• NRA calls for more regulation of bump stock devices used by shooter.
    276 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751015]I know exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to go fire your gun on the range, great. Buy hearing protection. Your goddamn hobby isn't worth needlessly endangering lives by making suppressors widely available on the market. A lot more innocent people would be alive right now if someone had the sense to ban bumpstocks before Vegas. A lot more people will die probably die the next time someone shoots up a nightclub or concert if suppressors are legalized. I'm not ignorant about your plight, I honestly just don't give a shit about it.[/QUOTE] Except even with hearing protection in some cases guns are loud enough to cause hearing damage.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751015]I know exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to go fire your gun on the range, great. Buy hearing protection. Your goddamn hobby isn't worth needlessly endangering lives by making suppressors widely available on the market. A lot more innocent people would be alive right now if someone had the sense to ban bumpstocks before Vegas. A lot more people will die probably die the next time someone shoots up a nightclub or concert if suppressors are legalized. I'm not ignorant about your plight, I honestly just don't give a shit about it.[/QUOTE] Dude what the fuck are you on about. [editline]5th October 2017[/editline] Do you even remotely have any concept as to how loud this shit actually is? A suppressor isnt a silencer, stop thinking it is.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751015]I know exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to go fire your gun on the range, great. Buy hearing protection. Your goddamn hobby isn't worth needlessly endangering lives by making suppressors widely available on the market. A lot more innocent people would be alive right now if someone had the sense to ban bumpstocks before Vegas. A lot more people will die probably die the next time someone shoots up a nightclub or concert if suppressors are legalized. I'm not ignorant about your plight, I honestly just don't give a shit about it.[/QUOTE] Quit getting your information on firearms from Hollywood dood. You have no idea what you're talking about. Suppressors were regulated im the first place to prevent poaching, not prevent murders. Suppressors have come a long way since then but not to the point where they can mask the report from a gun, let alone completely eliminate it.
When a jet flies over your head, are you incapable of hearing it? Because thats what you're implying, and if thats the case, you might need to see a doctor.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52751014]Yea and Columbine occured during the 1994 AWB with AWB compliant weaponry and illegally procured ones. But yea, gunbans certainly work.[/QUOTE] [img]http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/12/updated-mass-shootings/final_illegal2.png[/img] So in your mind, exceptions prove the rule? Just because [i]some[/i] mass shootings occur with illegal firearms, that means all the legal ones are irrelevant?
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751031][img]http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/12/updated-mass-shootings/final_illegal2.png[/img] So in your mind, exceptions prove the rule? Just because [i]some[/i] mass shootings occur with illegal firearms, that means all the legal ones are irrelevant?[/QUOTE] Whats the source here.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751015]I know exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to go fire your gun on the range, great. Buy hearing protection. Your goddamn hobby isn't worth needlessly endangering lives by making suppressors widely available on the market. A lot more innocent people would be alive right now if someone had the sense to ban bumpstocks before Vegas. A lot more people will die probably die the next time someone shoots up a nightclub or concert if suppressors are legalized. I'm not ignorant about your plight, I honestly just don't give a shit about it.[/QUOTE] Suppressors are widely available, i can go get one right now. So I don't get why you're being all emotional. Suppressors have been available for public purchase for ages now, fact is that Paddock could have bought one for every rifle he had. You are ignorant on the subject, don't hide behind the "IDGAF" attitude to hide the fact you are misinformed and hide behind emotional appeals.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751031][img]http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/12/updated-mass-shootings/final_illegal2.png[/img] So in your mind, exceptions prove the rule? Just because [i]some[/i] mass shootings occur with illegal firearms, that means all the legal ones are irrelevant?[/QUOTE] Legal ones are relevant but my point is that those bans literally do nothing. The AWB has been examined by several government agencies and they all concluded it did nothing to curb crime. If you want to stop gun violence, dont punish people who do nothing wrong by making them paper criminals. Address the reasons these murders take place and counteract it.