How hard are some minimum firearm rules

For example:

Have red flag laws
Raise gun and ammo age for purchase to 21
Limit clip sizes
Have some type of qualification in place in order to buy semi auto weapons
Restrict types of ammo. What is being used is more lethal than legitimately needed for sport and even home protection

These seem like no brainers that infringe on a minimum scale

It’s not like every American can get cleared by qualified therapist whatever that is to be a safe gun owner. Can’t make people go. Quality of therapists vary wildly and they have biases. Who pays them? How much? Even if cleared today the person could be a good faker like the polygraph passing liars or have an overnight or later change and become a nut

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

bowman81 · M

Here is an example of the problem with people who know nothing of firearms making "common sense" rules.

The police and military ammo question. There is no difference between civilian and police ammunition. It is more effective (more destructive) than military ammo. Military ammo is "Full Metal Jacket" and doesn't reliably expand. It was required by the Haig convention to make warfare more humane and outlawed the British use of lead bullets (Dumdums) that were grooved and designed to expand and break apart when they struck a person. So, military ammo is not as reliable a stopper but does tend to over penetrate. (Goes through multiple people, walls, etc. easier)

Police ammo is expanding, usually with hollowpoint or softpoint projectiles (bullets), expands rapidly, causing damage that stops people quicker and tends to penetrate far enough to reach vital organs from any angle but not over penetrate, making it safer to use when there might be people or objects behind the person. Civilian ammo is the same as police ammo. It makes sense when both civilians and the police legally use their weapons for the same purpose, to protect themselves or others who are in immediate peril. Hunting ammo almost always uses an expanding bullet to try and insure a quick and humane kill of the game animal.

So when a person who is knowledgeable hears someone say "common sense" then talks about banning police/military ammo he knows you are talking about banning all ammo. That doesn't register as anything even remotely reasonable.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

So other than the ammo (I have some knowledge but not as much as you and I am pro 2nd amendment what do you think of the rest? I’m looking for ways to put this to bed without serious infringement. @bowman81

LeeInTheNorthWoods · 70-79, F

@bowman81 Over the past weekend, an acquaintance more or less attacked me for saying "AR" doesn't stand for assault rifle, army rifle, or automatic rifle (guesses from some people around the table at lunch). It's also my understanding that ArmaLite rifles were developed in the 1950s and aren't some ultra-modern killing machines.

I'm willing to listen to discussions about restrictions on gun purchases by some categories of people (though i don't know how any could ever work in a broad swarth of cases), but asking people to know what they're talking about doesn't mean I want children to die. 😕

bowman81 · M

@jackjjackson Well we tried the magazine limit law. They were prohibited for 10 years from 1994-2004 with no impact on crime rates. (no magazines with over 10 rds. capacity.) Some states still have the magazine restrictions. Practically they mean nothing. Magazines can be changed out in under 2 seconds and the very high capacity magazines tend to be unreliable. It was a feel good measure that did nothing to stop or limit violent crime and hurt the legal gun owner.

My position is seeking the solution to violent crime by concentrating on an inanimate object hasn't worked. I don't think you can make it work. We need to identify and isolate the violent offender. Do a google search on criminal histories of murder suspects. Look at how many have long criminal histories of violent crime convictions, that could have, and I would argue should have had the person incarcerated at the time they were out killing others. It astounds me that the very people who are in the forefront of the gun control/gun ban movement are the same ones who argue for bail and prison reforms and lenient sentences (i.e. empty the prisons and mainstream the inmates). The same folks who argued for the closing of mental institutions because they were inhumane. Doesn't protecting folks from antisocial violent people make any kind of sense at all?

Can you remember an incident where people have NOT come forward afterward with evidence that the killer was making threats on social media or acting in a bizarre manner? Red Flag laws may have some merit if we can find a way to protect the legal gun owner from "Karens" and those who would unjustly turn them in because they just hate guns.

Those areas with the strictest gun control laws have made it difficult or impossible for the law abiding citizen to be armed while the criminal could care less. Maybe we should concentrate more on the criminal

bowman81 · M

@LeeInTheNorthWoods There are a whole lot of people out there who are so damned sure of what they "know". Way too often those who say they want a reasonable discussion end up calling you names when they find out you might not agree with them.

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@jackjjackson With the "redflag" laws, the constitution is out the window. An anonymous phone call isn't a reason to show up at a persons home and confiscate firearms. Where is due process, where is the right to face your accuser?

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

THAT would be unconstitutional. @Roadsterrider

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@jackjjackson You asked the question; I think anything that is unconstitutional is unreasonable. I think forcing me to pay for the NICs check is equitable to a poll tax, paying for the right to exercise a right. There is so much ammunition that is better than military ammo for hunting or target shooting that it wouldn't affect me, but it is still a pointless knee jerk reaction to make people "feel like" they are trying to do something.

It is kind of like the Clinton "Assault Weapon Ban" from 1994, it didn't ban a particular kind of rifle, it banned having too many cosmetic features of a rifle. Pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, detachable magazine, and being semiautomatic. A rifle could have 3 of these items but no more, it changed the appearance of an AR-15 but didn't change the functionality of the rifle. The imported AK-47 look-alikes came with a thumbhole stock instead of a pistol grip and the ARs came without a flash hider and a bayonet lug.

IronHamster · 56-60, M

@bowman81 Confirmed. Military 5.56 ammo goes right through malnourished Haji so even if you perforate him he might still get to the other side of the street.

dakotaviper · 56-60, M

@Roadsterrider due process is eliminated under the Red Flag Law.

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@dakotaviper Yes, it is, based on what might be an anonymous call. I feel it is wrong for the government to remove protection afforded in the constitution without due process, starting with a warrant. It isn't just taking a firearm unconstitutionally, it is also not being secure in your person, papers and home. With no action to warrant it except for a phone call from a person with no authority to make those kinds of decisions.

IronHamster · 56-60, M

@Roadsterrider I don't know how that would work. Ok. Someone makes a call on me and the SWAT team shows up and takes my guns. Then I get my guns from position B then take my guns back the same way they took them. In all honesty, I don't know what SWAT team will confiscate guns to begin with. The Uvalde cops let nearly twenty people bleed to death rather than try to confront one guy. Cops don't disarm street gangs either. I just don't see that disarming thing working out.

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@IronHamster I don't see it working out either. There is already one dead guy who was killed by police when they went to his home to take his firearms in a red flag event in VA or MD.

IronHamster · 56-60, M

@Roadsterrider I am not giving mine up either, but I will sort that out on my terms. After the first, the rest are free.