Support NeoGAF

[iamblades]

Oh I agree with you at least on the legal terms for restriction of weapons on such attachments. It seems rather arbitrary and easily circumvented, but I still think that the aforementioned mistake is indicative of a serious lack of knowledge of the weapon, for which there should be no excuse when dealing with something as dangerous as an assault rifle. What is your opinion on a mandatory training program for all potential private gun owners? Additionally, what is your opinion on defining and evaluating a system of quantitive assessment of lethality based on things like ease of reload, firing speed, caliber, effective range, and other such weapon characteristics, and defining a legal threshold based on said statistics? Something akin to a weighted scoring system. Arbitrary still, but at least based on an empirical approach and more easily and universally enforceable.

It's not a lack of knowledge of the weapon, its the lack of knowledge of an arbitrary, capricious set of regulations that make no logical sense.

As for a mandatory training program, I wouldn't be completely against it, but the devil is in the details. It would need to be constructed in a way where it couldn't be used by some anti gun local official to prevent access for a law abiding citizen. Paying for a training program on that scale could be an issue as well.

I don't know how you could possible come up with an objective lethality scale, as it's highly situational and wouldn't really address most of the guns that are commonly used in crimes. Cheap low caliber handguns would score really low but are responsible for the vast majority of crime in this country, while a semiauto .50 cal rifle would score off the scale, but I'm pretty sure the latter has never been used in a crime in this country.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

I'm shedding a tear for these poor people who's rights are being 'trampled' because they theoretically might be unable to buy a specific type of automatic assault rifle in the future if they someday decide they need to own one for God knows what. Please, just shut the fuck up. Nobody cares about your useless, niche hobbies with weapons when thats weighed in relation to the potential carnage it causes.

 

[Vilix]

You're likely a person who likes to revert to the car analogy so I'll pose this question.

Why do we have to be licensed to drive a car? Why do all cars (that are used on public roads) have to be identifiable with license plates, VINs, registration, etc?

Why the fuck do I have to fill out a form when I buy Sudafed but not when I go by a box of 7.62?!?

Driving is a privledge, not a right?

I will say that I fully back universal background check on all potential gun owners.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I don't know how you could possible come up with an objective lethality scale, as it's highly situational and wouldn't really address most of the guns that are commonly used in crimes. Cheap low caliber handguns would score really low but are responsible for the vast majority of crime in this country, while a semiauto .50 cal rifle would score off the scale, but I'm pretty sure the latter has never been used in a crime in this country.

We do this now. There's a reason you can't purchase grenade launchers, rpgs, and fully automatic weapons. Or are you saying that this is subjective and those weapons aren't as dangerous as the law says they are?

 

[iamblades]

You're likely a person who likes to revert to the car analogy so I'll pose this question.

Why do we have to be licensed to drive a car? Why do all cars (that are used on public roads) have to be identifiable with license plates, VINs, registration, etc?

Why the fuck do I have to fill out a form when I buy Sudafed but not when I go by a box of 7.62?!?

You have to be licensed because you use public roads, you importantly don't need to be licensed to buy a car or to drive a car on a private track. I can legally buy a race car with no license plate or VIN.

It's not really an apples to apples comparison. If you want to compare driving to shooting a gun in public, say hunting at a state park, then there is a comparison.

 

[Drakeon]

It's ridiculous how long the ATF has been without an appointed director. He shouldn't have to ask for that, it shouldn't be a big deal to confirm an appointment (or deny it so he can move on to another option). Instead it's kept in limbo.

 

[Ty4on]

Even more impressive when you notice the "top" is at 120.

 

[iamblades]

We do this now. There's a reason you can't purchase grenade launchers, rpgs, and fully automatic weapons. Or are you saying that this is subjective and those weapons aren't as dangerous as the law says they are?

You can purchase those things, it's just a lot of paperwork.

But there is no objective scale that proves those weapons are all that dangerous. Even before they were so tightly controlled, they were rarely used in crime, because they were too expensive. Since they've been regulated they are never used in crime.

 

[Tzeentch]

We do this now. There's a reason you can't purchase grenade launchers, rpgs, and fully automatic weapons. Or are you saying that this is subjective and those weapons aren't as dangerous as the law says they are?

