• NRA calls for more regulation of bump stock devices used by shooter.
    276 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ona;52761272] But you can't mention the words "gun control" to many U.S citizens without them flying into a screaming rage about "Freedom!!!" and "The Constitution!!!"[/QUOTE] Wowie, look at that, more "Heh, stupid americans and their desire to keep their rights." talk. Love it, I just L O V E I T. Atleast you arent as bad as EcksDee tho, props for that.
[QUOTE=Ona;52761272]But you can't mention the words "gun control" to many U.S citizens without them flying into a screaming rage about "Freedom!!!" and "The Constitution!!!"[/QUOTE] You can pretty well thank people like Brady and Feinstein for that. "Control" is sensible. I guarantee you, talk to [I]any[/I] gun owner and put forward sensible ideas on control, they will back you 100% because they understand what their hardware is capable of and what it can do in the wrong hands. "Gun control" in the US is synonymous to many gun owners with "Ban guns and demonize anyone who enjoys them." All you have to do is look through this thread, the one made during the shooting...hell, basically [I]any[/I] thread on guns on this forum bar maybe the Firearms thread over in GD will show you this much. I support gun rights fully and I'll be the first to tell you the pro-gun side is full of holier-than-thou idiots, but so is the pro-ban/control side too. I guess what it boils down to is a mutual lack of understanding, and an unwillingness to consider both angles - from both sides.
If the democrats would leverage these emotions to pursue better objectives, it would be the smart play. Go after prison or education reform. Things that actually do reduce crime, not just gun crime. Sell it to the republicans as a compromise. The dems get good legislation passed, the GOP gets to claim it successfully defended gun rights, both sides get the benefit of looking like they are working together on the problem, and the people get changes that benefit them. It is win win. People too often get caught up with the notion that compromise means everyone leaves mildly unhappy. I think that notion limits us in seeing solutions that might be beneficial for everyone.
[QUOTE=GunFox;52763641]If the democrats would leverage these emotions to pursue better objectives, it would be the smart play. Go after prison or education reform. Things that actually do reduce crime, not just gun crime. Sell it to the republicans as a compromise. The dems get good legislation passed, the GOP gets to claim it successfully defended gun rights, both sides get the benefit of looking like they are working together on the problem, and the people get changes that benefit them. It is win win. People too often get caught up with the notion that compromise means everyone leaves mildly unhappy. I think that notion limits us in seeing solutions that might be beneficial for everyone.[/QUOTE] Honestly I still don't get why the dems lean so hard on the gun control angle. It's just not fucking worth it politically. I don't even personally care about whether I can own guns myself or not but if I were running for office I'd never bring it up in campaign and probably never vote for much in the way of control legislation. Maybe if this were some other country it'd be possible but there's just too many guns and too many points of entry, too many potential loopholes, it's like the definition of an unwinnable fight. Might as well just focus on, as you've said, reducing poverty, crime, and violence in general, all of which will probably have a greater effect than any bandaid gun legislation ever could.
[QUOTE=froztshock;52763824]Honestly I still don't get why the dems lean so hard on the gun control angle. It's just not fucking worth it politically. I don't even personally care about whether I can own guns myself or not but if I were running for office I'd never bring it up in campaign and probably never vote for much in the way of control legislation. Maybe if this were some other country it'd be possible but there's just too many guns and too many points of entry, too many potential loopholes, it's like the definition of an unwinnable fight. Might as well just focus on, as you've said, reducing poverty, crime, and violence in general, all of which will probably have a greater effect than any bandaid gun legislation ever could.[/QUOTE] Most people who vote dem want tough GC legislation. So they vote and propose tough GC legislation to maintain confidence in their voters. Then you got Diane fuckin' Feinstein.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;52777645]Give and take. Ban bumpfire stocks and unban silencers.[/QUOTE] Engaging gun politics in a fair and logical manner? You're not from here...
