It’s easy to find cases of law makers spouting off in the media, pushing their latest great idea and not having a single clue what they are talking about.
"You said 'stilts' when the proper term is 'piles', so why should anybody listen to you?"
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
If the groups working for more gun control came to the table with facts and not hyperbole and fearmongering based off incorrect assumptions, a lot more people would probably be receptive to their message.
It’s easy to find cases of law makers spouting off in the media, pushing their latest great idea and not having a single clue what they are talking about. If you’re going to say that barrel shrouds are dangerous and need restrictions, then reference the movie Predator, you probably don’t have enough knowledge to try and make gun laws.
like trying to ban bump stocks?
like trying to restrict gun ownership to people on the terrorist watch lists?
like trying to close the loophole on gun shows not requiring background checks?
like trying to prevent gun sales to those with mental illness?
All perfectly sensible laws. All received zero support by the GOP
NRA supporters in the senate and house and a vocal component of americans don't want gun control obviously, so let them have all the guns they want...
can't wait for constitutional carry and legalizing silencers... that'll put an end to this thread...
lol who am i kidding... see you in a few weeks
The Following User Says Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
One thing about all these arguments is that rifles and assault rifles are used in a tiny percentage of US homicides. If the US murder rate is 4.88, and the managed to destroy all the assault rifles in the country, the best case would be to maybe move the rate to 4.84. I'm all for getting rid of them, and don't see any reason anyone should be allowed to have them, but what is the real point?
Hand guns are a much bigger problem. So why such an urgency to try to do something about the 17 people who died in this shooting, when 350 other people were murdered this week by other means. Lots of them were kids too, and I'm sure were very tragic stories. Is the point to just try to stop from having to see these stories on the news that make us so sad and angry while ignoring the many other people murdered in the country every day? Simply removing rifles will not make us safer in any kind of measurable way. Restricting rifle purchases without destroying existing ones would have even less of an impact.
like trying to close the loophole on gun shows not requiring background checks?
legalizing silencers
Few quick ones.
Bump stocks are a gimmick really, I thought I saw an article saying only a few thousand had been sold? They simulate full auto fire, but are hard on a gun's action. If you really want, you can get the same result and effect from a semi-auto anything and your finger.
There is no "gun show loophole". If you buy a gun from a dealer, they do a background check. Whether it's at their store or anywhere else, you buy from a FFL, you get a NICS check. If you buy across state lines, background check and it goes through an FFL in the buyer's home state; this applies to FFL to private and private to private sales. The only exception is private to private sales in the same state, where no background check requirement exists at the federal level. Some states do require background checks for private sales though.
Suppressors are already legal. The process is the same as getting a short barrel rifle. You apply to the BATF, they run their background check, you pay your tax stamp and get the permit to buy one. The biggest misconception with suppressors is that they make gunshots silent, but it's not even close to the Hollywood portrayal. They also don't make a firearm any more dangerous, some European countries require them as safety/courtesy equipment.
I'd also suspect a lot of people would be fine restricting people on terror lists and those who have been diagnosed with specific mental illnesses from buying guns. Only issue is are you fine with doctors sharing your medical records with the government.
One thing about all these arguments is that rifles and assault rifles are used in a tiny percentage of US homicides. If the US murder rate is 4.88, and the managed to destroy all the assault rifles in the country, the best case would be to maybe move the rate to 4.84. I'm all for getting rid of them, and don't see any reason anyone should be allowed to have them, but what is the real point?
I have many US friends, some who think guns and Trump are good.
Here are a few comments:
The thread started by a friend who was in the military and wants guns banned:
Assault is defined as, "a threat of imminent or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so." Anyone guilty of assault we deem to be a criminal. So then why are assault WEAPONS not illegal?
Some responses:
Because if I attacked you with a hammer that then becomes an assault hammer and would then have to be banned.
No the AR15 was not 'designed' to kill and kill a lot and you (being ex military) should know that
AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.
so just for my info as an outsider, what would the actual purpose of owning an AR-15 rifle be for the average household? Target shooting. Hunting.