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751031][img]http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/12/updated-mass-shootings/final_illegal2.png[/img] So in your mind, exceptions prove the rule? Just because [i]some[/i] mass shootings occur with illegal firearms, that means all the legal ones are irrelevant?[/QUOTE] Yeah when you are ready to strip people of their rights and punish them for the acts of stat of 49 killers.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52751028]When a jet flies over your head, are you incapable of hearing it? Because thats what you're implying, and if thats the case, you might need to see a doctor.[/QUOTE] If i'm in a nightclub and listening to music or trying to talk to my friends, might not immediately take notice a loud noise 100% of the time. If a deafeningly loud bang happens I will notice right away. Stop acting like I'm fucking implying silencers turn you into Sam Fisher when I have clearly demonstrated that suppressed guns still make noise.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751042]If i'm in a nightclub and listening to music or trying to talk to my friends, might not immediately take notice a loud noise 100% of the time. If a deafeningly loud bang happens I will notice right away. Stop acting like I'm fucking implying silencers turn you into Sam Fisher when I have clearly demonstrated that suppressed guns still make noise.[/QUOTE] So you know a suppressor still makes noise, is still loud enough to be heard over a nightclub, but you still refuse to acknowledge any of our points? This is the debate equivalent of putting your fingers in your ear and going "lalalala I cant hear you!"
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751042]If i'm in a nightclub and listening to music or trying to talk to my friends, might not immediately take notice a loud noise 100% of the time[/QUOTE] But its not just "a loud noise" Its 2.5 times louder than all other noise you're currently hearing at that time, by your own words, how would you not hear it? It'd literally drown out all other noise. [QUOTE=TraderRager;52751042]If a deafeningly loud bang happens I will notice right away. Stop acting like I'm fucking implying silencers turn you into Sam Fisher when I have clearly demonstrated that suppressed guns still make noise.[/QUOTE] You keep implying they do.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751042]If i'm in a nightclub and listening to music or trying to talk to my friends, might not immediately take notice a loud noise 100% of the time. If a deafeningly loud bang happens I will notice right away. Stop acting like I'm fucking implying silencers turn you into Sam Fisher when I have clearly demonstrated that suppressed guns still make noise.[/QUOTE] Dude you need to step back and chill, you're getting way to heated. You're not going to debate let alone convince anyone to listen to you like this.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52751035]Whats the source here.[/QUOTE] It literally has a watermark, but since your goal is to just deflect without responding to the data I'll spoonfeed you: [url]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/[/url] [QUOTE=MR-X;52751038]Suppressors are widely available, i can go get one right now. So I don't get why you're being all emotional. Suppressors have been available for public purchase for ages now, fact is that Paddock could have bought one for every rifle he had. You are ignorant on the subject, don't hide behind the "IDGAF" attitude to hide the fact you are misinformed and hide behind emotional appeals.[/QUOTE] Widely available =/= legal in all 50 states. I've demonstrated that I know abotu gun laws, the operation of firearms, and the effectiveness and use of supressors, but sure just keep spouting the word "ignorant" because it's the only way you can ignore my points. [i]I'm so sorry[/i] if I get emotional about the preventable deaths by legal firearms and I don't respect your hobby more then the lives of innocent people. [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52751039]Legal ones are relevant but my point is that those bans literally do nothing. The AWB has been examined by several government agencies and they all concluded it did nothing to curb crime. If you want to stop gun violence, dont punish people who do nothing wrong by making them paper criminals. Address the reasons these murders take place and counteract it.[/QUOTE] The reason these crimes take place is people with mental problems have access to devices designed with the primary purpose of destruction. We could address those problems by destigmatizing mental illnesses and rebuilding this counties mental health institutions, as well as limiting the mentally unbalanced individuals access to those weapons through screenings and waiting periods. Republicans and The NRA respectively are vehemently against both of those options [QUOTE=MR-X;52751040]Yeah when you are ready to strip people of their rights and punish them for the acts of stat of 49 killers.[/QUOTE] Things that are clearly constitutional rights of american citizens: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech & Press Freedom to Petition & Assemble Right to Bear Arms (The important one here) Rights of the Accused (Including against unreasonable searches and seizures, self incrimination, to a fair trial, etc.) When the second amendment was written, we didn't have weapons capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds. It's not even ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP! In 1776, the possession and use of a firearm wasn't considered a legal issue because [i]everyone had guns.