Florida Gun Ban Proposed

[Raz'r]

local politicians looking at reasonable regulations.

But they won't pass.

So - meh.

 

[sail611]

Someone in FL should write their legislators and suggest that rather than ban a gun based on its general characteristics (pistol grip, folding stock, etc) they look at what really matters.....muzzle energy. A .22LR that looks like an AR15 should not be banned because it has nowhere near the muzzle energy of a .223. If the intent of the law is to prevent real "assault weapons" from being sold, then muzzle energy and magazine capacity should be the real considerations. Something along the lines of "guns with magazines of X capacity and Y muzzle energy will not be sold." You could then make a FL legal AR with a 5 rd magazine, that has a special mag well that only accepts 5 rd magazines. Just an idea. A compromise if you will.

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

Aside from creating a really peaceful society, of which we are inherently not, I do think that some reasonable forms of gun control should be enacted. I am actually all for a waiting period before any center fire purchase can be made. It would prevent impulse buys based on fear and anger. Like the guy down the street's house was broken into. I need a gun NOW. Or those damn kids keep shouting into my windows at 10:00 at night. I need a gun NOW. I also fail to see why gun enthusiasts are against something reasonable like that. For example, a hunter is not going to buy a gun today for a hunting trip tomorrow, or at least not a good one. It takes time to sight in and develop a load for a hunting rifle. Same with a competitive or even sport target shooter. A 1000yd target competitor is not buying his rifle today for an event later in the afternoon, or the next day, or even the next week. It also might make those who are less well off think twice about an impulse buy. I once saw a guy in a local Gander Mountain brag about how they were going to be eating Ramen soup for the next two weeks because he just had to have the newest Glock. Not that there is anything wrong with Ramen soup, but C'mon, can we be reasonable.

So the bottom line, would a mandatory waiting period on centerfire purchases be one, constitutionally acceptable, and would it accomplish anything? I think it would. But I always like the thoughts from the other gunners on here.

 

[Raz'r]

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Someone in FL should write their legislators and suggest that rather than ban a gun based on its general characteristics (pistol grip, folding stock, etc) they look at what really matters.....muzzle energy. A .22LR that looks like an AR15 should not be banned because it has nowhere near the muzzle energy of a .223. If the intent of the law is to prevent real "assault weapons" from being sold, then muzzle energy and magazine capacity should be the real considerations. ...

So the bottom line, would a mandatory waiting period on centerfire purchases be one, constitutionally acceptable, and would it accomplish anything? I think it would. But I always like the thoughts from the other gunners on here.

"Assault weapon" is just a political term. It sounds scary, so the game then becomes to see how many guns you can slap the label on to ban them.

That's why it seems reasonable to the grabbers to call ordinary .22's "assault weapons."

I doubt a mandatory waiting period would prevent me from going postal. I could easily just do it with one of my other guns.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

There is an answer every bit as reasonable as banning .22's as assault weapons being proposed.

Senate Bill 142 changes the language in the state’s safe storage law, deleting this line: “This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.”

Grabbers don't give a shit if a criminal was the problem. The REAL problem is always the gun owner, so no need for that nonsense about exempting thefts.

 

[Dabnis]

Someone in FL should write their legislators and suggest that rather than ban a gun based on its general characteristics (pistol grip, folding stock, etc) they look at what really matters.....muzzle energy. A .22LR that looks like an AR15 should not be banned because it has nowhere near the muzzle energy of a .223. If the intent of the law is to prevent real "assault weapons" from being sold, then muzzle energy and magazine capacity should be the real considerations. Something along the lines of "guns with magazines of X capacity and Y muzzle energy will not be sold." You could then make a FL legal AR with a 5 rd magazine, that has a special mag well that only accepts 5 rd magazines. Just an idea. A compromise if you will.

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

Aside from creating a really peaceful society, of which we are inherently not, I do think that some reasonable forms of gun control should be enacted. I am actually all for a waiting period before any center fire purchase can be made. It would prevent impulse buys based on fear and anger. Like the guy down the street's house was broken into. I need a gun NOW. Or those damn kids keep shouting into my windows at 10:00 at night. I need a gun NOW. I also fail to see why gun enthusiasts are against something reasonable like that. For example, a hunter is not going to buy a gun today for a hunting trip tomorrow, or at least not a good one. It takes time to sight in and develop a load for a hunting rifle. Same with a competitive or even sport target shooter. A 1000yd target competitor is not buying his rifle today for an event later in the afternoon, or the next day, or even the next week. It also might make those who are less well off think twice about an impulse buy. I once saw a guy in a local Gander Mountain brag about how they were going to be eating Ramen soup for the next two weeks because he just had to have the newest Glock. Not that there is anything wrong with Ramen soup, but C'mon, can we be reasonable.

So the bottom line, would a mandatory waiting period on centerfire purchases be one, constitutionally acceptable, and would it accomplish anything? I think it would. But I always like the thoughts from the other gunners on here.

California has a waiting period, not sure how it affects criminals?

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#28

1. "How is the waiting period for firearm purchases calculated?
   • The waiting period for the purchase or transfer of a firearm is ten (10) 24-hour periods from the date and time the DROS information is submitted to the DOJ."
     

 

[Gouvernail]

Florida sorta looks like a pistol aimed at Alabama's foot

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Someone in FL should write their legislators and suggest that rather than ban a gun based on its general characteristics (pistol grip, folding stock, etc) they look at what really matters.....muzzle energy....

As you have seen, Raz'r and jocal would say that banning .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable.

I'd be more inclined to write and suggest they read what noted gun control advocate Adam Winkler says about mean-looking weapons bans:

Magazine Ban Won't Help

Americans have tried over and over to outlaw things that some insist are objectionable and others enjoy. Prohibition was repealed when its supporters realized that the disobeyed laws against alcohol brought the whole legal system into disrepute. The war on drugs is widely recognized as an abject failure. We haven't even been able to stop music file-sharing, which despite a 10-year effort by the recording industry is as popular as ever.

Like alcohol, drugs and file-sharing, guns — including the ones with large magazines — are here to stay. Gun policy is going to be more effective when we stop fighting against that simple fact.

Asked in an interview about mean looking weapons bans:

My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy that's mostly about symbolism and not about substance. The truth is assault weapons are used very infrequently in crimes. I think there is a grand total of about 300 people a year who die from rifles of any sort––assault or otherwise.

...

When the assault weapons ban was in effect, there was only one credible study of its impact, and that study found that it was not associated with any significant reduction of violence.

Why banning assault rifles won't reduce gun violence

we already know that banning assault weapons won't reduce gun crime or deaths. Worse, the bans may make it harder to enact more effective gun control laws.

The problem starts with the term itself. The “assault weapons” for sale in the U.S. now aren't really weapons of war.

...

America's gun debate suffers because of unreasonable, extreme positions taken by the NRA. But gun control advocates who push for bans on one kind of rifle primarily because it looks scary also contribute to the problem. Such bans don't reduce gun crime, but they do stimulate passionate opposition from law-abiding gun owners: Gun control advocates ridicule the NRA's claim that the government is coming to take away people's guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in the country.

 

[Raz'r]

Sure thing Liar Tom. I suggest local politicians are best to implement local solutions, and in this case it won't pass anyway.

Somehow that means I'm calling for a ban on .22s

You're a true POS

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

local politicians looking at reasonable regulations.

So you think the banning of .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable?

Or is it the change where a gun owner is responsible for his gun after it's stolen?

Exactly which regulations are you talking about as "reasonable" here?

 

[Raz'r]

local politicians looking at reasonable regulations.

So you think the banning of .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable?

Or is it the change where a gun owner is responsible for his gun after it's stolen?

Exactly which regulations are you talking about as "reasonable" here?

The Supremes have said reasonable regulations are fine. These may be, or may not be, but they won't pass so it matters not. So Meh.

If you need a hug, call your buddy Zimmerman.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Sure thing Liar Tom. I suggest local politicians are best to implement local solutions, and in this case it won't pass anyway.

Somehow that means I'm calling for a ban on .22s

You're a true POS

Your first comment on the ban on .22's was that it was reasonable.

I see you've now backed off on that a bit and don't know whether it is reasonable.

I never said you were calling for such a ban. I said Raz'r and jocal would say that banning .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable.

And you did. The fact that you later backtracked doesn't make my original statement a lie like your claim that I said you were "calling for" anything.

 

[Raz'r]

Sure thing Liar Tom. I suggest local politicians are best to implement local solutions, and in this case it won't pass anyway.

Somehow that means I'm calling for a ban on .22s

You're a true POS

Your first comment on the ban on .22's was that it was reasonable.

I see you've now backed off on that a bit and don't know whether it is reasonable.

I never said you were calling for such a ban. I said Raz'r and jocal would say that banning .22's as "assault weapons" is reasonable.

And you did. The fact that you later backtracked doesn't make my original statement a lie like your claim that I said you were "calling for" anything.

You should start a career in song and dance.

 

[Guest]

So the bottom line, would a mandatory waiting period on centerfire purchases be one, constitutionally acceptable, and would it accomplish anything? I think it would. But I always like the thoughts from the other gunners on here.

I would say this woman probably would disagree with waiting periods.

 

[Guest]

Though no matter how you stack it, banning guns is not the solution. It might appear to help, and it works in other countries where the number of guns was relatively small to begin with. But in the US, there are simply too many guns in circulation, legally and otherwise. The real solution is to create a society in which people don't want to kill other people. There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize for the first SA'er who figures out how to do that.

I think we have. It's called responsibility. If there is a registration chain, and a universal background check process - the last legal owner needs to be held responsible for crimes committed with their tool. Some exceptions for reported theft, etc could be granted BUT that assumes significant security. you have a gun? Lock it up. In something secure.

I have suggested that numerous times as well. But I have an issue with the "significant security" mandate in order to get off the hook. Personally, I do use significant security for my tools. They are in a locked safe behind locked doors in a house with a German Shepard that will eat your face off if he doesn't know you. But that is a personal choice.

