• 994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
    477 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49241281]This is not easy to do in a controlled or useful way. Or possible, really. You definitely can't do it while moving and you can't rapidly follow a target, which mitigates the value provided by the rapid fire, because any other motion interrupts the reciprocation it relies on. Bumpfire stocks are just for fun. They are not practical.[/QUOTE] You don't have to fire non-stop to empty a magazine, and you don't have to move it rapidly to sweep across an area full of people, nor do you have to move.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49242039]You don't have to fire non-stop to empty a magazine, and you don't have to move it rapidly to sweep across an area full of people, nor do you have to move.[/QUOTE] You need to do both to meaningfully hit lots of people while firing fully automatic. A bump-fire stock doesn't facilitate this at all because you will encounter stoppages if you try to move while it's reciprocating.
We will have to politely disagree because I believe in my heart that the 'the occasional' mass shooting is more important than religiously following one of the first amendments written on a 200 year old document. You realize that the constitution is a living document right? THAT was the intentions of the founding fathers, to change it when needed to fit our needs. We've amended the constitution 33 times since it was ratified. So people acting like this shit is inscribed in stone on the gates of Heaven is bull shit. Do you think the founding fathers wanted to create a set of rules that could never change for 200 years? They knew America would change, that's why they gave us the ability to change it.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242085]We will have to politely disagree because I believe in my heart that the 'the occasional' mass shooting is more important than religiously following one of the first amendments written on a 200 year old document. You realize that the constitution is a living document right? THAT was the intentions of the founding fathers, to change it when needed to fit our needs. We've amended the constitution 33 times since it was ratified.[/QUOTE] I'm telling you that banning guns or reactionarily controlling guns that were used a few times in a few mass shootings won't prevent mass shootings and the evidence supports that. There are other ways to approach that issue, however, and ways to improve the system where it pertains to firearms that will reduce black market circulation (or at least reduce guns entering the black market) without drastically affecting what's currently available to people who wouldn't be doing anything wrong anyway - and possibly expand their selection. Additionally, the Bill of Rights cannot be changed.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49242094]I'm telling you that banning guns or reactionarily controlling guns that were used a few times in a few mass shootings won't prevent mass shootings and the evidence supports that. There are other ways to approach that issue, however, and ways to improve the system where it pertains to firearms that will reduce black market circulation (or at least reduce guns entering the black market) without drastically affecting what's currently available to people who wouldn't be doing anything wrong anyway - and possibly expand their selection.[/QUOTE] I don't want to see an outright firearms ban. I want to see radical changes in the types of weaponry Americans can legally acquire, I want to see changes in the way background checks are conducted, I also want to see a change to increase access to Mental Health services.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242151]I don't want to see an outright firearms ban. I want to see radical changes in the types of weaponry Americans can legally acquire, I want to see changes in the way background checks are conducted, I also want to see a change to increase access to Mental Health services.[/QUOTE] -demonstrably incapable of fixing anything and again not even the problem -suggested by me and most other sane gun owners -suggested by me and most other sane gun owners
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49242094]I'm telling you that banning guns or reactionarily controlling guns that were used a few times in a few mass shootings won't prevent mass shootings and the evidence supports that. There are other ways to approach that issue, however, and ways to improve the system where it pertains to firearms that will reduce black market circulation (or at least reduce guns entering the black market) without drastically affecting what's currently available to people who wouldn't be doing anything wrong anyway - and possibly expand their selection. Additionally, the Bill of Rights cannot be changed.[/QUOTE] The Bill of Rights are literally the first ten ammendments to the constituion.
-snip- [QUOTE=Grenadiac;49242056]You need to do both to meaningfully hit lots of people while firing fully automatic. A bump-fire stock doesn't facilitate this at all because you will encounter stoppages if you try to move while it's reciprocating.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily, especially if your goal is purely to kill/injure as many people as possible. You don't need to move around much to unload a magazine into a crowded space. [media]https://youtu.be/dvLt8-Wf7r0[/media] The first few seconds of this video even shows the gun moving around quite a bit while still firing in full auto, so it's not too far-fetched to imagine someone sweeping it gently to increase coverage. And further on he even shows signs of not being particularly well-trained in the use of that weapon, so again, not hard to imagine somebody being able to sweep it, even if at a slower pace than you'd imagine a typical "spray and pray" scenario. Granted I can't find anything definitively showing it can be done, most likely because the most likely scenario in which these are commonly used would be at a range where you only have a handful of specific targets to shoot at, not a crowd of targets that you're aiming to fire as many rounds into as possible.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242196]The Bill of Rights are literally the first ten ammendments to the constituion.[/QUOTE] Many states in the union only ratified the Constitution on the condition that the bill of rights be implemented and unalienable. It cannot be altered. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;49242211]The last two are intrinsically linked to the first, though. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] Not necessarily, especially if your goal is purely to kill/injure as many people as possible. You don't need to move around much to unload a magazine into a crowded space.[/QUOTE] -no they aren't what -yes necessarily because otherwise a shooter might as well use anything else. the advantage of full auto is volume of fire. if you can't fire in full auto you can't make use of that advantage. semi automatics with high capacities are great for the military since soldiers are trained to make the most of every round and reload as little as possible, but that doesn't matter when engaging a group of unarmed civilians. handguns and bolt action rifles are demonstrably more effective in these scenarios since in one you have better controllability in a tight space and in the other you have better precision and wounding capacity.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49242227]Many states in the union only ratified the Constitution on the condition that the bill of rights be implemented and unalienable. It cannot be altered. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] -no they aren't what -yes necessarily because otherwise a shooter might as well use anything else[/QUOTE] [Quote]The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.•[/quote]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242289]psot[/QUOTE] The bill of rights cannot be altered because it was a ratification condition for many states. It would be a very tedious and largely pointless exercise possibly resulting in some odd legal issues.