[/i] They were of simple construction and were a part of every day life when people had to hunt their food, protect their land from wildlife, or join a militia. They would no more consider banning a musket then a sword. Let's read the full text of The Second Ammendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This was written 240-ish years ago, when a skilled marksman with a cutting edge rifle might be able to fire three rounds a minute under ideal circumstances. These rounds were accurate out to about 30 yards and were prone to misfire. To say the law is archaic is an understatement, and if read at face value you should be fucking pissed that you aren't allowed to buy nukes.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751086]It literally has a watermark, but since your goal is to just deflect without responding to the data I'll spoonfeed you: [url]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/[/url][/QUOTE] I... Wasnt? I was just wondering where you got the picture from, my dude. [QUOTE=TraderRager;52751086]Things that are clearly constitutional rights of american citizens: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech & Press Freedom to Petition & Assemble Right to Bear Arms (The important one here) Rights of the Accused (Including against unreasonable searches and seizures, self incrimination, to a fair trial, etc.) When the second amendment was written, we didn't have weapons capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds. It's not even ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP! In 1776, the possession and use of a firearm wasn't considered a legal issue because [i]everyone had guns.[/i] They were of simple construction and were a part of every day life when people had to hunt their food, protect their land from wildlife, or join a militia. They would no more consider banning a musket then a sword. Let's read the full text of The Second Ammendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This was written 240-ish years ago, when a skilled marksman with a cutting edge rifle might be able to fire three rounds a minute under ideal circumstances. These rounds were accurate out to about 30 yards and were prone to misfire. To say the law is archaic is an understatement, and if read at face value you should be fucking pissed that you aren't allowed to buy nukes.[/QUOTE] Why do people bring this up. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was, as far as i've ever been made aware, aside from all the applications of firearms, aside from sport, hunting, self defense, its to give a means to fight off a tyrannical government. What does the advancement in weapons technology have to do with that in any regard. Like seriously, how does that change the intent? If anything, with the dissonance between the might of the US Military and whats legally available to civilians, wouldnt that be an argument [i]for[/i] the proliferation of more advanced firearms? Like at all. Of all the arguments, of all the criticism, of all the angles you could attack this on, i honestly think thats one of the outright stupidest ones. Also i think the Supreme Court decided on the exact distinction between firearms and munitions awhile ago, so no i dont think at face value it'd include nukes.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751086]Widely available =/= legal in all 50 states. [/QUOTE] You didn't address what he said at all. He said that the shooter could have gotten suppressors as it is, since they're available in most states in the US, including Nevada. He certainly had the money and the time, would have passed the requisite background checks, and meticulously planned the attack. So if suppressors are a dream come true for a mass shooter, why didn't he use one? [QUOTE=TraderRager;52751086]When the second amendment was written, we didn't have weapons capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds.[/QUOTE] This again? I'm not even one of those constitution-is-infallible types but this is a terrible argument. 1. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is about the balance of power between citizenry and government, it has nothing to do with the capabilities of an individual weapon. It has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that an individual should have the right to be comparably armed to a soldier. 2. The founders certainly couldn't have predicted the development of the Internet, television, radio, or any of the other communications advancements of the last hundred years, yet this is never considered a valid reason to abridge 1st Amendment rights. The principles of the Bill of Rights are independent of the technology used at the time. 3. The founders gave the Lewis & Clark expedition a high-capacity semi-automatic rifle. Weapons more advanced than muskets already existed at the time. They weren't ignorant to technological development.