of the NRA) is that AR-15 type rifles have a small and valid use imo. Perfect gun for feral hog hunting. I don't see much other use for the rifle. But.... I am a pistol and shotgun kinda sport user.
Great website next time you're watching a movie and want to ask that question. https://imfdb.org/wiki/Main_Page
https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Heat
They are compact M-16's.
In the end I do think it would save lives. How many I have no idea. Just like the elimination of assault rifles saved lives for ten years in the US. Were there still mass murders? Yes. Could as many people be killed in a mass murder? No.
Personally, I'd have no problem banning a bunch of semi automatic rifles like they did in 1994. And it did lower gun crime. But things need to be acknowledged before pulling out a 30 year law with the assumption that your going to get the same result.
From 1994-2004, you didnt have very many AR15s, AK47s, AUGs and other SA rifles in the industry. Now you've got about 25 million semi autos stashed away under beds and in closets which was never the case in 1994.
I'd imagine that hardening transfer laws would potentially make a bigger impact amongst about 30 other things that would work better as opposed to an assault weapons ban but who knows until you try.
I'd assume you'd get the country's most aggressive gun buying excursion again and the law will go into effect with about 50 million rifles that everyone gets to keep and use and that you'd be operating under the pretense that you'd have probably about 100x more rifles in circulation than you did in 1994.