There is no verbage forbidding the changing of the first 10 ammendments, in fact the Constitution PERMITS ammendments to ammendments. For example, the 21st ammendment amended the 18th ammendment. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Grenadiac, The Bill of Rights is a shorthand term for the first ten ammendments; it's not legally a standalone document. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;49242314]The bill of rights cannot be altered because it was a ratification condition for many states. It would be a very tedious and largely pointless exercise possibly resulting in some odd legal issues.[/QUOTE] Thats why the States vote on it in the Congress via the House and the Senate. If the States voted for the change what would the issue be? That's why they're there, to voice their opinions and beliefs.
It can't be altered. I don't know how else to explain this. It doesn't matter that it's not specifically prohibited because those ten amendments were ratification conditions, ergo their existence is integral to the document itself even existing. There have yet been no alterations to it because it's recognized as virtually impossible. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] Argue on this with me all you want but it's not going to happen and no amount of "but technically..." will change that. For one thing it opens the door for official revocation of other amendments in the Bill of Rights. It cannot be done and it will not be done.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49242379]It can't be altered. I don't know how else to explain this. It doesn't matter that it's not specifically prohibited because those ten amendments were ratification conditions, ergo their existence is integral to the document itself even existing. There have yet been no alterations to it because it's recognized as virtually impossible. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] Argue on this with me all you want but it's not going to happen and no amount of "but technically..." will change that. For one thing it opens the door for official revocation of other amendments in the Bill of Rights. It cannot be done and it will not be done.[/QUOTE] Your personal beliefs do not change the fact that the Constitution can and is expressly allowed to be amended which is one of if not THE MOST important feature of our constitution. Slavery? Prohibition? Women's suffrage?
How often do you use the 4th Amendment? Do you [I]really[/I] need the 1st when the government surely knows better than you what should be said and believed? These are integral amendments that form the core of our country and our identity. You cannot legislate them away because you're scared of gun ownership against all evidence that it isn't the issue.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242321]There is no verbage forbidding the changing of the first 10 ammendments, in fact the Constitution PERMITS ammendments to ammendments. For example, the 21st ammendment amended the 18th ammendment. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Grenadiac, The Bill of Rights is a shorthand term for the first ten ammendments; it's not legally a standalone document. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Thats why the States vote on it in the Congress via the House and the Senate. If the States voted for the change what would the issue be? That's why they're there, to voice their opinions and beliefs.[/QUOTE] I feel like you should address Mavericks point about the checks and balances. It seems you are the one appealing to legal precedent more than he. His point is less of a legalistic one and more a ethical one - his point is that governments, specifically america, should think twice before enforcing paternal martial authority because of the right to bear arms. To institute anything even close to tyranny would cause both citizens and members of government to act against it. Guns are there to make it more of a bargaining chip than just "Oh please Mr. Government, please don't do that thing."