These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they’re used for target shooting in the national matches.AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. An Assault Rifle, by definition, has a selective fire switch than can toggle between semi-automatic, a three round burst, or full automatic fire. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle
Maybe they should make a semi-automatic hammer....
Let me make myself clear, I am absolutely not defending anything concerning guns of any kind. I just think we should call them what they are if we're going to have a conversation about them. AR 15 isn't an assault rifle. We shouldn't label it as such. I am in favour of tighter regulations, but not an all out ban. I have seen what an all out ban on guns do to a country.
I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that it's not the semi-automatic weapon that's the real problem it's the magazine capacity that causes these massive killings, 30-100 round mags can be used legally in the stupid USA, in Canada the capacity is 5 for a gun like the AR-15 or the Ruger 14. some people use a loophole to trick out a handgun to look like a rifle and get 10 rounds but it's still a far cry from the US. a 19 year old kid would never be able to shoot 30+ people if his gun was limited to 5 round mags.
The Following User Says Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
Snuffle, the magazines available in the US are the exact same ones available in Canada. That rivet isn’t keeping anyone from using it to break the law, unless you think that someone planing to shoot a few people will suddenly go “It’s illegal to take this rivet out and load more that 5 rounds, better reconsider my plan”.
Also, pistol mags in rifles isn’t a loophole, it’s how the law is written.
Bump stocks are a gimmick really, I thought I saw an article saying only a few thousand had been sold? They simulate full auto fire, but are hard on a gun's action. If you really want, you can get the same result and effect from a semi-auto anything and your finger.
There is no "gun show loophole". If you buy a gun from a dealer, they do a background check. Whether it's at their store or anywhere else, you buy from a FFL, you get a NICS check. If you buy across state lines, background check and it goes through an FFL in the buyer's home state; this applies to FFL to private and private to private sales. The only exception is private to private sales in the same state, where no background check requirement exists at the federal level. Some states do require background checks for private sales though.
Suppressors are already legal. The process is the same as getting a short barrel rifle. You apply to the BATF, they run their background check, you pay your tax stamp and get the permit to buy one. The biggest misconception with suppressors is that they make gunshots silent, but it's not even close to the Hollywood portrayal. They also don't make a firearm any more dangerous, some European countries require them as safety/courtesy equipment.
I'd also suspect a lot of people would be fine restricting people on terror lists and those who have been diagnosed with specific mental illnesses from buying guns. Only issue is are you fine with doctors sharing your medical records with the government.
if they are a 'gimmick' and only a few thousand have been sold, then banning them would be incredibly easy shouldn't it?
2) Gun Show loophole: the private sales from unlicensed dealers is the loophole as they do not require background checks, even though the spirit of the legislation is for "universal" background checks
3) Silencers are legal, but the gun industry is still trying to make the sales of silencers even less restrictive. That's why its buried in a bill that uses the notion of "hearing protection" as a way of justifying the bill to make it less restrictive. http://time.com/4965056/las-vegas-shooting-gun-silencer-bill/
Silencers don't make a gun "silent" but they do suppress the sound of gunfire... its just another "toy" for gun enthusiasts... better still is the fact that they don't last forever: planned obsolescence has been a boon to manufacturers through history, from a washing machine to apple... of course gun manufacturers would love it.
4) except both those pieces of legislation failed. Including Trump and the House, who revoked the Obama era bill
Quote:
The Obama-era regulation, which was enacted after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The measure would have affected about 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs.
if they are a 'gimmick' and only a few thousand have been sold, then banning them would be incredibly easy shouldn't it?
2) Gun Show loophole: the private sales from unlicensed dealers is the loophole as they do not require background checks, even though the spirit of the legislation is for "universal" background checks
3) Silencers are legal, but the gun industry is still trying to make the sales of silencers even less restrictive. That's why its buried in a bill that uses the notion of "hearing protection" as a way of justifying the bill to make it less restrictive. http://time.com/4965056/las-vegas-shooting-gun-silencer-bill/
Silencers don't make a gun "silent" but they do suppress the sound of gunfire... its just another "toy" for gun enthusiasts... better still is the fact that they don't last forever: planned obsolescence has been a boon to manufacturers through history, from a washing machine to apple... of course gun manufacturers would love it.