These are classified as Destructive Devices (DD) and with some paperwork and paying for the tax stamps ($200) you too can own these things (subject to local law).

 

[lednerg]

Has there been any cost analysis about the nation-wide gun confiscation program Obama's got planned? Could he turn around and sell the guns to China to pay for it?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

You can purchase those things, it's just a lot of paperwork.

But there is no objective scale that proves those weapons are all that dangerous. Even before they were so tightly controlled, they were rarely used in crime, because they were too expensive. Since they've been regulated they are never used in crime.

These are classified as Destructive Devices (DD) and with some paperwork and paying for the tax stamps ($200) you too can own these things (subject to local law).

I suppose I should have clarified that I meant easily purchasable. For example, at Wal Mart or small gun shops. I thought that was fairly obvious, though.

Why are those weapons significantly harder to obtain than semi-automatic weapons? Or are you seriously saying that - objectively speaking - those weapons aren't dangerous and that it's only when you look at them subjectively that they are?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

You can purchase those things, it's just a lot of paperwork.

But there is no objective scale that proves those weapons are all that dangerous. Even before they were so tightly controlled, they were rarely used in crime, because they were too expensive. Since they've been regulated they are never used in crime.

All right. I believe ya.....but MY TOMMY GUN DON'T

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4QWrha3HLw

 

[iamblades]

I suppose I should have clarified that I meant easily purchasable. For example, at Wal Mart or small gun shops. I thought that was fairly obvious, though.

Why are those weapons significantly harder to obtain than semi-automatic weapons? Or are you seriously saying that - objectively speaking - those weapons aren't dangerous and that it's only when you look at them subjectively that they are?

If you look at it objectively and check the statistics, you'll find that .25 and .32 handguns are responsible for far more crimes than NFA regulated weapons ever were, more than any weapon covered by the AWB, more than all rifles and shotguns combined. Are we focused on impact or fear factor? Is the size of the boom all the matters?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm shedding a tear for these poor people who's rights are being 'trampled' because they theoretically might be unable to buy a specific type of automatic assault rifle in the future if they someday decide they need to own one for God knows what. Please, just shut the fuck up. Nobody cares about your useless, niche hobbies with weapons when thats weighed in relation to the potential carnage it causes.

Semi-automatic rifle.

Telling people to "shut the fuck up" and that "nobody cares" is a fairly poor way to engage with all sides in formulating a better gun policy in the US.

You don't have to Piers Morgan the discussion. Lord knows I refuse to Alex Jones it.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

If you look at it objectively and check the statistics, you'll find that .25 and .32 handguns are responsible for far more crimes than NFA regulated weapons ever were, more than any weapon covered by the AWB, more than all rifles and shotguns combined. Are we focused on impact or fear factor? Is the size of the boom all the matters?

Crime statistics are clearly not what I am talking about, but you seem to be viewing my posts in this way because it fits your argument. (It's painfully obvious that grenade launchers caused less deaths than handguns in the United States - they're expensive and they're heavily regulated).

I'll ask you again. Are weapons like grenade launchers and automatic rifles only subjectively more dangerous than handguns and semi-automatic rifles?

If used for the same purpose, which of these guns would do the most damage - a handgun, semi-automatic rifle, automatic rifle, or grenade launcher? Is the answer purely subjective, as you seem to be suggesting, or are there actual objective reasons for putting heavier restrictions on certain weapons?

 

[Volimar]

This just popped up on my twitter feed, thought people might like to read it. Sorry if it's already been posted.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/u...ifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm


The resignation letter of George H. W. Bush to the NRA

U.S.
Letter of Resignation Sent By Bush to Rifle Association
Published: May 11, 1995

Following is the letter of resignation sent last week by former President George Bush to the National Rifle Association: May 3, 1995

Dear Mr. Washington,

I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.

Al Whicher, who served on my [ United States Secret Service ] detail when I was Vice President and President, was killed in Oklahoma City. He was no Nazi. He was a kind man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to serving his country -- and serve it well he did.

In 1993, I attended the wake for A.T.F. agent Steve Willis, another dedicated officer who did his duty. I can assure you that this honorable man, killed by weird cultists, was no Nazi.