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751086]It literally has a watermark, but since your goal is to just deflect without responding to the data I'll spoonfeed you: [url]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/[/url] Widely available =/= legal in all 50 states. I've demonstrated that I know abotu gun laws, the operation of firearms, and the effectiveness and use of supressors, but sure just keep spouting the word "ignorant" because it's the only way you can ignore my points. [i]I'm so sorry[/i] if I get emotional about the preventable deaths by legal firearms and I don't respect your hobby more then the lives of innocent people. The reason these crimes take place is people with mental problems have access to devices designed with the primary purpose of destruction. We could address those problems by destigmatizing mental illnesses and rebuilding this counties mental health institutions, as well as limiting the mentally unbalanced individuals access to those weapons through screenings and waiting periods. Republicans and The NRA respectively are vehemently against both of those options Things that are clearly constitutional rights of american citizens: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech & Press Freedom to Petition & Assemble Right to Bear Arms (The important one here) Rights of the Accused (Including against unreasonable searches and seizures, self incrimination, to a fair trial, etc.) When the second amendment was written, we didn't have weapons capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds. It's not even ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP! In 1776, the possession and use of a firearm wasn't considered a legal issue because [i]everyone had guns.[/i] They were of simple construction and were a part of every day life when people had to hunt their food, protect their land from wildlife, or join a militia. They would no more consider banning a musket then a sword. Let's read the full text of The Second Ammendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This was written 240-ish years ago, when a skilled marksman with a cutting edge rifle might be able to fire three rounds a minute under ideal circumstances. These rounds were accurate out to about 30 yards and were prone to misfire. To say the law is archaic is an understatement, and if read at face value you should be fucking pissed that you aren't allowed to buy nukes.[/QUOTE] Dude, you're beyond ridiculous. First of all suppressors are legal in 42 states, one of these states is Nevada. Again you keep saying you've demonstrated you know laws and about firearms, but you continue to show that you do not. So please explain to me why he wouldn't use such devices if he methodically planned this attack? If they're as dangerous as you say they are, why didn't he use them? Also you keep using the terms innocent people, does it matter if they are or not? Again, no one is falling for the emotional appeal. Again, these pieces of "Technology" have been around since around the 1900's and have yet to been use in mass shootings. You think if it was going to be used this attack would have been a good opportunity. Also, please try something other then the "old document" argument, if that is the case it is an all or nothing deal. Get rid of the constitution entirely or be quiet. You don't get to pick out the things you like. Don't frivolously defend other aspects of it then condemn another, they're all there for a reason. The Constitution has protected many peoples rights for years and will continue to do so, imagine if a group of people wanted to strip you of your other rights? Would you be okay with that? Think of all the [I]innocent[/I] lives we can save if we deprive others of so many rights - mass surveillance, suppress "misinformation" that could cause civil unrest, imagine all the conflict we can resolve if we ban religion. Is it sad that people died? Yes. Is what happened fucking horrible? Yes. But you don't get to take the moral high ground and prance around on your high horse when you're willing to ride on the backs of dead people and strip people of their rights.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52750916]There are GOOD FUCKING REASONS those things are illegal, as much as it annoys you that you can't use them in your hobby.[/QUOTE] If the UK of all countries not only allows them but [I]actively encourages their use[/I], I don't see how that can be true.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750429]Hang on guys I just read the language of the proposed bill and it has no grandfathered clauses. This means they want to retroactively ban this item from people who already possess it. This is ex post facto legislation which is [B]illegal[/B]. If congress passes this measure, it will have far more serious consequences outside of just gun control! [URL="https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/7/a7493ca2-0cd7-416a-8d1f-929d89e71572/0141802AFBB99AC5EA299D5B71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf"]Source[/URL][/QUOTE] lol just because something doesn't have a grandfather clause doesn't make it ex post facto. if it criminalized your past acts, sure - it would be. but under the model penal code a piece of legislation can only criminalize acts upon its effective date. so you're not going to be held retroactively guilty. you just won't be allowed to possess them when the law goes into effect. possession is a present, ongoing act.
