• 994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
    477 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49240370]This is such a minor problem in comparison to gun violence. Getting your feelings hurt by negative publicity != dying. I doubt any sort of "tension" that we're supposedly breeding by this is going to result in anything nor is it significant. Literally everyone is a victim of sensationalist media and journalism. It's inherently a bad thing and benefits no one except for the producers and publishers of the outlet.[/QUOTE] I agree that gun violence is far worse, but alienating law-abiding gun owners as villainous is absurd. All it is intended to do is to paint a bad guy that everyday people can associate with. No one really knows a serial killer/mass murderer, but everyone knows someone that has guns, and that is where the media can start making connections in the backs of peoples minds.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240447]Tell me oh all knowing gun wizard, what is a machine gun?[/QUOTE] [quote]National Firearms Act Definitions Machinegun 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: 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 ​ The frame or receiver of any such weapon ​ Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.[/quote] IE; a firearm that begins cycling the action automatically when the trigger is depressed and does not stop firing until the trigger is released. You cannot buy these like any other guns. Period. They are heavily restricted and the ATF knows exactly where each piece can be found at any given time.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49240445]Which is why you can't just walk in and buy one. Truthfully, even if they were openly sold, something like a SAW wouldn't be this huge killing gun. Damn thing would still be super expensive, and gang bangers would still gravitate towards Hi-Points and crap.[/QUOTE] I know this, I'm just commenting on another Poster who said it's an infringement of his rights. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240468]You cannot buy these like any other guns. Period. They are heavily restricted and the ATF knows exactly where each piece can be found at any given time.[/QUOTE] Great! So we agree! I think you misread my original post replying to the poster who said that it was an infringement of his rights to ban machine guns.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240447]Tell me oh all knowing gun wizard, what is a machine gun?[/QUOTE] You seem to know, but according to this: [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240408]No I mean 'machine gun' when I say 'machine gun' , it is not infringing on anyone's rights to prohibit or SEVERELY regulate the ownership of god damn SAW's.[/QUOTE] You seem to be lacking understanding of the laws and processes behind becoming an owner of one. Just for you, I laid out the steps in a fairly basic format: [QUOTE=Revenge282;49240287]Click here[/QUOTE]
How about we start looking at and treating mental illness seriously instead of pointing at things that are owned and operated responsibly by the vast majority of Americans.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49240487]You seem to know, but according to this: You seem to be lacking understanding of the laws and processes behind becoming an owner of one. Just for you, I laid out the steps in a fairly basic format:[/QUOTE] Who are you arguing with? You're entirely missing the point of my first post on the last page.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240475]I know this, I'm just commenting on another Poster who said it's an infringement of his rights. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Great! So we agree! I think you misread my original post replying to the poster who said that it was an infringement of his rights to ban machine guns.[/QUOTE] What possible good would it do to outright ban the already heavily regulated machine guns that we have today? I fail to see what you and Grenadiac agree on. No one is really advocating making machine guns easier, just making it more accessible to register.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240475]I know this, I'm just commenting on another Poster who said it's an infringement of his rights. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Great! So we agree! I think you misread my original post replying to the poster who said that it was an infringement of his rights to ban machine guns.[/QUOTE] The machine gun bans [I]are[/I] an infringement, though they're one that we tolerate because we understand that they serve a purpose (though most of us would like them to have some allowance for now-antique pieces with collector value so their grandfather's bringback MP40 doesn't get chucked in a furnace) It's a good thing IMO that they are regulated because while they are not really applicable for the types of crime most often committed with firearms in this country, they are excellent terror weapons, which is really what they do most in the field - suppress and herd targets where they can be hit with more precise weapons.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240427]Yeah that's what I thought you're actually entirely wrong and have zero understanding of the gun laws in this country so please read up and come back later when you've bothered to educate yourself before taking a side tia [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] Count attempted murders in, the intent is what matters to a criminologist.[/QUOTE] I dont really care what matters to a criminologist, what matters to the average US citizen is if their loved ones are dead or not. [QUOTE=Revenge282;49240462]I agree that gun violence is far worse, but alienating law-abiding gun owners as villainous is absurd. All it is intended to do is to paint a bad guy that everyday people can associate with. No one really knows a serial killer/mass murderer, but everyone knows someone that has guns, and that is where the media can start making connections in the backs of peoples minds.[/QUOTE] What is the end goal of this media boogeyman you've constructed? What reason do they have to alienate law-abiding gun owners intentionally?