I believe that a locked house should be sufficient security against theft. Or even a closed door to a house should be sufficient protection against liability from someone stealing your tools. Last I checked, it was illegal to enter someone's house and take their stuff. I should not have to worry that if I report a theft of a weapon, that I will be held liable if my "security" doesn't meet the DA's standards.

Does that mean if my truck was stolen from my house because I left the keys on the kitchen counter and then the robber deliberately ran it into a crowd of shoppers at the mall and killed 20 - should I be held responsible for their murders? As evadent, vehicles are just as effective a mass murder tool as .22LR semi-auto "assault rifles" are. Probably more so. Are we going to need additional "significant security" for trucks now given they are the new mass murder weapon du jour?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Even if we turn my wife's gun back into a woody, it still has a detachable magazine holding more than seven rounds.

Do you think it's an assault weapon?

Tell you what Tom. How about you give me your wife's harmless gun and I'll give you 10 secs start. Sound fair?

No, I think I should have another battlefield weapon for defense.

How about my assault slingshot? I bet I could hit you twice, maybe three times, with 3/4 oz lead balls in those ten seconds. That's why slingshots, much like ordinary .22's, are too dangerous for anyone without a badge and/or a uniform to own.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Interest in banning battlefield .22's seems pretty thin.

The topic article notes that the murders in Fort Lauderdale are motivating the proposal to limit sales of tools, so perhaps it's time for a parade of the victims whose loss has made this a propitious time to talk about reasonable proposals to limit sales of tools and make tool owners responsible for what criminals do with stolen tools.

Shirley Timmons, the Ohio woman killed in the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, was warmly remembered by her family in a statement released Monday.

Timmons was slain, and her husband Steve Timmons was critically injured, during Friday's airport attack.

"Shirley Timmons was an amazing daughter, wife, mother and grandmother," her family said in a statement provided by Broward Health Medical Center. "For Shirley, it was all about family. She and her husband of 51 years met when they were in the 8th grade.

"They were high school sweethearts with the perfect love story. She was a cheerleader and Homecoming Queen with the man of her dreams. Together they built a close, loving family with their three daughters, three son-in-laws and eight grandchildren. For Shirley, family meant vacations, football games and holiday traditions.

The couple had flown to Fort Lauderdale on Friday to join the rest of their family for a cruise, WILE-FM reported over the weekend.

Timmons' grandson Steve Reineccius confirmed over Facebook that his grandmother was one of the victims and that his grandfather Steve Timmons was wounded. They were both 70 years old.

Timmons was shot in the head and underwent emergency surgery at a Fort Lauderdale hospital, the station reported.

Broward Health, citing patient privacy, isn't releasing the names of those hospitalized. So a Broward Health spokeswoman on Monday said she had no information about Steve Timmons' condition.

The couple's 51st wedding anniversary was in three weeks. They're from Senecaville, about 90 miles east of Columbus.

The Timmons family, in Monday's statement, said Shirley Timmons was the "most loving, passionate mother who had a love for life and truly sparkled. She will continue to sparkle through her husband, mother, three daughters and eight grandchildren. She touched many and was loved by all. She will live in our hearts forever and will be truly missed. We love you Mom and Grandma."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fort-lauderdale-hollywood-airport-shooting/fl-shirley-timmons-airport-shooting-20170107-story.html

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

They look like nice people. I'm sure they don't mind having their loss cynically exploited by gungrabbers.

How about this one?

Michael Oehme of Council Bluffs, IA had his second amendment rights taken away in Friday's violence incident. His wife kept her second amendment rights for now, despite being wounded by the violence Mr. Santiago wielded in such a deadly fashion. She suffered a shoulder wound, but is expected to recover fully, to be able to use her second amendment rights as she sees fit (and the others too, but they aren't that important).

Michael Oehme, 57, and Kari Oehme, 52, were at the airport preparing for a Caribbean cruise that was slated to begin Saturday, according to CNN affiliate WOWT. Kari Oehme suffered a shoulder wound and is expected to recover, her sister-in-law told WOWT.

Adam Angeroth, who has known the couple for eight years and is Kari Oehme's hairdresser, told the station that the couple went on cruises every year and that he had just done her hair and nails in preparation for the trip.
Kari Oehme works for CommScope, a telecommunications company, across the Missouri River in Omaha, Nebraska. The company released a statement saying it was doing everything it can to help the Oehme family.
"Our deepest sympathy goes out to everyone affected by this tragic event," the statement said.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/07/us/fort-lauderdale-victims-profiles/

http://www.wowt.com/content/news/Shock-grips-friends-and-relatives-of-Council-Bluffs-couple-caught-in-Florida-gunfire-409978415.html

If that's not a reason to call ordinary .22's battlefield weapons and ban them I don't know what is.

 

[Blue Crab]

It starts with a gun ban. Then knives and busses of mass destruction. Then airplanes.

 

[slatfatf]

We get proposals like this all the time here in PA. They never go anywhere, it is always some rep from Philly looking for something to bring back to his constituents to show he is "doing something".