State-by-State Gun Laws

[DonTom]

There's that slippery slope again. It's a Duesy.

Yes, in fact, I had no doubt you would have no rebuttal to that one.

You will have to get used to that if you want to debate me.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

That means you support banning the .45 cal. ACP+ ammunition, It was designed for the military for use in the mid-east.

In my infantry company in Vietnam, the one who humped the M-60 was given a Colt .45.

Some other infantry companies issued the .45 to the one who carried the M-79 in each squad.

The Colt .45 I own is definitely a weapon of war. Even US wars. I will not debate that fact at all, because it is not debatable, because it is 100% true. Our own army did buy a ton of Colt .45s back in those days.

So yeah, I do own weapons of war without a doubt. But that doesn't include my collection of AR-15s. Not even this one:

Value unknown, never fired. I was the last one to buy one around 22 years ago (AFAIK). It's the Colt Vietnam Commemorative.

Close up:


We could say this one was designed to NEVER ever be fired (value will drop to half with any evidence of it ever being fired). It's an assault weapon by anybody's definition. Has every feature of them all.

This is the one I purchased in year 2002 (still shown on the web as sold in year 2002):



-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DeckArtist]

Very nice. Yeah, you don't want to fire those. One of my clients was one of those who carried an M60 in Vietnam. Not sure if he got a Colt.

 

[Babe2201]

People blames weapon for death because we’re talking about gun violence in the US where guns like the AR-15 are designed to kill many people quickly and because guns are the weapon of choice in mass murders. If a knife or an AR-15 are both easy to obtain, which is better at spreading butter and which one is better at killing people? (Come on, invoking guns and butter in a debate about gun control just scored me like 5 extra points). But really, why aren’t people using ballistic missiles to carry out their anger? Maybe because they’re hard to get?

Why do you blame the mentally ill for gun violence when the vast majority of people with mental health disorders are nonviolent and only 5% of mass shooters had any kind of mental health adjudication? (AAMC).

Most likely because it’s an easy distraction from actual gun violence. It’s also a hollow cry because almost nothing is done, mass shooting after mass shooting, “but mental health!”. It’s an important concern for sure, but nevertheless not very convincing that the issue isn’t also access to guns.



Don’t forget muskets.

There are pistols that have 33 round magazines and would still be very easy to shoot. I also have a carbine that accepts those same mags that does not look anything like an AR15. Do you want to ban them as well because after all would they not be designed to kill many people quickly? Would those be on your list or just the evil looking ones?

You claim to be data driven but you are stuck on school shootings and if you compare how many are used in those shootings compared to how many are in the country you can clearly see that it is an extremely low percentage.

 

[Skookum]

Skookum, mental illness is a valid concern, both parents of one shooter have been found guilty of buying their son a long gun while knowing he is mentally ill.
I read so many of the liberal media comments in you writings here, I wonder if you have any self-created comments.
Would you consider banning all vehicles to eliminate vehicular deaths? I ask this because of the number of vehicular deaths from drivers ramming into crowds, drunk driving, reckless driving, etc.

The mental health piece of “the problem” is important. But have the operator wrong in this statement. It’s not “gun control” OR “fix our broken healthcare system” It’s AND. Two things at once.

Just as you read my left-leaning comments, I too, wonder if the opposing side has any original, non-parroted thought not already espoused by the NRA.

Yes, in fact, I had no doubt you would have no rebuttal to that one.

You will have to get used to that if you want to debate me.

-Don- Reno, NV

Arguing that we’ll turn into some kind of dictatorship if we allow any more reasonable legislation on guns at all doesn’t deserve a rebuttal. Don, it’s like saying that if gay marriage is allowed, soon pedophilia will become legalized because, there goes the neighborhood.

There are pistols that have 33 round magazines and would still be very easy to shoot. I also have a carbine that accepts those same mags that does not look anything like an AR15. Do you want to ban them as well because after all would they not be designed to kill many people quickly? Would those be on your list or just the evil looking ones?

You claim to be data driven but you are stuck on school shootings and if you compare how many are used in those shootings compared to how many are in the country you can clearly see that it is an extremely low percentage.

Babe, it’s known than ordinary handguns are used in most shootings. It’s also not ignorable that AR-style guns are becoming more common. And, handguns are obviously more commonly used than muskets. Why is that? I’d guess it’s because a handgun is more efficient at killing humans than a musket, and an AR is even optimized for it. Murderers aren’t always logical in their weapon selection but that’s also not a reason to use some common sense.

