The U.S Gun Control Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ch...oting-gary-martin-gun-20190221-story,amp.html
The Illinois shooter? Passed multiple background checks despite having a felony. The feds failed to add his name to the database. Then there was zero follow up on making certain he surrendered his gun. Nor did anyone try prosecuting him for lying on the background check forms.

It does amuse me that people want "stronger gun laws" yet they aren't enforcing or making sure the ones in place now work properly. Ten different failure points.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7ch...ents-to-stop-a-mass-killer-in-aurora/5151026/
 
A federal judge gave the Trump administration the go-ahead on Monday to ban "bump stocks" - rapid-fire gun attachments used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history - in a defeat for firearms rights advocates.

Opponents had sought a preliminary injunction saying the government did not have the legal authority to enforce the ban.

"None of the plaintiffs' challenges merit preliminary injunctive relief," Washington-based District Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote in a 64-page ruling.

When the rule takes effect as scheduled on March 26, bump stock owners will have to turn in or destroy the attachments, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns with a single pull of the trigger.

President Donald Trump had pledged to ban the devices soon after a gunman used them to shoot and kill 58 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas in October 2017.
Click to expand...
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...onald-trumps-ban-on-gun-bump-stocks/23678081/
 
Thats not how bump stocks work. The trigger is still pulled once per shot. Even the ATF agrees on that, hence why they were allowed previously. I am curious about how the expect to know which gun owners have bump stocks. And what they are going to do when most gun owners laugh and refuse.
 
LDSman, assault rifles are automatic weapons, they fire dozens of rounds at once.
 
Maedar said:
LDSman, assault rifles are automatic weapons, they fire dozens of rounds at once.
Click to expand...

"Assault rifle" is a media driven term used for any rifle they consider scary looking. Automatic weapons do not fire "dozens of rounds at once." They fire dozens of rounds very quickly, one after the other.

What does that have to do with anything I've said?
 
Last edited:
No, "assault rifle" is a professional term for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

It does not shoot one round at a time, it shoots them at a rate of dozens per second, and does not require the trigger be pulled for each shot. And a "bump stock" ensures that it can do such for a long time and mow down far more targets. THAT is what makes a bum stock more dangerous.
 
Maedar said:
No, "assault rifle" is a professional term for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

It does not shoot one round at a time, it shoots them at a rate of dozens per second, and does not require the trigger be pulled for each shot. And a "bump stock" ensures that it can do such for a long time and mow down far more targets. THAT is what makes a bum stock more dangerous.
Click to expand...

While the military refers to specific select fire weapons as assault rifles, the media and gun control groups refer to rifles they don't like as "assault rifles".

You misread my post. Each round comes out one at a time in rapid succession. Not all at once.

Bump stocks have been around for 20 years and one guy used some in a crime. Most semi auto rifles aren't built to fire that fast. They tend to jam. The Vegas shooter had a near perfect setup. Huge crowd, vantage point and multiple weapons.

The bump stock ban will likely lose in court as under the ATF's own definitions, a bump stock is NOT a machine gun or "assault rifle". It's also easily made with plastic and a spring.
 
gimmepie said:
Why should how easy it is to make be a factor in the legality of the device? It still makes dangerous objects more dangerous for the soul purpose of making them more destructive. There's no need for hobbyists to be using them.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the argument that it "makes dangerous objects more dangerous." Partly because such an argument can be used against pretty much all gun accessories. Nor do I agree that the sole purpose is making guns more destructive. Plenty of people use them for a gun range day. They aren't very accurate, they waste ammo and guns tend to jam when using them. Just because you can fire faster doesn't mean the gun can handle firing faster.

I primarily object to how the ATF handled this change. You really don't want agencies simply changing the definitions of things to ban objects.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/blog/2018/11/29/trump-administration-set-to-announce-poi/amp
The administration probably doesn't have the legal authority to do this. Under federal law, a machine gun is defined as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." But a gun equipped with a bump stock is still able only to fire just one round per trigger pull. "Instead of squeezing the trigger, the shooter holds his trigger finger steady while pushing the barrel forward with his other hand, thereby firing a round," Reason's Jacob Sullum explains. "The recoil repositions the trigger, and continuing to exert forward pressure on the barrel makes the rifle fire repeatedly."