John Magaw, who used to head the U.S.S.S. and now heads A.T.F., is one of the most principled, decent men I have ever known. He would be the last to condone the kind of illegal behavior your ugly letter charges. The same is true for the F.B.I.'s able Director Louis Freeh. I appointed Mr. Freeh to the Federal Bench. His integrity and honor are beyond question.

Both John Magaw and Judge Freeh were in office when I was President. They both now serve in the current administration. They both have badges. Neither of them would ever give the government's "go ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law abiding citizens." (Your words)

I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.'s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.

However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.

You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list. Sincerely, signed George Bush

 

[LuCkymoON]

Doesnt this exist already? IF I buy ammo for a FN Five Seven, it already has special commercial rounds.


.

Only the public sale, import and manufacturing of ammo classified by the ATF as AP is banned, you can still own it. Hell SS190 5.7x28mm ammo goes for $4,000 a case on gunbroker, where they get it from, who knows!

 

[GoldenEye 007]

NRA is a shit organization. This is not shocking news.

 

[iamblades]

All right. I believe ya.....but MY TOMMY GUN DON'T

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4QWrha3HLw

I think you've watched too many mobster movies.

Granted stats on types of guns used in crime that far back are sketchy, but a very small percentage of (high profile) criminals could afford access to that kind of firepower.

Even 'Machine Gun' Kelly probably never actually used his thompson to kill anyone.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

If you look at it objectively and check the statistics, you'll find that .25 and .32 handguns are responsible for far more crimes than NFA regulated weapons ever were, more than any weapon covered by the AWB, more than all rifles and shotguns combined. Are we focused on impact or fear factor? Is the size of the boom all the matters?

If we do the reverse and ban the hand guns, what do you suppose would happen?

 

[Bodacious]

This just popped up on my twitter feed, thought people might like to read it. Sorry if it's already been posted.

The resignation letter of Georg...u ask me. New World Order, and all that jazz.

 

[Tzeentch]

I'll ask you again. Are weapons like grenade launchers and automatic rifles only subjectively more dangerous than handguns and semi-automatic rifles?

You are obviously trying to goalseek to meet some predefined expectation, but the answer is actually "it depends." A grenade launcher in and of itself isn't particularly deadly, it depends on the munition used. Are automatic rifles deadlier? In some cases, yes. In most cases no. Indeed, full-automatic fire is a mark of undisciplined and untrained military shooters and even when available it's rarely used outside of edge cases (e.g. the Marines are only now going to a service weapon that has full-auto capability). Is a semi-automatic rifle deadlier than a grenade launcher fire HE? Depends, usually no. Is a handgun deadlier than a semi-automatic rifle? Depends on the round, the engagement range, body armor or cover, etc.

If used for the same purpose, which of these guns would do the most damage - a handgun, semi-automatic rifle, automatic rifle, or grenade launcher? Is the answer purely subjective, as you seem to be suggesting, or are there actual objective reasons for putting heavier restrictions on certain weapons?

What "same purpose." Some rather vague purpose of 'shooting someone'? If you directly shot someone with a HE grenade launcher and it detonated, that would be deadlier than a pistol or rifle. If you were using them for their intended purpose then we go back to "it depends" as that grenade launcher is not NEARLY as accurate, is far more expensive, has collateral effects, and requires far more careful preparation before and after use. Is a grenade launcher firing tear gas canisters deadlier than a pistol, unlikely. Is a pistol firing frangible rounds in a building deadlier than a shotgun? Could be. Lot of variables. The current firearm laws are rather arbitrary in what gets classified as a DD or SBR or SBS or the various other alphabet-soup categories.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

This just popped up on my twitter feed, thought people might like to read it. Sorry if it's already been posted.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/u...ifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm


The resignation letter of George H. W. Bush to the NRA

You need to add some context to this, emotions were still raw in the aftermath of Waco and Ruby ridge.

 

[J-Rzez]

I'm shedding a tear for these poor people who's rights are being 'trampled' because they theoretically might be unable to buy a specific type of automatic assault rifle in the future if they someday decide they need to own one for God knows what. Please, just shut the fuck up. Nobody cares about your useless, niche hobbies with weapons when thats weighed in relation to the potential carnage it causes.