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49242437]How often do you use the 4th Amendment? Do you [I]really[/I] need the 1st when the government surely knows better than you what should be said and believed? These are integral amendments that form the core of our country and our identity. You cannot legislate them away because you're scared of gun ownership against all evidence that it isn't the issue.[/QUOTE] Dude, the issue you're conjuring up right now is checked by The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the authority to strike down ammendments it feels unconstitutional, even if passed by 2/3rds of Congress or the Executive. Honestly, the HIGHLY unlikely probabilty of that scenario happening would require all 3 branches of Government to be on a Hitler or Mussolini style of organization which would never happen.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49242227] -no they aren't what[/quote] I mis-read, thought he suggested controlling fire-arm access period, rather than type. [quote]-yes necessarily because otherwise a shooter might as well use anything else. the advantage of full auto is volume of fire. if you can't fire in full auto you can't make use of that advantage.[/quote] And bump-fire allows you to drastically increase your volume of fire. I personally see no reason why you can't swivel at the hip while bump-firing with an attachment to sweep the fire-arm around, especially if someone is determined enough to figure out how to do it. (but then at that point they'd likely just get an illegal full-auto anyway)
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49242452]I feel like you should address Mavericks point about the checks and balances. It seems you are the one appealing to legal precedent more than he. His point is less of a legalistic one and more a ethical one - his point is that governments, specifically america, should think twice before enforcing paternal martial authority because of the right to bear arms. To institute anything even close to tyranny would cause both citizens and members of government to act against it. Guns are there to make it more of a bargaining chip than just "Oh please Mr. Government, please don't do that thing."[/QUOTE] What is the National Guard? Do Americans need an armory of weapons in their attics 'to keep the government in check'?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242492]Dude, the issue you're conjuring up right now is checked by The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the authority to strike down ammendments it feels unconstitutional, even if passed by 2/3rds of Congress or the Executive. Honestly, the HIGHLY unlikely probabilty of that scenario happening would require all 3 branches of Government to be on a Hitler or Mussolini style of organization which would never happen.[/QUOTE] So you're saying the 2nd Amendment will likely never be revoked
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242492] Hitler or Mussolini style of organization which [B]would never happen[/B].[/QUOTE] Literally what the Germans thought. Tyranny isn't the sort of thing you predict like weather.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49242499]I mis-read, thought he suggested controlling fire-arm access period, rather than type. And bump-fire allows you to drastically increase your volume of fire. I personally see no reason why you can't swivel at the hip while bump-firing with an attachment to sweep the fire-arm around, especially if someone is determined enough to figure out how to do it. (but then at that point they'd likely just get an illegal full-auto anyway)[/QUOTE] Because sweeping interrupts the reciprocation that causes the bump fire to occur. It's reliant on you being still. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242500]What is the National Guard? Do Americans need an armory of weapons in their attics 'to keep the government in check'?[/QUOTE] You really don't get it, do you? I think we're running out of ways to state the obvious. The second amendment is intended as a passive guarantee that the government cannot become tyrannical. If the government were to remove that guarantee, what does that say about the government? What you're doing is standing under an umbrella in the rain and saying "gee, I'm not getting wet, what do I need this umbrella for?"
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49242503]So you're saying the 2nd Amendment will likely never be revoked[/QUOTE] Haha no that's not what I'm saying, but that's what's cool about the Supreme Court they have the authority to interpret the law. Were you aware that the Constitution expressly permits slavery?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242554]Haha no that's not what I'm saying, but that's what's cool about the Supreme Court they have the authority to interpret the law. Were you aware that the Constitution expressly permits slavery?[/QUOTE] Now that you've compared firearms ownership to slavery you might as well go the extra mile and call gun owners Hitler. Don't chicken out now!
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242500]What is the National Guard? Do Americans need an armory of weapons in their attics 'to keep the government in check'?[/QUOTE] IDK exactly, I'm not american, but according to wikipedia: [quote]The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. National Guard units are [B]under the dual control of the state and the federal government.[/B][/quote] So yeah, great, another branch of government. I don't see how that helps in checking the government besides perhaps giving a rogue state the ability to fight back slightly. Otherwise they would serve the same as the military. It is by no means a guaranteed force. It is the same as saying that the right to bear arms doesn't matter because the military is sworn to protect the constitution. Well, given your tendency towards legalism, that could come to mean any number of things including what we, or perhaps the founding fathers, now consider tyranny.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242554]Haha no that's not what I'm saying, but that's what's cool about the Supreme Court they have the authority to interpret the law. Were you aware that the Constitution expressly permits slavery?[/QUOTE] Under what circumstances would the Supreme Court determine the 2nd Amendment as being unconstitutional Also what does that have to do with anything? It's not related at all [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242500]What is the National Guard? Do Americans need an armory of weapons in their attics 'to keep the government in check'?[/QUOTE] Why are you so worried about what other law abiding Americans have in their attics?
[QUOTE=Lord Xenoyia;49235911]But is also done by, the easy access to guns by crazy people...[/QUOTE] The large majority of the time its committed with illegal guns. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;49235913]Anyone ever thought about a "mental issue" crisis?[/QUOTE] How exactly do you stop people from being mentally ill? Rather, how do you find out everyone who is mentally ill/predisposed to be mentally ill?
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49242568]Under what circumstances would the Supreme Court determine the 2nd Amendment as being unconstitutional[/QUOTE] Not ruled unconstitutional but amended to change. What would likely be ruled unconstitutional is the hypothetical of the first ammendment being appealed, but for it to get there it would have to be a doomsday scenario.
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49242568]Why are you so worried about what other law abiding Americans have in their attics?[/QUOTE] We should probably repeal the fourth just in case people are hiding something in their attics. You never know. I guess the fifth would have to go too, then. And the first, so no unrest comes of reporting it and talking about it.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49242590]Not ruled unconstitutional but amended to change. What would likely be ruled unconstitutional is the hypothetical of the first ammendment being appealed, but for it to get there it would have to be a doomsday scenario.[/QUOTE] What conclusion would they make to amend the 2nd Amendment? Do you even have a grasp of the ramifications of even talking about passing something like that? It would be insane [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;49242591]We should probably repeal the fourth just in case people are hiding something in their attics. You never know. I guess the fifth would have to go too, then. And the first, so no unrest comes of reporting it and talking about it.[/QUOTE] They might be hiding those scary "Salt Rifles" capable of firing 200,000 bullets a second
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.