[quote]Speaking at the White House, Mr Trump said he had directed the Department of Justice to propose a law to make the accessories illegal.
The Republican president said that school safety was a "top priority" for his administration.
The gun control debate has been renewed by last week's Florida school shooting.
Students and parents affected by that massacre, which left 17 dead, are planning a demonstration in the state capital of Tallahassee on Wednesday.
What did Trump say?
At an event on Tuesday recognising the bravery of law enforcement, Mr Trump said he had directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to finalise new guidelines to declare bump stocks illegal "very soon".
"The key in all of these efforts, as I said in my remarks the day after the shooting, is that we cannot merely take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference, we must actually make a difference," he said.
"We must move past clichés and tired debates, and focus on evidence-based solutions and security measures that actually work and that make it easier for men and women of law enforcement to protect our children and protect our safety
The accessories can make semi-automatic rifles fire as rapidly as machine guns.
They can be bought for as little as $100 (£70) without the need for a criminal background check.
The device was used by a 64-year-old gambler who rained bullets on a crowd at an outdoor country music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in October last year.
...[/quote]
[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43135584[/url]
[quote]"The key in all of these efforts, as I said in my remarks the day after the shooting, is that we cannot merely take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference, we must actually make a difference," he said.[/quote]
Then what the hell are you banning bump stocks for?
Good. I understand why people think banning them is dumb, because theyre not doing anything that a belt loop cant, but at the end of the day they not good for anything except putting a lot of bullets down range without discrimination...
IE its not good for anything other than firing into a crowd.
Great! You don't need to own one anyway. Honestly no point.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147396]Good. I understand why people think banning them is dumb, because theyre not doing anything that a belt loop cant, but at the end of the day they not good for anything except putting a lot of bullets down range without discrimination...
IE its not good for anything other than firing into a crowd.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the "2nd amendment people"...
I'm a big supporter of limited gun control, but I think this is a good idea. They're devices made to circumvent the law.
Well I certainly hope there's a grandfather clause. I haven't done anything wrong with mine and won't in the future, It's kind of messed up that I am being held responsible for the malice of another.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147458]Well I certainly hope there's a grandfather clause. I haven't done anything wrong with mine and won't in the future, It's kind of messed up that I am being held responsible for the malice of another.[/QUOTE]
“I havent done anything wrong with it” is the stupidest argument Ive ever heard.
“What!? Youre taking away my mustard gas!? But I havent done anything wrong with it yet!”
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147465]“I havent done anything wrong with it” is the stupidest argument Ive ever heard.
“What!? Youre taking away my mustard gas!? But I havent done anything wrong with it yet!”[/QUOTE]
That isn't what he meant and you know that.
Anyway, I'm sure they'll grandfather it in to within a year or so, they aren't really a old thing
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147465]“I havent done anything wrong with it” is the stupidest argument Ive ever heard.
“What!? Youre taking away my mustard gas!? But I havent done anything wrong with it yet!”[/QUOTE]
And comparing a bump stock for fun at the range to mustard gas is the stupidest argument I've ever heard.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147480]And comparing a bump stock for fun at the range to mustard gas is the stupidest argument I've ever heard.[/QUOTE]
How about a rocket launcher? Or grenades? Theyd be a hell of fun on the range, wouldnt they?
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147486]How about a rocket launcher? Or grenades? Theyd be a hell of fun on the range, wouldnt they?[/QUOTE]
You can actually rent those at some places, and if you go through the legal channels you can own them yourself.
And yeah, that would be pretty fun actually.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147482]I too believe in taking away people's entertainment over a single incident.[/QUOTE]
Single incident? Wew lad...
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147501]I can file the paperwork and personally own any of those. Even a nice belt fed machine gun (though you can't build those, no no, totally evil). I can own an M1A1 abrams tank, with functioning gun, provided someone would sell it to me and I filed the paperwork.