I’d support things other than a ban. If purchasing an AR suddenly cost $20k and the typical handgun was more like $2k, I’d bet we’d see a lot more knife violence instead, which just isn’t very effective at killing a room full of people or a bunch of people in a crowd, from a distance.

Some of you are asking the same questions over and over…it’s time to put down the NRA propaganda and come up with some original thought.

 

[Babe2201]

The mental health piece of “the problem” is important. But have the operator wrong in this statement. It’s not “gun control” OR “fix our broken healthcare system” It’s AND. Two things at once.

Just as you read my left-leaning comments, I too, wonder if the opposing side has any original, non-parroted thought not already espoused by the NRA.



Arguing that we’ll turn into some kind of dictatorship if we allow any more reasonable legislation on guns at all doesn’t deserve a rebuttal. Don, it’s like saying that if gay marriage is allowed, soon pedophilia will become legalized because, there goes the neighborhood.



Babe, it’s known than ordinary handguns are used in most shootings. It’s also not ignorable that AR-style guns are becoming more common. And, handguns are obviously more commonly used than muskets. Why is that? I’d guess it’s because a handgun is more efficient at killing humans than a musket, and an AR is even optimized for it. Murderers aren’t always logical in their weapon selection but that’s also not a reason to use some common sense.

I’d support things other than a ban. If purchasing an AR suddenly cost $20k and the typical handgun was more like $2k, I’d bet we’d see a lot more knife violence instead, which just isn’t very effective at killing a room full of people or a bunch of people in a crowd, from a distance.

Some of you are asking the same questions over and over…it’s time to put down the NRA propaganda and come up with some original thought.

NRA propoganda? That is laughable coming from you when all you do is parrott the left wing media over and over again.

Even though you really don't like to answer questions and instead choose to deflect to talking points I wll still ask one. Seeing how you keep bringing up muskets do you think our founding fathers did not realize that weapons would advance over time? A simple yes or no answer will do.

Can you also do me a favor and find out where the word musket is written in the 2A?

 

[Skookum]

NRA propoganda? That is laughable coming from you when all you do is parrott the left wing media over and over again.

Even though you really don't like to answer questions and instead choose to deflect to talking points I wll still ask one. Seeing how you keep bringing up muskets do you think our founding fathers did not realize that weapons would advance over time? A simple yes or no answer will do.

Can you also do me a favor and find out where the word musket is written in the 2A?

Is AR-15 somewhere in the 2A? I hadn’t noticed.

More importantly, was the US Constitution meant to be a living document? You may want to carefully study the definition of “amendment” before answering that.

 

[Isaac-1]

...
Babe, it’s known than ordinary handguns are used in most shootings. It’s also not ignorable that AR-style guns are becoming more common. And, handguns are obviously more commonly used than muskets. Why is that? I’d guess it’s because a handgun is more efficient at killing humans than a musket, and an AR is even optimized for it. Murderers aren’t always logical in their weapon selection but that’s also not a reason to use some common sense.

...

This can also be viewed as a reflection of the general market statistics, more AR's are being sold today than 30 years ago, and when was the last time you even saw a musket for sale, I am not sure I ever have. Imagine translating this discussion into cooking appliances and talking about how people don't cook on coal fired stoves anymore, and that everyone seems to be using these new fangled convection microwaves.

The same sort of comparison can be done with vehicles if you don't like cooking appliances, talking about how no one drives a sedan anymore, and everything is crossovers, pickup trucks and SUV's, it is not that people that get into road rage incidents choose SUV's over sedans because SUV's are more capable of causing damage, its because none of the major auto manufacturers offer a sedan anymore.

 

[Babe2201]

Is AR-15 somewhere in the 2A? I hadn’t noticed.

More importantly, was the US Constitution meant to be a living document? You may want to carefully study the definition of “amendment” before answering that.

Is it not considered arms? It sure is now isn't? Really poor argument on your part.

 

[Isaac-1]

Is AR-15 somewhere in the 2A? I hadn’t noticed.

More importantly, was the US Constitution meant to be a living document? You may want to carefully study the definition of “amendment” before answering that.

One can argue that the constitution is a living document, but even doing so it must be done in a way that maintains modern parallels with its original intent, ie freedom of speech applies to forms of speech that did not exist at the time it was written, including emails, radio, television, etc.