[QUOTE=Stroheim;52750156]This is the type of stuff I'm glad to see. None of that bullshit about banning suppressors, but about banning/regulating things that actually can make a semi-auto rifle become a more dangerous "full auto".[/QUOTE] A suppressor from that distance and over the sounds of the concert would have without a doubt made his spree more "dangerous"/lethal
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52751235]A suppressor from that distance and over the sounds of the concert would have without a doubt made his spree more "dangerous"/lethal[/QUOTE] You could say that if the events didn't unfold the way they did, but there are a couple of key facts though that refute that. A security guard interrupted his shooting and gave his position away, police responded, and he killed himself. The shooting lasted around 10 minutes. He would have set the smoke detector off faster and his vision would have been effected by the gasses/blowback. On top of that, his suppressors would have wore out fairly quickly with automatic fire or caused a malfunction. And the suppression factor wouldn't have been as effective because you're talking about reducing the gun fire by 20-40db, you can still hear that, and with sustained automatic fire on top of that. Even then he had access to these and could have bought a hundred of them. But he didn't. We gonna ban other things that he didn't use because maybe he could have used them? The point is he could have used them but didn't. What is the point of even talking about it?
[QUOTE=catbarf;52751121] This again? I'm not even one of those constitution-is-infallible types but this is a terrible argument. 1. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is about the balance of power between citizenry and government, it has nothing to do with the capabilities of an individual weapon. It has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that an individual should have the right to be comparably armed to a soldier.[/quote] So citizens have a constitutional right to form a peoples militia and arms themselves with military grade hardware. Does that honestly sound reasonable to you? Nothing needs to be ammended there at all in an age where one guy can kill scores of people easily in less then a minute? [quote]2. The founders certainly couldn't have predicted the development of the Internet, television, radio, or any of the other communications advancements of the last hundred years, yet this is never considered a valid reason to abridge 1st Amendment rights. The principles of the Bill of Rights are independent of the technology used at the time.[/quote] Has anyone murdered innocent people by spouting bullshit on the air or shitposting on the internet? That's not a relevant comparison. [Quote]3. The founders gave the Lewis & Clark expedition a high-capacity semi-automatic rifle. Weapons more advanced than muskets already existed at the time. They weren't ignorant to technological development.[/QUOTE] Girardoni air rifle you are referring to was notoriously fragile/cumbersome and only ever deployed by Austrian military from 1780 to 1815. The weapon was given to expedition in 1805 (17 years after the drafting of the bill of rights) and was only ever used as a glorified tech demo that they showed of to Indian tribes. To say the law was written with anything resembling modern weaponry in mind is daft.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52751235]A suppressor from that distance and over the sounds of the concert would have without a doubt made his spree more "dangerous"/lethal[/QUOTE] Dont suppressors outright melt under that kind of strain? They're not intended for the way he was using them.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751253]So citizens have a constitutional right to form a peoples militia and arms themselves with military grade hardware. Does that honestly sound reasonable to you? Nothing needs to be ammended there at all in an age where one guy can kill scores of people easily in less then a minute? Has anyone murdered innocent people by spouting bullshit on the air or shitposting on the internet? That's not a relevant comparison. Girardoni air rifle you are referring to was notoriously fragile/cumbersome and only ever deployed by Austrian military from 1780 to 1815. The weapon was given to expedition in 1805 (17 years after the drafting of the bill of rights) and was only ever used as a glorified tech demo that they showed of to Indian tribes. To say the law was written with anything resembling modern weaponry in mind is daft.[/QUOTE] Really? He makes a valid point, people have given out misinformation which caused innocent people to get attacked and targeted. Maybe free speech is a public safety issue.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52751226]If the UK of all countries not only allows them but [I]actively encourages their use[/I], I don't see how that can be true.[/QUOTE] Those countries have sane gun control laws that prevent these things from happening. Thourough background checks being chief among them. [editline]6th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=MR-X;52751265]Really? He makes a valid point, people have given out misinformation which caused innocent people to get attacked and targeted. Maybe free speech is a public safety issue.[/QUOTE] Maybe people should be better educated so they know to check their sources. Maybe if people didn't have access to deadly firearms rash attacks based on flawed information wouldn't be able to happen. I agree the press should be accountable to the truth and we should fight misinformation, but average citizens can't end each others lives with words, unlike weapons.