4) except both those pieces of legislation failed. Including Trump and the House, who revoked the Obama era bill
Banning high capacity magazines also failed to gain GOP support
1. Yes, it is possible to do with out a bump stock. It’s also just as inaccurate compared to using a gun the way it was intended.
2. Federal law is clear on this. If you’re dealing firearms, you need a FFL; dealing guns without one is illegal. If you buy from a dealer, you have to get a NICS check, doesn’t matter where it is. The only time a background check isn’t needed is an in-state, private sale (depending if your state doesn’t mandate one under state law).
3. It might be considered a “toy” by some, but you’re ignoring the jurisdictions (with more stringent gun laws than the US) that consider it a piece of safety equipment.
Bump stocks are a gimmick really, I thought I saw an article saying only a few thousand had been sold? They simulate full auto fire, but are hard on a gun's action. If you really want, you can get the same result and effect from a semi-auto anything and your finger.
If so, this strikes me as an argument against semi-auto weapons rather than for bump stocks. Or at least, somehow nerfing such weapons, maybe by limiting magazines to a few shots as suggested above.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
1. Yes, it is possible to do with out a bump stock. It’s also just as inaccurate compared to using a gun the way it was intended.
2. Federal law is clear on this. If you’re dealing firearms, you need a FFL; dealing guns without one is illegal. If you buy from a dealer, you have to get a NICS check, doesn’t matter where it is. The only time a background check isn’t needed is an in-state, private sale (depending if your state doesn’t mandate one under state law).
3. It might be considered a “toy” by some, but you’re ignoring the jurisdictions (with more stringent gun laws than the US) that consider it a piece of safety equipment.
1) 1100 rounds in ten minutes is 1.83 rounds per sec... not including the time it takes to reload or the time the shooter was dealing with the first security guard.
accuracy was hardly necessary when firing into a crowd; killing or injuring as many people as possible in the shortest time possible was the goal.
58 people were killed and 489 were injured
you say you could do it, i say you couldn't do that without a bump stock
2) private sellers don't need to do background checks
3) its going to be a toy to the vast majority of private citizens that buy it...zero reason for a weekend warrior to buy one...
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
Chestermere RCMP - Unfounded School Shooter Complaint
Chestermere, Alberta- On February 16, 2018 at approximately 11:15 a.m. school administration at Chestermere Lake Middle School (CLMS) reported a concern a student may be planning to engage in a school shooting. The Chestermere RCMP immediately responded and conducted a thorough investigation which revealed a student in another school reported overhearing a remark by a student of CLMS indicating they were going to carry out a school shooting.
Police who responded to a report of gunfire at Highline Community College in Washington state found no evidence weapons had been fired, authorities said Friday afternoon.
"The emergency condition is over and law enforcement have given the all clear," the college said on its Facebook page. The campus was closed for the rest of the day.
The school in Des Moines, a few miles south of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, was put on lockdown Friday morning after reports of gunfire, the college said in Facebook posts and automated phone recordings.
It’s easy to find cases of law makers spouting off in the media, pushing their latest great idea and not having a single clue what they are talking about.
You make that statement, then follow it up with these beauties?
Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
Few quick ones.
Bump stocks are a gimmick really, I thought I saw an article saying only a few thousand had been sold? They simulate full auto fire, but are hard on a gun's action. If you really want, you can get the same result and effect from a semi-auto anything and your finger.
No, you can't simulate with your finger what a bump stock can do. This is just demonstrably false and is an opinion passed off by someone who is grossly uniformed or has never used a bump stock. And no, they are not gimmicky, they are effective as hell, as proven by the Las Vegas shooter. They are hard on most ARs, only because most guns are built with light barrels. Put a heavy barrel on the weapon and couple with a bump stock and you have an effective killing machine that will fire hundreds of rounds at a time without damaging the weapon in any shape or form.