The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the general population could remain armed in case of a need to overthrow a tyrannical government, and part of that is therefore that the people need to have access to weapons that are on par with what is being used by the military. So yes AR-15's are exactly what the 2A was designed to be about. It was never about the right to own a hunting rifle.

 

[Skookum]

This can also be viewed as a reflection of the general market statistics, more AR's are being sold today than 30 years ago, and when was the last time you even saw a musket for sale, I am not sure I ever have. Imagine translating this discussion into cooking appliances and talking about how people don't cook on coal fired stoves anymore, and that everyone seems to be using these new fangled convection microwaves.

The same sort of comparison can be done with vehicles if you don't like cooking appliances, talking about how no one drives a sedan anymore, and everything is crossovers, pickup trucks and SUV's, it is not that people that get into road rage incidents choose SUV's over sedans because SUV's are more capable of causing damage, its because none of the major auto manufacturers offer a sedan anymore.

This is true. As it relates to AR-style guns, the comparison would be people more commonly using MRAPs in road rage incidents, but they're not. Or using a kiln to cook a hotdog. We can talk in analogies all day, but it's not really useful.

Is it not considered arms? It sure is now isn't? Really poor argument on your part.

Let me catch you up. 2A doesn't guarantee your right to own a specific style or brand of gun. An amendment can be repealed. An amendment can be added.

 

[Skookum]

The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the general population could remain armed in case of a need to overthrow a tyrannical government, and part of that is therefore that the people need to have access to weapons that are on par with what is being used by the military. So yes AR-15's are exactly what the 2A was designed to be about. It was never about the right to own a hunting rifle.

Are you saying the 2A doesn't also exist for personal safety apart from concerns about a tyrannical government? That would be an interesting take.

So, when do militias assemble and use all these at-home weapons to throw out a tyrannical government?

 

[TheBar]

Australia is a good example of gun control. After their first ban/buyback in 1996 deaths by guns didn't really change and actually went up in 1999. Because only the law abiding turned in their guns.

Even if every house was searched and every gun confiscated criminals can make zip guns and now guns can be 3D printed. Eliminate gunpowder but black powder is easy to make at home. Eliminate bullets but zip guns can fire marbles. Eliminate knives and spoons will be sharpened into shivs. If there is a will there is a way.

The point being, only those who are mentally ill murder others or kill themselves. Mental illness is the real problem not the guns. When that is finally recognized then the debate will be what defines mental illness and how to ban it.

 

[Skookum]

Australia is a good example of gun control. After their first ban/buyback in 1996 deaths by guns didn't really change and actually went up in 1999. Because only the law abiding turned in their guns.

Even if every house was searched and every gun confiscated criminals can make zip guns and now guns can be 3D printed. Eliminate gunpowder but black powder is easy to make at home. Eliminate bullets but zip guns can fire marbles. Eliminate knives and spoons will be sharpened into shivs. If there is a will there is a way.

The point being, only those who are mentally ill murder others or kill themselves. Mental illness is the real problem not the guns. When that is finally recognized then the debate will be what defines mental illness and how to ban it.

Australia is a good example of gun control, you're right. It's not 1999 anymore, we're 25 years past that and a measurable drop in gun-related homicides and suicides can be measured after the NFA's effort. By what margin, though? Specifically, mass shootings, suicides, and female victimization. I'm sure the NRA meant to update their stories and just haven't gotten around to it yet.

I'm with you on mental health, but again, mental health is also a problem. But while we're espousing tired old NRA rebuttal points, why do the NRA-sympathetic then reject any attempt to improve outcomes related to mental health and gun violence? Specifically, red flag laws that allow firearms to be taken away from folks experiencing mental health crisis? Why isn't there support from the NRA and its sympathizers to increase spending on state and federal mental health programs? What do you propose, as someone who emphatically believes mental health is the problem, and not gun violence?

Or, is it believed that offering "thoughts and prayers" and hand-wringing, chalking the issue up to "mental health" after yet another mass shooting, is enough?

 

[Babe2201]

This is true. As it relates to AR-style guns, the comparison would be people more commonly using MRAPs in road rage incidents, but they're not. Or using a kiln to cook a hotdog. We can talk in analogies all day, but it's not really useful.



Let me catch you up. 2A doesn't guarantee your right to own a specific style or brand of gun. An amendment can be repealed. An amendment can be added.

I don't need to be caught up at all. It specifically says "arms". I am not sure why that is so hard for some to grasp. Even the laws against civilians owning automatic weapons go against that.