These examples are laughable.. because there really isn't anything in the way of "banned" weaponry in the US, provided you go through the right channels.[/QUOTE]
Right, and I have no issues if you want to file out tons of paperwork and go through tons of background checks to get a bump stock. I have an issue with being able to buy one without any paperwork.
Also i hate that the star button is right above the reply button, lol.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147506]Ah yes, "wew lad" except its a swimming pool compared to an ocean of other gun crime. There were over 500 murders in chicago in 2017, yet no except for hard.. hard leftists are advocating for hand gun bans, now are they?
[editline]20th February 2018[/editline]
But if i'm going to go through all of that, then shouldn't I be able to just.. build a machine gun? Assuming i'm going to go through the proper background checks, and file the tax stamp, and follow all storage laws accordingly.
Because right now I can't. At all. Period. There's no way for me to do it. The machine gun registry is closed, and has been closed ever since a "compromise" was made.[/QUOTE]
You know what. I made a mistake back there. I compromised with you guys cause I didnt want to seem foolish, but i think that being able to get anything more advanced than a bolt action/pump action rifle is a mistake.
I feel like a potus supported overwhelming reform of an incompetent NRA would do more to hamper America's growing mass shooting culture than a feel good ban on a single modification piece.
As other shootings have demonstrated it is not at all difficult to acquire fully automatic weapons, and in even [I]more[/I] shootings it's clear that you do not even require fully automatic weapons to do so.
I do not say this out of a personal care for the future of bump-fire stocks or a debate on ownership of a bump-fire. I say this out of the sheer ridiculousness that people down both sides of the isle waste time debating[I](politicians. not you, calm down) [/I]legalizing or illegalizing specific components, and go home patting themselves on the back when everything's said and done, while another shooter will prop up with something else because neither side is focusing on solutions that could actually prevent future shooters.
The kitchen is on fire when it comes to mass killings in America, and I feel like we're three steps away from Washington spending their time fighting over the legality of ironsights and scopes like it's the answer to all of our gun problems.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147482]I too believe in taking away people's entertainment over a single incident.[/QUOTE]
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban a novelty item that aided a lunatic to massacre people. Sure guns are fun, but at the end of the day they're designed to kill, not for entertainment.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147540]That's because addressing the root causes of our issues would require us to admit that our society is flawed and we have very deep divisions of wealth, status, and even education quality.
And neither side in Washington wants to admit that, because it doesn't directly fit the narrative, now does it?[/QUOTE]
It is kind of hard to get to the root causes of issues when you ban research on that very subject.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;53147578]It is kind of hard to get to the root causes of issues when you ban research on that very subject.[/QUOTE]
It's kind of hard to research that subject accurately if you tailor your research methodology to fit a predetermined conclusion.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147584]It's kind of hard to research that subject accurately if you tailor your research methodology to fit a predetermined conclusion.[/QUOTE]
How is that?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147506]Ah yes, "wew lad" except its a swimming pool compared to an ocean of other gun crime. There were over 500 murders in chicago in 2017, yet no except for hard.. hard leftists are advocating for hand gun bans, now are they?
[/QUOTE]
I mean, I would be advocating that. I don't really know the purpose of hand guns other than for leisure and/or having something small that's still a gun. Do people hunt with them? I earnestly don't know what they are used for outside of recreation that isn't human-on-human violence.
I keep seeing this quasi-shitpost to the effect of, "it sure is a shame that America BANNED RESEARCH ON GUN CRIME."
However, people conveniently seem to forget that the Obama Administration payrolled [URL="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/nih-quietly-shelves-gun-research-program"]a historically unprecedented[/URL] gun-violence research program. It was controversial, and the subject of much scrutiny, given it's direct challenge of the "no funding for gun research" policy.
Then, for only one apparent reason, they quietly disbanded the program and shelved it.
Because it's most consistent and major preliminary conclusion was that gun ownership could not be linked directly to violent crime.