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52759702]Ok lets look at facts then. [url]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12[/url] Now, add up deaths from handguns compared to rifles or shotguns. Why create legislation regarding something when you actually look at it, comprises ~3-6% of the problem? Why is no one tackling pistols, or the background reasons why shootings happen to begin with, like our shit mental health care and education systems, or the failed war on drugs.[/QUOTE] i don't know how i've missed this fact in every gun debate i've taken part in here. this is wildy unrealistic but: if you removed all handgun homicides from these statistics, firearm related deaths for the us sit just over the average of other countries like australia and the uk for firearm deaths per 100k people per year. i'm still for stronger restrictions on firearms, however my belief is still that it is up to america to figure out the best solution for them. we figured it out here, it's going to take more time in a country that was raised on the right to own firearms. people have shotguns and rifles here in australia, but you rarely meet someone who owns a handgun outside of security workers, police/detectives and people who shoot for competitions. and to those arguing over the definition of "compromise" remember we do not take meaning from words, but instead give meaning to them.
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;52778226]i don't know how i've missed this fact in every gun debate i've taken part in here. this is wildy unrealistic but: if you removed all handgun homicides from these statistics, firearm related deaths for the us sit just over the average of other countries like australia and the uk for firearm deaths per 100k people per year. i'm still for stronger restrictions on firearms, however my belief is still that it is up to america to figure out the best solution for them. we figured it out here, it's going to take more time in a country that was raised on the right to own firearms. people have shotguns and rifles here in australia, but you rarely meet someone who owns a handgun outside of security workers, police/detectives and people who shoot for competitions. and to those arguing over the definition of "compromise" remember we do not take meaning from words, but instead give meaning to them.[/QUOTE] Also bear in mind that gangs contribute significantly to the statistics. Tackle the massive gang problem we have, and you'll likely see a massive reduction in homicides. That would mean fixing the inequality, poverty and institutional racism problems a lot of cities in this country have though, so it's not exactly a simple task.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52750566]The thing is, Semi-Auto weapons' rate of fire is how fast you can pull the trigger. A bump stock does not accelerate the weapon's rate of fire, it modifies your ability to pull the trigger faster. It seems like the language is written by someone who doesn't know firearms, and in court, could be argued that nothing this bill makes illegal is illegal[/QUOTE] I think out of context of what someone who knows a lot about guns would know, you're just dissecting "rate of fire". I know however a guns rate of fire is tied to how many bullets leave the barrel on trigger pull but in plain terms if you can make the gun shoot more bullets faster than a traditional unmodded device wouldn't you be increasing the guns relative rate of fire?? Seems like you're just defending a moot point to me...
[QUOTE=Cpt.Hubba;52778902]I think out of context of what someone who knows a lot about guns would know, you're just dissecting "rate of fire". I know however a guns rate of fire is tied to how many bullets leave the barrel on trigger pull but in plain terms if you can make the gun shoot more bullets faster than a traditional unmodded device wouldn't you be increasing the guns relative rate of fire?? Seems like you're just defending a moot point to me...[/QUOTE] Implying that one would need a bump fire stock in order to achieve those rates of fire. You can bump fire a gun without a bump fire stock, or any sort of modification at all. All the stock does is allow you to do so with a bit less practice.
[QUOTE=Cpt.Hubba;52778902]I think out of context of what someone who knows a lot about guns would know, you're just dissecting "rate of fire". I know however a guns rate of fire is tied to how many bullets leave the barrel on trigger pull [B]but in plain terms if you can make the gun shoot more bullets faster than a traditional unmodded device wouldn't you be increasing the guns relative rate of fire??[/B] Seems like you're just defending a moot point to me...[/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UExcdWxmev8[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J9roTD6eTw[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk1uxD1DtXU[/media] All unmodified guns being bumpfired because it's literally how you hold it.