If this is a sarcastic post, then sorry.

If not, you can't buy "automatic assault rifles" without a Class III lic, so before you tell people to STFU, at least do research first before trying to be bold and further proving the point that uneducated people in this regard shouldn't have any input since they don't even know what they're talking about.

Anyways, magazine size is irrelevant over all, it's not that hard to change a mag, nor time consuming. Sure larger mags have a distinct advantage, but I assure people that 10rd mags or 30rd mags wouldn't make much an impact on someone going into a building and opening fire. In fact, people should be happy that these crazy people are stupid and don't just bring a regular old hunting shotgun into a place and open fire. It would be an even more horrific result as there's much more forgiveness and from someone who has seen first-hand the effects of buckshot/birdshot to a human, it wouldn't be pretty. Plus there's more forgiveness in these ammunition to a less skilled shooter. Hell, a .45 handgun would do more damage than a .223/5.56 round to people without armor.

This magazine size non-sense along with "assault style weapon" is rubbish at best and won't impact a thing.

Best steps are registration of all weapons sales, and much better evaluation of the mental health systems.

 

[iamblades]

If we do the reverse and ban the hand guns, what do you suppose would happen?

That's a complicated, multi variable question about a hypothetical that isn't even remotely likely any time soon.

 

[JohnDonut]

Yes, so he then simply grabbed the legally purchased guns by his law-abiding citizen of a mother. That's how most guns are acquired by people who can't have them legally. And the people who have their guns stolen all consider themselves "responsible" gun owners

What you're saying is "it's your fault for letting someone break into your locked weapon cabinet"

I posted this in the "Portland guys roam city centre with assault rifles to educate public" news thread when someone raised NZ allowing assault weapons but having lower levels of gun violence.

I agree with everything there except maybe an interview for an assault rifle (why? What if I just want to collect weapons to have them because I think they look nice, and to go to firing ranges and stuff? That appeals to me) and "- indicating an intent to use a gun for self defense actually makes it HARDER to get a gun ownership license. From the NZ Arms Code "Self-defence is not a valid reason to possess firearms." Using a firearm in self-defense doesn't absolve you from being charged with manslaughter or murder etc."

I can't defend myself? I could see being charged with murder if I hit someone else but used in self defense to say, shoot the guy in the leg if he broke into my home? no, not flying.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Semi-automatic rifle.

Telling people to "shut the fuck up" and that "nobody cares" is a fairly poor way to engage with all sides in formulating a better gun policy in the US.

You don't have to Piers Morgan the discussion. Lord knows I refuse to Alex Jones it.

You know, sometimes not every single side is rational, nor does everyone deserve 'engagement' when the argument is so idiotic and unbalanced. Once in a while, when there's so much at stake, its ok to call a spade a spade. There are very little rational arguments on the 'other side' of this debate, especially against such reasonable measures being proposed. One issue fanatics who are obsessed with their niche hobby (gun collection, etc) without any regard to anything else don't constitute 'another side'. To get something good done you often have to marginalize extreme and irrational voices, who contribute nothing of real value. What are the list of 'cons' on the issue of reasonable gun legislation? There isn't. It's the same loud-mouthed, brain-dead 'he's gonna take away our guns/he's a socialist/marxism/muslim/' horse-shit. There is no utility these guns can offer anyone that outweighs their danger, and outweighs the reasonable concept of having decent legislation on ownership.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

You are obviously trying to goalseek to meet some predefined expectation, but the answer is actually "it depends." A grenade launcher in and of itself isn't particularly deadly, it depends on the munition used. Are automatic rifles deadlier? In some cases, yes. In most cases no. Indeed, full-automatic fire is a mark of undisciplined and untrained military shooters and even when available it's rarely used outside of edge cases (e.g. the Marines are only now going to a service weapon that has full-auto capability). Is a semi-automatic rifle deadlier than a grenade launcher fire HE? Depends, usually no. Is a handgun deadlier than a semi-automatic rifle? Depends on the round, the engagement range, body armor or cover, etc.