I find it hard not to imagine that, had the conclusion been otherwise, the program wouldn't have been very abruptly and quietly cancelled.
(Source: second result in Google for "obama gun research." You are invited to source your own research.)
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147584]It's kind of hard to research that subject accurately if you tailor your research methodology to fit a predetermined conclusion.[/QUOTE]
So you actively advocate to restrict / ban research because you're worried the way in which they conduct the research will lead them to conclude something you disagree with?
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53147458]Well I certainly hope there's a grandfather clause. I haven't done anything wrong with mine and won't in the future, It's kind of messed up that I am being held responsible for the malice of another.[/QUOTE]
I just want to point out that America is like the only country in the world with this weird fucking me-first ideology that's so prevalent where the individual shouldn't have to take any responsibility to restrict themselves for the sake of other people and it just hinders you guys so much its embarrassing
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147387]Then what the hell are you banning bump stocks for?[/QUOTE]
because he's doing something about those white republicans who were gunned down, the millennial probably democrat ones can wait
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147601]They're excellent self defense weapons, and are the most used weapon in self defense shootings, and justifiable (IE person's life was at stake) shootings.[/QUOTE]
Guns are actually kinda shit for self-defence outside of the home, though like with most gun related stuff it's hard to tell since most research is self reported post-event stuff.
[URL="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188"]Study Source[/URL]
[quote]However, [B]the data provide little evidence that using a gun in self defense reduces injury[/B]. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use—[B]the same percentage as were injured during or after taking all other protective actions. [/B] Some self protective actions were associated with higher probabilities of subsequent injury. The reader must be warned, however, that the sample of those injured after using a gun (5/127) is really too small to warrant strong conclusions.[/quote]
More interesting is gonna be the response from the trump supporters that have been extremely pro-gun.
[QUOTE=Sumap;53147635]Guns are actually kinda shit for self-defence outside of the home, though like with most gun related stuff it's hard to tell since most research is self reported post-event stuff.
[URL="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188"]Study Source[/URL]
More interesting is gonna be the response from the trump supporters that have been extremely pro-gun.[/QUOTE]
So, don't get me wrong, awesome you included a source.
But when your own except from your own source says,
[quote]
[B]The reader must be warned, however, that the sample of those injured after using a gun (5/127) is really too small to warrant strong conclusions.[/B]
[/quote]
it kind of undermines the point you're making, doesn't it?
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53147515]You know what. I made a mistake back there. I compromised with you guys cause I didnt want to seem foolish, but i think that being able to get anything more advanced than a bolt action/pump action rifle is a mistake.[/QUOTE]
Defend your logic.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53147651]So, don't get me wrong, awesome you included a source.
But when your own except from your own source says,
it kind of undermines the point you're making, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]
The overall point I took away from it is "there's really not enough data to say anything."
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147601]They're excellent self defense weapons, and are the most used weapon in self defense shootings, and justifiable (IE person's life was at stake) shootings.[/QUOTE]
It's probably going to seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I don't know how true that really is. It's probably way dependent on the situation at hand, how trained the individual is, etc. If someone comes at you with a knife or catches you off guard, I have my doubts how much a gun, or any training in any shape or form, is going to do. I do totally see the merit in arming guards/police/whatever with handguns due to their ease of carrying.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;53147622]So you actively advocate to restrict / ban research because you're worried the way in which they conduct the research will lead them to conclude something you disagree with?
I just want to point out that America is like the only country in the world with this weird fucking me-first ideology that's so prevalent where the individual shouldn't have to take any responsibility to restrict themselves for the sake of other people and it just hinders you guys so much its embarrassing[/QUOTE]
So people who are sane have to get rid of their weapons on the chance of them being mass murderers? I'm all for gun control but you can't seriously expect everyone to cooperate.
[QUOTE=Shirt.;53147669]Defend your logic.[/QUOTE]
Countless mass shootings with semi-automatic weapons have already done that for me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.