[URL="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999/text"]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999/text[/URL] This shit is why we don't trust politicians to pass any "reasonable" or "common sense" gun regulations or restrictions. Everything in the last two bills has been so open ended that literally anything and [B]everything[/B] could be considered a "rate of fire enhancing device". If taken to it's logical extremes (like the ATF has done many times before), this will effectively be a backdoor semiautomatic rifle ban. Hope you're ready for Assault Weapons Ban V2 except this time nobody is grandfathered in and no one even knows if they are in compliance with the law or not.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52782103][URL="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999/text"]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3999/text[/URL] This shit is why we don't trust politicians to pass any "reasonable" or "common sense" gun regulations or restrictions. Everything in the last two bills has been so open ended that literally anything and [B]everything[/B] could be considered a "rate of fire enhancing device". If taken to it's logical extremes (like the ATF has done many times before), this will effectively be a backdoor semiautomatic rifle ban. Hope you're ready for Assault Weapons Ban V2 except this time nobody is grandfathered in and no one even knows if they are in compliance with the law or not.[/QUOTE] it hasn't even been marked up in committee, its litterally the roughest of drafts of a bill.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52782129]it hasn't even been marked up in committee, its litterally the roughest of drafts of a bill.[/QUOTE] You see nothing wrong with a rough draft of a bill not being coherent or sensible?
[QUOTE=Sableye;52782129]it hasn't even been marked up in committee, its litterally the roughest of drafts of a bill.[/QUOTE] Given that the entirety of this bill is almost literally copy and pasted from one section of Feinstein's version, it's pretty obvious what the intent is. [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52782181]You see nothing wrong with a rough draft of a bill not being coherent or sensible?[/QUOTE] This as well. There are literally no parameters at all other than "enhancing the rate of fire" in semiautomatic rifles. Also I'm not even getting into the fact that semiautomatic weapons don't have an established rate of fire, because it's literally dependent on how fast you can pull the trigger and how fast the action cycles before you can pull the trigger. You can pull the trigger too fast before the action fully cycles and cause hammer follow or a jam, so from a mechanical standpoint, what really determines the rate of fire in a semiautomatic weapon is how fast the mechanics can load the next round before you pull the trigger. In that interpretation, the law would then ban the internal workings of a firearm including bolt carrier groups, recoil springs, buffer weights, etc... but none of this matters because politicians [B]don't know shit[/b] about how firearms function, and they don't care because they never bothered to consult any experts on the matter before trying to ramrod through vague ass legislation which has no concept of how anything works or what the consequences will be.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;52777645]Give and take. Ban bumpfire stocks and unban silencers.[/QUOTE] Lol, and what is an "urban silencer"?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52783238]I believe that says "un ban"[/QUOTE] Sorry, I'm half asleep atm.
[QUOTE=download;52783236]Lol, and what is an "urban silencer"?[/QUOTE] A suppressor that prefers hip hop over country music
[QUOTE=download;52783236]Lol, and what is an "urban silencer"?[/QUOTE] napalm
[QUOTE=download;52783236]Lol, and what is an "urban silencer"?[/QUOTE] A soda bottle. They are literally the cheapest and easiest suppressor to have and is easily disposable.
I can't help but think that the whole bump-stock thing wouldn't have been made if the machine gun registry was still open. The lack of attainable fully automatic weapons basically created the idea for this device, seeing as how it is inexpensive and replicates the experience somewhat. If congress were smart, they would try to regulate bump stocks a bit further while simultaneously repealing the 1986 Hughes Amendment, but I know that will never happen.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52783745]I can't help but think that the whole bump-stock thing wouldn't have been made if the machine gun registry was still open. The lack of attainable fully automatic weapons basically created the idea for this device, seeing as how it is inexpensive and replicates the experience somewhat. If congress were smart, they would try to regulate bump stocks a bit further while simultaneously repealing the 1986 Hughes Amendment, but I know that will never happen.[/QUOTE] Or hell, have another amnesty like they did in 1968.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.