As much as improved mental health services in the US would be good, how would you be able to help people who don't want help, and on top of that don't show signs of being mentally unstable? Needs to be a combination of mental health and gun regulations imo
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751283]Those countries have sane gun control laws that prevent these things from happening. Thourough background checks being chief among them. [/QUOTE] AK's and bombs are also illegal in france but that didnt stop the attacks that happened a little less than 2 years ago..
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751253]So citizens have a constitutional right to form a peoples militia and arms themselves with military grade hardware. Does that honestly sound reasonable to you? Nothing needs to be ammended there at all in an age where one guy can kill scores of people easily in less then a minute? Has anyone murdered innocent people by spouting bullshit on the air or shitposting on the internet? That's not a relevant comparison. Girardoni air rifle you are referring to was notoriously fragile/cumbersome and only ever deployed by Austrian military from 1780 to 1815. The weapon was given to expedition in 1805 (17 years after the drafting of the bill of rights) and was only ever used as a glorified tech demo that they showed of to Indian tribes. To say the law was written with anything resembling modern weaponry in mind is daft.[/QUOTE] 1. Nothing wrong there, but great job appealing to emotion rather than reason 2. You realize revolutions and genocides are started via unrestricted speech right? 3. Youre still not refuting his point at all. The founding fathers requested automatic weaponry from a weapons designer and a viable blueprint existed around the time the BoR was written. The foundation for modern weaponry existed back then, you cant refute that. [editline]6th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=TraderRager;52751283]Those countries have sane gun control laws that prevent these things from happening. Thourough background checks being chief among them. [editline]6th October 2017[/editline] Maybe people should be better educated so they know to check their sources. Maybe if people didn't have access to deadly firearms rash attacks based on flawed information wouldn't be able to happen. I agree the press should be accountable to the truth and we should fight misinformation, but average citizens can't end each others lives with words, unlike weapons.[/QUOTE] And those sane gun control laws aren't infallible and dont solve violence overall. A man in Nice killed more people and injured as many with a box truck. Unless you solve the issues causing these violence you wont get rid of it. Arbitrarily banning and placing pointless regulations does not work. It is literally proven not to work. The AWB did nothing to prevent crime in the US. Why do you support something thats proven not to work? Why support feel good measures?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52751263]Dont suppressors outright melt under that kind of strain? They're not intended for the way he was using them.[/QUOTE] Nah, a good one will hold up fine. The confusion comes, I think, from the fact that there are different sorts of suppressors. Most seem to be of the dry variety. They generally reduce audible noise to just below dangerous levels. Generally robust and can handle sustained fire if we'll designed. Then you have wet/dry suppressors. These can use water or oil in the suppressor to help with muffling. These will fail ( and become dry suppressors) after a limited number of shots uses up the liquid media. Generally speaking the more willing a liquid is to evaporate, the better it suppresses, but the fewer shots till dry. Shooting suppressors wet doesn't seem as popular. They are pretty special application in nature. I imagine they have funky effects on gun cycling too, especially during the transition from wet to dry.
[QUOTE=Araknid;52751300]As much as improved mental health services in the US would be good, how would you be able to help people who don't want help, and on top of that don't show signs of being mentally unstable? Needs to be a combination of mental health and gun regulations imo[/QUOTE] An FFL can deny a purchase for any reason. If they sell a firearm to someone who is clearly unstable, then they will lose their license and probably spend a lot of time in prison. The individual who perpetrated the Las Vegas shooting may not have had any mental issues, he may have had some sort of Vendetta against some particular group. Theres nothing you can do about those groups of people, except for changing the social climate so these people don't exist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.