My point about using other weapons is what will happen if they eliminate all the AR style rifles in the hands of law-abiding citizens because you even admit that it won't help with the criminal element and maniacs use a different weapon to accomplish their evil doings. We will be told more has to be done and take away more. As it is now like others have pointed out murders with rifles account for a really low percentage of the total murders and AR style rifles are just a percentage of that. I would think someone that is "data driven" would be able to see that.

Seeing you want a ban on "assault rifles" and "weapons of war" what are you proposing? Is it banning any new sales or is it going home to home collecting all of them from law-abiding citizens?

 

[Skookum]

Seeing you want a ban on "assault rifles" and "weapons of war" what are you proposing? Is it banning any new sales or is it going home to home collecting all of them from law-abiding citizens?

I don't think our Founding Fathers envisioned the kind of economic disparity nor 300+ Million people living in the US, with 80%+ concentrated in and around major cities, nor did they envision people using handguns or AR-15's to injure and murder a room full of people on an angry whim. And that's why the constitution is a living document and also why the 2A shouldn't go untouched to better serve us as Americans. I wanted to add the point as it relates to the original post...I don't think they envisioned the disparity and division, state-by-state, with regard to gun laws.

I think a federal stop-sale on AR-style guns will work just fine. They'll be harder to obtain over time and the price will go up. I am data driven, you put a smile on my face. Just like a Kia is more likely to be used in a vehicular homicide than a Lamborghini, if you put things out of reach, they are simply harder to obtain.

 

[DonTom]

There are pistols that have 33 round magazines and would still be very easy to shoot.

I own a simi auto 9 MM pistol with 100-round magazines.

The Calico 9 MM pistol:



BTW, it's NOT a weapon of war . . . . . Also not an "assault rifle". But it will shoot 100 rounds quite fast and then I can use another 100-round magazine. Can get the magazines in 50 or 100 rounds. I own both.

Calico 100-round magazine (made in USA instead of Belgium) :



I also have 30-round magazines for my two FN-57s (one of each color). Looks more like a normal handgun. The 30-round magazines are aftermarker. I own several.

My PS90/AR57 rifles also have 100- round magazines. And they each can use armor piercing rounds (the so-called "cop killer bullets"). They will go through steel vests.

AR57 rifle. The 100 round magazine is NOT a weapon of war, only the 50-round. The 100-round is again, aftermarket, not made by FN. The AR57 was used in the war in Venezuela--they used a full-auto select fire version of the AR57.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

I think a federal stop-sale on AR-style guns will work just fine.

What happens when they change their model numbers to XX?

Better define what the assault weapon is.

It has always meant whatever some politician says it is.

As it says here.

"There is no clear, consistent definition."

It usually means how the weapon looks, not what its capabilities are. Ban the flash suppressor or the bayonet lug or whatever. How many people have been killed by a flash suppressor or even a bayonet lug?

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Babe2201]

What happens when they change their model numbers to XX?

Better define what the assault weapon is.

It has always meant whatever some politician says it is.

As it says here.

"There is no clear, consistent definition."

It usually means how the weapon looks, not what its capabilities are. Ban the flash suppressor or the bayonet lug or whatever. How many people have been killed by a flash suppressor or even a bayonet lug?

-Don- Reno, NV

Well then we will just ban any weapon that fires a lot of bullets really quickly and that will solve everything. That is right up until it doesn't.

 

[Babe2201]

I don't think our Founding Fathers envisioned the kind of economic disparity nor 300+ Million people living in the US, with 80%+ concentrated in and around major cities, nor did they envision people using handguns or AR-15's to injure and murder a room full of people on an angry whim. And that's why the constitution is a living document and also why the 2A shouldn't go untouched to better serve us as Americans. I wanted to add the point as it relates to the original post...I don't think they envisioned the disparity and division, state-by-state, with regard to gun laws.

I think a federal stop-sale on AR-style guns will work just fine. They'll be harder to obtain over time and the price will go up. I am data driven, you put a smile on my face. Just like a Kia is more likely to be used in a vehicular homicide than a Lamborghini, if you put things out of reach, they are simply harder to obtain.

Do you think our founding fathers envisioned radicals of a certain religion flying into skyscrapers? Do you think they envisioned the internet so that someone could type something and millions can see in a very short amount of time? I guess you would think we should take a look at the 1A and rewrite that as well.

So tell me again when crazy people still kill people what the next steps are?