What "same purpose." Some rather vague purpose of 'shooting someone'? If you directly shot someone with a HE grenade launcher and it detonated, that would be deadlier than a pistol or rifle. If you were using them for their intended purpose then we go back to "it depends" as that grenade launcher is not NEARLY as accurate, is far more expensive, has collateral effects, and requires far more careful preparation before and after use. Is a grenade launcher firing tear gas canisters deadlier than a pistol, unlikely. Is a pistol firing frangible rounds in a building deadlier than a shotgun? Could be. Lot of variables. The current firearm laws are rather arbitrary in what gets classified as a DD or SBR or SBS or the various other alphabet-soup categories.

I'm not trying to goalseek - he simply did not understand what I was asking. For some reason, he thinks weapon restrictions are put in place based upon crime statistics (if this were true, handguns would be banned). But we don't do that. We do it based upon an objective lethality, not some subjective idea that this gun is "sometimes" more or less powerful than others.

I asked a very simple question, but you gave some vague answers that ultimately skirted around my question (with some fluff that helped to avoid the question, as well!). "Depends" is not an answer to my question. The answer is something that you probably don't want to say - that grenade launchers and automatic rifles (many of which come with a burst mode!) are objectively more dangerous than semi-automatic rifles and handguns (you actually do say this a couple times, though you put a disclaimer like "in some cases" in order to avoid saying that they definitively are). I also wasn't comparing handguns and semi-automatic rifles, as both of those are legal and readily available. I'm asking for comparisons with those and generally illegal weapons, such as grenade launchers and automatic rifles.

All those federal agents George H. W. Bush named in that letter may not have been nazis, but he's a good way along the continuum himself if you ask me. New World Order, and all that jazz.

Is this guy actually serious or just trolling?

 

[Bodacious]

You know, sometimes not every single side is rational, nor does everyone deserve 'engagement' when the argument is so idiotic and unbalanced.

You're right. Mammoth Jones shouldn't have engaged you over that post you made.

 

[WanderingWind]

You know, sometimes not every single side is rational, nor does everyone deserve 'engagement' when the argument is so idiotic and unbalanced. Once in a while, when there's so much at stake, its ok to call a spade a spade. There are very little rational arguments on the 'other side' of this debate, especially against such reasonable measures being proposed. One issue fanatics who are obsessed with their niche hobby (gun collection, etc) without any regard to anything else don't constitute 'another side'. To get something good done you often have to marginalize extreme and irrational voices, who contribute nothing of real value. What are the list of 'cons' on the issue of reasonable gun legislation? There isn't. It's the same loud-mouthed, brain-dead 'he's gonna take away our guns/he's a socialist/marxism/muslim/' horse-shit. There is no utility these guns can offer anyone that outweighs their danger, and outweighs the reasonable concept of having decent legislation on ownership.

So, you just want to spout off angry sounding words into the aether. Enjoy.

 

[iamblades]

I'm not trying to goalseek - he simply did not understand what I was asking. For some reason, he thinks weapon restrictions are put in place based upon crime statistics (if this were true, handguns would be banned). But we don't do that. We do it based upon an objective lethality, not some subjective idea that this gun is "sometimes" more or less powerful than others.

I asked a very simple question, but you gave some vague answers that ultimately skirted around my question (with some fluff that helped to avoid the question, as well!). "Depends" is not an answer to my question. The answer is something that you probably don't want to say - that grenade launchers and automatic rifles (many of which come with a burst mode!) are objectively more dangerous than semi-automatic rifles and handguns (you actually do say this a couple times, though you put a disclaimer like "in some cases" in order to avoid saying that they definitively are). I also wasn't comparing handguns and semi-automatic rifles, as both of those are legal and readily available. I'm asking for comparisons with those and generally illegal weapons, such as grenade launchers and automatic rifles.



Is this guy actually serious or just trolling?

If we really did it based on some objective lethality scale, the M1A would be banned way before an AR 15. An AR15 is not sufficiently lethal to be an ethical hunting weapon for anything larger than a medium sized Javelina or a Coyote.

Actually most military weapons after WW II are not designed for maximum lethality, mass wounding is more effective in warfare. Also lighter weight helps with resupply logistics, so lower calibers are used. Also things like hollow points which make rounds more lethal are actually banned in warfare but perfectly legal for civilians.