As Reason's Christian Britschgi explained in March, this is probably why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has said multiple times that federal restrictions on machine guns do not cover bump stocks. The Obama administration affirmed the legality of bump stocks on three different occasions: once in 2010, again in 2012, and once more in 2013.

As Sen. Diane Feinstein (D–Calif.) said in a February statement: The ATF "currently lacks authority under the law to ban bump stocks."

In addition to being legally questionable, a bump stock ban probably wouldn't do very much. No mass shooters before or after Las Vegas have used bump stocks to carry out their massacres. Even in Las Vegas, the death toll wasn't necessarily higher because the shooter used one.
Click to expand...

And this one.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/blog/2018/12/18/trumps-bump-stock-ban-shows-once-again-h/amp

Madera said:
Maybe this will explain it:

https://lifehacker.com/what-is-a-bump-stock-and-why-is-it-so-dangerous-1819180018
Click to expand...

I know how a bump stock works.
 
Last edited:
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "making guns more dangerous" thing, although for the sake of accuracy I will amend my statement to "potentially make already dangerous weapons more dangerous".

There's no need to use a bump stock on the range though, it's not a necessity in any way, there's no real reason to be bothered by a ban of them.
 
gimmepie said:
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "making guns more dangerous" thing, although for the sake of accuracy I will amend my statement to "potentially make already dangerous weapons more dangerous".
Click to expand...
. Agree to disagree. Moving on.

There's no need to use a bump stock on the range though, it's not a necessity in any way, there's no real reason to be bothered by a ban of them.
Click to expand...

People have fun with them. They were legal with multiple ATF rulings as "not a machine gun" and now with really dubious and twisted reasoning, it's now a machine gun. I can be bothered by allowing such a maneuver. It's a step in the gun control ban process.

A bill has been introduced to alter the NFA to include all semi auto rifles and shotguns. This would add a $200 tax stamp to each firearm, require registration of each firearm and add an extensive and time consuming background check. Said background currently takes up to ten months to complete. Add in all the rifles and shotguns? The original background checks expire after a year. So people will get stuck in a loop that costs $200 every time it starts over. And it won't stop criminals!

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1263/titles?r=13&s=1
 
As we all should have learned by now, its is useless to argue against Pro-Gun activists. On one hand these people have completely different ethics and on the other hand are impervious to logic. There is no argument that will let them change there minds. For them guns are their gods and we all know you can not disprove god. Not because he is real, but because proving a negative is logically impossible.
They can always come back to different statstics, different definitions that fits their view. And if push comes to shove, entire conspiracies are made up to defend their argument.
Let it go people. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
 
Last edited:
As we all should have learned by now, its is useless to argue against Pro-Gun Controlactivists. On one hand these people have completely different ethics and on the other hand are impervious to logic. There is no argument that will let show them change there minds that they are wrong. For them guns are their gods evil incarnateand we all know you can not disprove god evil. Not because he evil is or isn't real, but because they don't want to be proven wrong. proving a negative is logically impossible.
They can always come back to different statstics, different definitions that fits their view. And if push comes to shove, entire conspiracies are made up to defend their argument.
Let it go people. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Fixed it for you.

I can show that guns save more than they kill. I can show that gun control methods affect legal gun owners more than criminals. Criminals don't follow laws. They won't register guns. Gun control is about banning guns.
 
Last edited:
LDS Man, that was uncalled for.
 
Maedar said:
LDS Man, that was uncalled for.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You like his comment when it's about pro gun people but call it "uncalled for" when it's about gun control.


Care to argue where I'm wrong?
 
No, LDS, I called YOUR comment uncalled for.
 
Maedar said:
No, LDS, I called YOUR comment uncalled for.
Click to expand...

Dude, you liked his comment.


Anyway. Guns are used more often to stop crime, people who use guns in self defense experience fewer and less severe injuries than non gun using self defense. See cdc study under Obama.

Unless you're involved in gangs or suicidal, guns aren't the risk portrayed by media.
 
Last edited:
Dude, you liked his comment. See attachment.
Click to expand...

True, I liked his comment.

And your unnecessary, unwanted, and sarcastic editing of it was, IMOHO, an insult. Which was uncalled for.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top