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49240511]What possible good would it do to outright ban the already heavily regulated machine guns that we have today? I fail to see what you and Grenadiac agree on. No one is really advocating making machine guns easier, just making it more accessible to register.[/QUOTE] My stance is that there is no conceivable need for any private citizen to own machine gun.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240475]I know this, I'm just commenting on another Poster who said it's an infringement of his rights. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] Great! So we agree! I think you misread my original post replying to the poster who said that it was an infringement of his rights to ban machine guns.[/QUOTE] You keep repeating it meaning you lack knowledge of some part of it. Also, technically it is. The NFA wasn't exactly Constitutional according to a strict interpretation, and when it was passed, the very things it sought to control weren't being as openly used as people think. Nowadays it's partially a burden. But disregarding that because that's a whole other argument, the machine gun argument is just plain dumb.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49240524]I dont really care what matters to a criminologist, what matters to the average US citizen is if their loved ones are dead or not.[/QUOTE] An emotional appeal on this topic is unfortunately not going to work on me or anyone else worth their salt. Nobody is moving to ban hammers even though more murders are committed with hammers per year than guns, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
If you kids want to play with machine guns so bad join the Marines as an 03 and get stationed with a weapons company.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240525]My stance is that there is no conceivable need for any private citizen to own machine gun.[/QUOTE] There's no need for a private citizen to own half the things they do. But we allow it anyways. Automobile deaths make machine guns look benign, but we still allow you to freely purchase a supercar that can go breakneck speeds when the max you can go in the US is only in the double digits. If you can provide me 1 instance of a machine gun owner causing harm, then I will be more inclined to your logic, but knowing otherwise, I can't.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240525]My stance is that there is no conceivable need for any private citizen to own machine gun.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240564]If you kids want to play with machine guns so bad join the Marines as an 03 and get stationed with a weapons company.[/QUOTE] [quote](though most of us would like them to have some allowance for now-antique pieces with collector value so their grandfather's bringback MP40 doesn't get chucked in a furnace)[/quote] Nobody sane really wants to be able to go buy an M249 at walmart but it'd be nice to be able to hang on to and circulate surviving antiques.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49240559]You keep repeating it meaning you lack knowledge of some part of it. Also, technically it is. The NFA wasn't exactly Constitutional according to a strict interpretation, and when it was passed, the very things it sought to control weren't being as openly used as people think. Nowadays it's partially a burden. But disregarding that because that's a whole other argument, the machine gun argument is just plain dumb.[/QUOTE] I wonder what the second amendment would say if semi automatic/fully automatic weapons and rampant mass shootings existed in 1776.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240584]I wonder what the second amendment would say if semi automatic/fully automatic weapons and rampant mass shootings existed in 1776.[/QUOTE] Rampant mass shootings are kind of one of the reasons we had a revolution.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240592]Rampant mass shootings are kind of one of the reasons we had a revolution.[/QUOTE] Yeah you're right, a lone Brit was running into elementary schools with his musket making body counts rise to the ceiling.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240584]I wonder what the second amendment would say if semi automatic/fully automatic weapons and rampant mass shootings existed in 1776.[/QUOTE] This is the dumbest thing ever. It is akin to saying free speech doesn't apply to the internet because the founding fathers had no idea that it would evolve this drastically.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240564]If you kids want to play with machine guns so bad join the Marines as an 03 and get stationed with a weapons company.[/QUOTE] Maybe we don't want to kill with these weapons? Have you ever thought about that?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240610]Yeah you're right, a lone Brit was running into elementary schools with his musket making body counts rise to the ceiling.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/massacre.htm[/url] In case you missed high school.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240610]Yeah you're right, a lone Brit was running into elementary schools with his musket making body counts rise to the ceiling.[/QUOTE] It's a good thing you're so good at being dismissive and deliberately missing the point so you can continue to attack strawmen and generalize gunowners as ignorant hillbillies, otherwise you wouldn't know what to post in here.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240576]Nobody sane really wants to be able to go buy an M249 at walmart but it'd be nice to be able to hang on to and circulate surviving antiques.[/QUOTE] I can get on board with antiques but nothing modern. When I say 'machine guns' I refer to more modern weaponry, not an MP 40 from WW2, which I do know are also affected by those laws.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240641]I can get on board with antiques but nothing modern. When I say 'machine guns' I refer to more modern weaponry, not an MP 40 from WW2, which I do know are also affected by those laws.[/QUOTE] Would you have advocated for allowing citizens to own an MP40 in 1942? Subject to today's laws and regulations, of course.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240641]I can get on board with antiques but nothing modern. When I say 'machine guns' I refer to more modern weaponry, not an MP 40 from WW2, which I do know are also affected by those laws.[/QUOTE] The question is what's modern to a law? When NFA was written in 1934, MP40s were so modern they didn't even exist yet. In 80 years do we allow people to own surviving m240s? There needs to be a rolling amnesty age on machine guns to protect historic weapons from further elimination. These laws were not written with time in mind. The second amendment was. Its signees were well aware that firearms were young technology. The purpose of it was to enable the civilian population to stand up to any government, be it domestic or foreign, if its freedoms were under threat, so it stands to reason that they intended to allow civilians to possess the same arms as governments. For obvious reasons that simply can't work in practice today but it's not entirely off-base.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49240637][url]http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/massacre.htm[/url] In case you missed high school.[/QUOTE] A squad killed 5 people and wounded 8. Two assholes ran into a building yesterday and killed 14 people and wounded 17 others. A few weeks ago a fire team sized group killed hundreds of people in France. None of those would have been accomplished with 1700's weaponry.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240672]A squad killed 5 people and wounded 8. Two assholes ran into a building yesterday and killed 14 people and wounded 17 others. A few weeks ago a fire team sized group killed hundreds of people in France.[/QUOTE] The population of the future United States in 1770 was 2,148,076. We're now 318.9 million strong. 5 killed, 8 wounded by an army claiming to be your protectors is definitely some bullshit worth protesting over, and [I]it kept happening.[/I]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240672]A squad killed 5 people and wounded 8. Two assholes ran into a building yesterday and killed 14 people and wounded 17 others. A few weeks ago a fire team sized group killed hundreds of people in France.[/QUOTE] And since the bronze age, killing people has only gotten more efficient? I fail to see your point in any of the unrelated examples you provide. Compare the Civil War to WW2. Of course more people are going to die with more advanced weapons. Just like more people die in cars now than they did when the Model T debuted.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240697]The population of the future United States in 1770 was 2,148,076. We're now 318.9 million strong.[/QUOTE] What would the body count have been if the Brit had semi automatic rifles? My point is that the law was written in a time when things like 'machine guns' and semi automatic rifles were inconceivable. The law should be updated to match the current and prospects future state of small arms.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240722]What would the body count have been if the Brit had semi automatic rifles? My point is that the law was written in a time when things like 'machine guns' and semi automatic rifles were inconceivable.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Revenge282;49240626]This is the dumbest thing ever. It is akin to saying free speech doesn't apply to the internet because the founding fathers had no idea that it would evolve this drastically.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.