 

[Tzeentch]

For some reason, he thinks weapon restrictions are put in place based upon crime statistics (if this were true, handguns would be banned). But we don't do that. We do it based upon an objective lethality, not some subjective idea that this gun is "sometimes" more or less powerful than others.

I don't think there's a very strong case to be made that gun control laws are made based on "objective lethality." Are you referring to a specific law or situation? As others have noted it's not clear how you would even measure such a thing, muzzle energy? The chemical energy contained in the propellant?

I asked a very simple question, but you gave some vague answers that ultimately skirted around my question (with some fluff that helped to avoid the question, as well!).

No. You don't like the answer and hope someone tells you what you want to hear.

The answer is something that you probably don't want to say - that grenade launchers and automatic rifles (many of which come with a burst mode!) are objectively more dangerous than semi-automatic rifles and handguns

No, that's what you wanted to hear. So, about that claim you were not goalseeking ...

I'm asking for comparisons with those and generally illegal weapons, such as grenade launchers and automatic rifles.

The answer is still "it depends" and the laws classify many weapons into arbitrary groupings not based on any objective measure of lethality. Unless you seriously want to argue there's an objective reason for the cutoff between a short barreled rifle (SBR) and any other weapon (AOW) in the NFA being 26 inches from buttstock to barrel tip if it has a 16" barrel or less.

 

[speculawyer]

This just popped up on my twitter feed, thought people might like to read it. Sorry if it's already been posted.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/u...ifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm


The resignation letter of George H. W. Bush to the NRA

The best Republican president of the last 40 years. Of course he'd be run out of the party on rails today.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

If we really did it based on some objective lethality scale, the M1A would be banned way before an AR 15. An AR15 is not sufficiently lethal to be an ethical hunting weapon for anything larger than a medium sized Javelina or a Coyote.

Actually most military weapons after WW II are not designed for maximum lethality, mass wounding is more effective in warfare. Also lighter weight helps with resupply logistics, so lower calibers are used.

This has nothing to do with what I've said. I have not suggested that the AR-15 be banned. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say - that one semi-automatic rifle is more lethal than another? Okay, I guess?

I don't think there's a very strong case to be made that gun control laws are made based on "objective lethality." Are you referring to a specific law or situation? As others have noted it's not clear how you would even measure such a thing, muzzle energy? The chemical energy contained in the propellant?

Why do we put heavier restrictions on certain weapons? Is it just for fun? Do we pick out certain ones at random and decide that it should be heavily regulated?

No. You don't like the answer and hope someone tells you what you want to hear.

Well, thanks, you did tell me what I wanted to hear! Before you went off on a tangent and started saying irrelevant things and making wishy-washy answers like "sometimes it's not as dangerous!".

If you directly shot someone with a HE grenade launcher and it detonated, that would be deadlier than a pistol or rifle.

 

[Volimar]

Is a .50 Desert Eagle handgun allowed for private ownership?


I've used it in a few games and Dayum!

 

[Yoritomo]

Damn, ya'll got angry. Looks like outrage and name calling crew got ahold of the thread.

 

[iamblades]

Is a .50 Desert Eagle handgun allowed for private ownership?


I've used it in a few games and Dayum!

Yeah it's a heavy ass gaudy piece of shit though.

 

[MooseKing]

People do understand you can order gun illegals online through the TOR network with over a 90 percent delivery rate.

Banning weapons does nothing but create a black market for them. Criminals who want to kill people, are not going to all of a sudden decide not to because something with a pistol grip is banned.

 

[Volimar]

People do understand you can order gun illegals online through the TOR network with over a 90 percent delivery rate.

Banning weapons does nothing but create a black market for them. Criminals who want to kill people, are not going to all of a sudden decide not to because something with a pistol grip is banned.

It won't stop gun violence, but if it impacts it in a positive way, then it's worth the effort.

 

[speculawyer]

People do understand you can order gun illegals online through the TOR network with over a 90 percent delivery rate.

Banning weapons does nothing but create a black market for them. Criminals who want to kill people, are not going to all of a sudden decide not to because something with a pistol grip is banned.

So all the criminals will be concentrated into a single narrow market? Great. Sounds like an excellent way to track them & bust them. Encouraging to hear this.

 

[MooseKing]

It won't stop gun violence, but if it impacts it in a positive way, then it's worth the effort.

It will have no impact. Virtually no gun violence is committed with assault type weapons (as the media calls them).

Chicago had a hand gun ban. It had 0 impact.

 

[Nightstick11]

No deal. No where near enough semi-auto rifle crime to justify that. And if there is, then you have to add handguns to the list in order to remain logistically consistent.

Fair enough. I can concede that point.

If your goal is to subvert citizens that have a legal rights to own a firearm by raising the taxes on it, I don't support that.



Once again, attempting to restrict use through taxes won't fly.

That is the goal, yes.

Wife is home alone and uses my gun in self defense against someone and I go to jail? How about when the firearm is registered the owner lists possible legitimate family/household users as a compromise?

Fair enough. How about vicarious liability for crimes committed if you loan out a gun, provided that the person you loaned the gun to committed those crimes?

I have to ask you this honestly. Were you dropped as a child? Like on your head? Because son, you got a bad case of the stupids. I can see (5) being a high end misdemeanor, but 15 years for letting my buddy use my shotgun to go hunting? Seriously?

Are you stupid? Are you incapable of looking past your little life?

What if your "buddy", who never had a background check, went to the church and shot 31 people dead with your shotgun?

What if someone else knowingly gave their buddy, who never had a background check, a shotgun to go "hunting" and that person came and shot everyone dead and committed suicide. No harm, no foul for the guy who knowingly gave the guy the gun?

 

[MooseKing]

So all the criminals will be concentrated into a single narrow market? Great. Sounds like an excellent way to track them & bust them. Encouraging to hear this.

Criminals already buy their guns illegally. They are not going to the store and legally purchasing them. Most homicides are also committed with Hand guns.

Of the few hundred homicides by rifle. Only a few percent are with Assault Type weapons. Virtually all illegally acquired.

Feel free to check out the FBI statistics.

 

[Yoritomo]

Why do we put heavier restrictions on certain weapons? Is it just for fun? Do we pick out certain ones at random and decide that it should be heavily regulated?

The original ban on Machine guns came in 1934 after bonnie and clyde ran around with a machine gun. Controls were tightened in 1968 after the shooting of Martin Luther King (although it could also be a way to disarm groups like the black panthers). The 1986 law that amended the National firearms act to restrict the sale of any fully automatic weapons made after may 1986 was a last minute addition to a firearms law that was added with a yay nay vote right before voting on the actual bill.

 

[Bodacious]

It won't stop gun violence, but if it impacts it in a positive way, then it's worth the effort.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I'm not usually a quoter, but it just fit so well.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

But now how will random fat rednecks single-handedly defeat nazicommunist hitlerstalin and his socialist army when he comes to take away their freedumz?

 

[GaimeGuy]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I'm not usually a quoter, but it just fit so well.

what about the liberty and safety that comes from a gun-free society?

 

[Volimar]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I'm not usually a quoter, but it just fit so well.

No it doesn't. Restricting some military grade weapons and magazine sizes doesn't remove your rights to bear arms.

When the government mandated safety regulations for automobiles did people claim that the government was coming after their cars?

 

[JohnMcClane]

It will have no impact. Virtually no gun violence is committed with assault type weapons (as the media calls them).

Chicago had a hand gun ban. It had 0 impact.

Exactly. Most crimes committed with guns are handguns, yet why is the left not calling for a ban on them? Chicago was a slaughter fest last year and Obama said nothing, and he's from there. Why should the rest of us have to pay for his lack of judgement? (we shouldn't)

 

[iamblades]

The original ban on Machine guns came in 1934 after bonnie and clyde ran around with a machine gun. Controls were tightened in 1968 after the shooting of Martin Luther King (although it could also be a way to disarm groups like the black panthers). The 1986 law that amended the National firearms act to restrict the sale of any fully automatic weapons made after may 1986 was a last minute addition to a firearms law that was added with a yay nay vote right before voting on the actual bill.

IIRC Bonnie and Clyde got their BARs from robbing a national guard armory, so even the knee-jerk ban would have had no effect.

Nice to see that people are still pushing knee jerk legislation based on emotions rather than facts though.