Quote:
There is no "gun show loophole". If you buy a gun from a dealer, they do a background check. Whether it's at their store or anywhere else, you buy from a FFL, you get a NICS check. If you buy across state lines, background check and it goes through an FFL in the buyer's home state; this applies to FFL to private and private to private sales. The only exception is private to private sales in the same state, where no background check requirement exists at the federal level. Some states do require background checks for private sales though.
Yes, there is a gun show loophole. Again, gross ignorance on your part or just playing stupid for effect. An individual may go to a gun show and buy a weapon through a private sale without the need for a background check. The requirement is to show photo ID in many states, but there is no audit or tracking system to guarantee the verification of identity takes place. If the person selling a gun at a show is a dealer, and the weapon is in inventory, the same paperwork expectation is placed on that just as it would at their brick and mortar store, but for private citizens selling a gun, no background requirement exists. That is commonly referred to as the gun show loophole.
Quote:
Suppressors are already legal. The process is the same as getting a short barrel rifle. You apply to the BATF, they run their background check, you pay your tax stamp and get the permit to buy one. The biggest misconception with suppressors is that they make gunshots silent, but it's not even close to the Hollywood portrayal. They also don't make a firearm any more dangerous, some European countries require them as safety/courtesy equipment.
Playing a little loose with the facts here. Suppressors are legal, so long as you go through the background process and establish that you are an upstanding citizen. Now lets be clear here. The background process to get a restricted weapon or accessory, like a silencer or shortened barrel, is substantial. Not only do you have to fill out a big chunk of paperwork, but you have to submit fingerprints and passport photos with your package, something you don't have to do to buy a gun. Then you have to go through an actual background check, where the government digs into your background and determines if you are a treat to society. This process takes between 5-8 months to complete. Just a little different from what you are representing.
Suppressors can make a weapon system run very quiet. Depending on the platform and the suppressor in question, weapons can be made sound like airsoft gun being fired. The Ruger SR22, coupled with the Ruger SilenceSR, makes as much noise as a frog farting. They have done an outstanding job on turning down the sound. The same can be said for a number of platforms as well. No, they aren't silent, but they turn the report down to the point where is can be disguised by other sound.
Quote:
I'd also suspect a lot of people would be fine restricting people on terror lists and those who have been diagnosed with specific mental illnesses from buying guns. Only issue is are you fine with doctors sharing your medical records with the government.
The vast majority of Americans want this, but the NRA and other 2nd amendment groups don't. The reality of this is that there are no lobbyists on the side of the majority so the needs of the many never outweigh the wants of the few.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
If the groups working for more gun control came to the table with facts and not hyperbole and fearmongering based off incorrect assumptions, a lot more people would probably be receptive to their message.
It’s easy to find cases of law makers spouting off in the media, pushing their latest great idea and not having a single clue what they are talking about. If you’re going to say that barrel shrouds are dangerous and need restrictions, then reference the movie Predator, you probably don’t have enough knowledge to try and make gun laws.
You have an entire political party that has all of their policies based on ignoring facts and science re: fossil fuels/climate change/EPA. That same party is dead set on making laws controlling women's bodies when many of them have proven they have little or no knowledge of how women's reproductive organs function.
So not knowing what you're talking about most certainly isn't going to stop you from making laws in the US.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
No, you can't simulate with your finger what a bump stock can do. This is just demonstrably false and is an opinion passed off by someone who is grossly uniformed or has never used a bump stock. And no, they are not gimmicky, they are effective as hell, as proven by the Las Vegas shooter.
4:00 for his reaction to the increased fire rate.
Last edited by chemgear; 02-16-2018 at 07:59 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Blows my mind that you ac walk into a store and buy an ar-15. Totally floors me how you can modify it so easily......but as per most politicians, this is not the time to talk about the shooting the other day.....facepalm
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
The Following User Says Thank You to Northendzone For This Useful Post:
