the problem with firearms in general is finding a legislative solution that works for most of the country
I could see places where mandatory firearms training in public schools could be a perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial plan, and I can think of places where it'd be a huge waste of money and also a complete clusterfuck politically.
Separate, subsidized classes is probably a better idea.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157713]Generally CCW permit holders act responsibly, though I don't know if that's a result of the process of obtaining one or just a result of more responsible gun owners obtaining them. I don't know if expanding that process to general firearm ownership would be practical or legal.[/quote]
That may be because you're more likely to tell someone you have a CCW permit if you''re respectful/responsible enough to go through the trouble to get one in the first place, than if you were some chucklefuck who carries a pistol in his pocket/waist band in case he needs to do stupid crime shit with it.
[quote]I think firearm related misdemeanor convictions should come with restrictions on gun ownership. Someone who mishandles guns probably shouldn't be allowed to use them freely.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]I think it should be mandatory if you're a parent that your firearms be locked in a secure container, the enforcement of which feeds into that earlier point about more severely punishing the mishandling of firearms. People might not always do it, but it's something we really should encourage as much as possible.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quoite]Gang crime is kind of a separate issue. If we can't keep cocaine out of the hands of gangs, I don't see how we could keep guns out of their hands either. You kinda have to do something that targets gangs, not the things gangs use. And that's a really complicated subject.[/quote]
Agreed 100%. What's being discussed is how easy they are to obtain [I]legally[/I] to commit crime, not the cause of crime itself, but it's a band-aid solution to at least prevent deaths by stupidity/irresponsibility/health issues/stress ,and possibly even catch people in the act before they can commit atrocities.
[quote]I think any device that disallows the use of a firearm that can't be easily bypassed through the use of cheap/easily available tools would be fine, be that a safe or sufficiently sturdy lock.[/quote]
Agreed, except in such case as in a family scenario as discussed earlier.
[quote]I wonder how practical it would be to just sell locking devices along with guns? I can't imagine it would add substantially more to the price.[/QUOTE]
Retailers like to bundle shit all the time, dude. Bundles save you over buying individually, usually, and it's a sweet deal because odds are you're going to need one if legislation requiring them gets passed anyway. Just hope they're not cheap shit. From what I saw in the other thread, imagine Remington's included safety devices...
[editline]24th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157747]the problem with firearms in general is finding a legislative solution that works for most of the country
I could see places where mandatory firearms training in public schools could be a perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial plan, and I can think of places where it'd be a huge waste of money and also a complete clusterfuck politically.
Separate, subsidized classes is probably a better idea.[/QUOTE]
That's why I suggested other government operated/approved facilities, like police station firing ranges, if they have any, or military training camps, or bases, if clearance can be approved. Or even private gun shops/firing ranges that meet certain requirements in terms of the ranges and training they can provide.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157747]subsidized classes is probably a better idea.[/QUOTE]
this is important. as of now, in states where there are heavy gun control methods in play, the poor are getting priced out of firearm ownership.
Take my home-state for example. First I have to take an 8 hour safety class, $75. So that's 8 hours I could be working, now dedicated to the class. Then I need to drive to the closest state police troop to pay $50 to be fingerprinted, then another $12 for the background check. I then need to go to the local trooper to submit all my paperwork, plus another fee depending on the type of liscense. If I want a Long Gun permit it's $35.00, and if I want a pistol permit it's $70.00 and they have to be renewed, at a cost, every few years.
So before I've even bought a gun I'm out $172-$207, without factoring in the lost work-hours/gas. So if you can't make any of the hours that your local trooper, the state police, or a range/store are open (for the class) because you need to work, you're shit out of luck and have been effectively priced out of your right.
And these fees are set to be increased iirc under our new state budget.
I think we can at least agree on the notion that schools need to be funded at least several orders of magnitude more than they are. With that sort of additional funding, I'd be fine with ownership being linked to the completion of safety courses in the public school system. Provided the classes are universally available without cost and are available to all students.
Better schools would reduce crime, and the addition of safety courses would reduce accidents. The presence of firearms from an early age would also generally remove the pseudo mystical nature of things that are forbidden to children, like drugs or alcohol, which may reduce instances of curious children causing fatalities.
This is a course of action that minimizes the abridgement of rights while improving the quality of life for virtually everyone in the United States. This solution is entirely possible, it just means voting the right people into office. It isnt perfect, but it is certainly still a win win with a strong evidence base that it will have benefits far beyond the reduction of gun crime.
Fuck, better schools could stem things like the obesity problem. The list of benefits is simply endless.
We are focusing so much on the solutions that we disagree on that it winds up driving us apart and obscuring the fact that there are things that we can absolutely agree on that could address the problem and so much more.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53157551]More like the kid in parkland proves that as long as your squeaky clean (but insane) you can get a gun. The kid in parkland shows just how failed our school system is, and how completely flawed our mental healthcare system is.
Because even under your system of "more background checks and waiting periods" he'd still get that gun (or a pistol, if we're talking about an AWB too).[/QUOTE]
What if a bipartisan-approved list of "red-flags" could be approved to put you on a watch list? Again, it would have to be enforced, which may require expansion of the FBI's capabilities to do these checks in a timely manner or relegate some of the work to third-parties. Like I said, they reported him several times. If anything, maybe give schools the authority to red-flag "squeaky clean but insane" kids for up to a debatable period after they graduate, depending on severity.
[QUOTE=bdd458;53157766]this is important. as of now, in states where there are heavy gun control methods in play, the poor are getting priced out of firearm ownership.
Take my home-state for example. First I have to take an 8 hour safety class, $75. So that's 8 hours I could be working, now dedicated to the class. Then I need to drive to the closest state police troop to pay $50 to be fingerprinted, then another $12 for the background check. I then need to go to the local trooper to submit all my paperwork, plus another fee depending on the type of liscense. If I want a Long Gun permit it's $35.00, and if I want a pistol permit it's $70.00 and they have to be renewed, at a cost, every few years.
So before I've even bought a gun I'm out $172-$207, without factoring in the lost work-hours/gas. So if you can't make any of the hours that your local trooper, the state police, or a range/store are open (for the class) because you need to work, you're shit out of luck and have been effectively priced out of your right.
And these fees are set to be increased iirc under our new state budget.[/QUOTE]
Which only incentivizes people to avoid getting the training that we want them to go through, yeah.
Not only that, but prohibitive costs push people with guns against practical legislation. Everyone should want everyone with a gun to know what they're doing with it.
it's so fucking frustrating when gun control advocates poison the well with counterproductive bullshit, fuck me
[QUOTE=butre;53157518]there was no justification for closing the registry in the first place. a grand total of two people have died from legally owned automatic weapons. one of them was self defense and the other was killed by a cop. you're more likely to get struck by fucking lightning but nobody is calling to ban the sky[/QUOTE]
I already acknowledged that there may have been no reason for closing it THEN, but I've also already explained how the RECENT trends in the increase of school shootings with deadlier weapons leaves little reason to say "pretty please can we make it easier to get something even [I]more[/I] powerful?". How are you not seeing that?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157788]I already acknowledged that there may have been no reason for closing it THEN, but I've also already explained how the RECENT trends in the increase of school shootings with deadlier weapons leaves little reason to say "pretty please can we make it easier to get something even [I]more[/I] powerful?". How are you not seeing that?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if you're thinking emotionally. Practically this is something that gun owners have been upset with for a long, long time, it provides no tangible benefit to anyone as far as I can see, and refusing to budge on it only reinforces the idea that gun control legislators don't care about gun owners and will fuck them over whenever they feel like it.
I think dealing with the restrictions on automatic firearms would be a really good place to start new gun control legislation, if the goal is to prevent gun crime.
If the goal is to stay popular with your voters though, yeah you're totally right democrats would be crazy to do it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157800]Yeah, if you're thinking emotionally. Practically this is something that gun owners have been upset with for a long, long time, it provides no tangible benefit to anyone as far as I can see, and refusing to budge on it only reinforces the idea that gun control legislators don't care about gun owners and will fuck them over whenever they feel like it.
I think dealing with the restrictions on automatic firearms would be a really good place to start new gun control legislation, if the goal is to prevent gun crime.
If the goal is to stay popular with your voters though, yeah you're totally right democrats would be crazy to do it.[/QUOTE]
So if they open it, and it ends up indeed posing a problem somehow, would you be okay with reclosing it?
[editline]24th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53157897]I mean that already exists (effectively) its just no one followed up on it. Parkland is basically a perfect storm of "there wasnt a way to stop him from getting the gun, and no one bothered to stop him from using it"[/QUOTE]
Then like I said, there needs to be expansion of capabilities to enforce it if it's not currently otherwise feasible.
Hell, to fund it, you could even do one of two things.
If it's a government-performed background check from start to finish, add a tax to the purchase to pay for firearm education programs. If it's a private-but-certified third-party that can somehow perform the check satisfactorily, they can opt to pay them before the check rather than after, instead.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53156555]The [I]fuck[/I] do you mean by this one[/QUOTE]
Exactly the way it sounds. Because Zero doesn't like the thought of the average person being able to own weapons, they'd rather have laws passed which turn said people into criminals so they can be rounded up and taken out of society. Even worse, Zero has not once denied or refuted my accusation of them being completely OK with the mass incarceration of gun owners. In fact this response pretty much just confirms that's what they'd want. Not to pass sensible measures which would reduce gun violence, but to remove gun ownership as a concept through institutionalized persecution.
I mean maybe if they had back-peddled even a little bit on that last statement I'd give them the benefit of the doubt of maybe just not thinking through where they were going with that argument; but this just convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt that Zero's intentions are malicious.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53156573][editline]24th February 2018[/editline]Least likely, and yet they do. They're lawful because they haven't broken the law [I]yet[/I]. I'm not proposing thought-policing here, I'm asking you and other gun owners to understand that things like registering EVERYTHING, being paranoid when you start stock-piling (which on top of making it look like you're getting ready for "something", if we want to bring "irrational fear" into it (which BTW, "a registry will just be used to take all of our guns away" before even allowing said registry is also irrational fear based on emotional response if you want to get pedantic about it), and asking you to wait more than a mere three days for a fire-arm juuust in case you were thinking about offing yourself, though maybe two weeks to think about it will change your mind, likewise with violent shootings.[/QUOTE]
Gun registries have a history of being abused in this country. The New York SAFE act being one of the biggest recent clusterfucks.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53156573]Fair point, they became prepared. Hence the paranoia surrounding people who exhibit hateful, bigoted, and/or violent behavior having stockpiles of dangerous objects and/or materials. If something happens that was enabled and/or exacerbated by a dangerous object and/or material became a common problem (and occurring more than three times a fucking month on-average with casualties of 1+ in far too many scenarios [B]is[/B] with dangerous devices [I]that are readily available and easy to acquire, [B]legally[/B][/I], is a common problem whether you would like to admit it or not).[/QUOTE]
No, in many states it's not a common problem at all and having a weapon collection isn't paranoia. Look if people want to keep suggesting half-assed gun ban solutions which don't target the causes of gun violence in the first place, at least keep that shit contained within their own states. Immediately going above to the federal level and forcing every state to live by ridiculous rules which have no effect is stupid.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53156573]And as luck would have it, the people who predominantly call for gun control/confiscation/whatever you want to call it (that would be the left) also seem to be the ones proposing systems that allow other gun-legal countries to flourish with minimal (not zero, [I]minimal[/I], but minimal is world' better than what we have now), like Scandinavia. You guys keep bringing up disease statistics and automobile accidents and drug abuse and gang incidents and whatever other scapegoat you can think of, like it's some other problem we should be solving instead of how freely accessible guns are, [B]legally[/B], to people who have not yet (but and the left is just standing there like "...Yeah, no shit?" as they've been pushing for social systems similar to Scandinavia's and adapting their strategies as they see the data according to other countries that [B]have[/B] successfully implemented these systems, but instead of seeing what works and adapting our systems to fit, they (the gun-fanatics, typically right-leaning/republican/conservative) would rather stay stuck on a sinking ship ideology because of some weird tradition or some perceived omniscience of the founding fathers that society would always be suited to own guns no matter what.[/QUOTE]
Ok, please calm down and try to fix your sentence structure, I can barely make out the point you're trying to make here. I've already said probably a majority of this shit could be fixed if the Democratic party wasn't rabidly anti-gun and proposed solutions that aren't "ban assault weapons" for the umpteenth time.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53156573] I've seen stupid arguments against common-sense legislation for guns such as:
1) "There's no point in banning guns because it just opens up illegal markets for guns and they're not registered or tracker or anything!" Okay then, if you 100% insist on owning a gun, and they try to completely ban them, then just buy a gun illegally off the black market if you feel the ban is that unjust. Simple. "But it's not easy!" You claim it isn't easy now for certain guns that you [I]really[/I] want, even though there are plenty of others that seem fine with registries for SOME dangerous devices and not others. Ironically, they could use this argument to back up demands for better, more sensible border controls, as much of the illegal guns have to come in from somewhere unless they're manufactured locally, better border control would still reduce the total amount available with which to commit a crime. It's accessibility we're talking about here, regardless of motive, the accessibility of a device intended to increase one's lethal power, with history showing incidents and trends confirming increased lethality compounded with various social problems (economic stress, mental stress/health, sobriety/lack there-of, bullying, religious extremism, etc.) causing a rise in the number of incidents, that we're trying to address, and while the left keeps pushing for SOME sort of reform to social infrastructure and societal health, the right refuses for the sake of enriching a few and allowing any Tom, Dick, and Harry to get a gun within 3 days, regardless of whether or not the background check is complete. You don't want to wait more than three days for a gun? Because it [I]inconveniences you so[/I]? Fine, then rally around a banner to allow one to appeal to the committees responsible for the checks if they don't respond in a timely manner, if you can't already do that. If current trends indicate that something drastic needs to be done to enhance public safety while we keep butting heads on how to keep society from going full pants-on-head-rioting in the streets, then by god, until the other problems are fixed, then allow the "bandaid solution" to keep the wound clean while it heals. And don't blame Congress's lack of talk on the subject, you have a voice, too. If they don't listen, [I]stop voting for them[/I]. Spread the word!
Oh, and you might be surprised that I'm not calling for banning all guns, I'm calling for making it harder to get them. If you want to make it easier for anyone to get a dangerous device and rip people out of their family's lives, than it is for anyone to get affordable healthcare when they need it without being weight down by debt for the rest of their lives, then you have some serious priority issues. I in no way, shape, or form implied that you, or any of the truly responsible gun owners I know of whom I can count on one hand are automatically criminal in wanting to own a gun for whatever reason you can concoct, whether it's for self-defense, hunting, adorning your waifu shrine, whatever the hell you want to do with it that isn't murder/vandalism. The problem that I keep bringing up is that you keep talking about compromise, but you don't understand that the very least we can do without out-right banning your favorite guns is to make them harder to get, either with longer waiting periods, more strict background checks, mandatory certifaction/licensing/military service, etc., whatever they happen to compromise on that helps [I]reduce[/I] if it doesn't prevent, even if only a little.
2) "X gun isn't as dangerous as Y gun yet it causes more deaths!" Okay? Less dangerous != not dangerous, as I've already said. It's danger + accessibility that makes it a problem, or at least a factor making the problem worse. Sometimes, you've gotta close a building down to make repairs. Those "bullshit bans" that "didn't even ban what they were supposed to but banned almost everything else in your personal collection"? That was as far as you got on compromise for that, and even then that expired, and now lo and behold, we're seeing a rise in the number of violent shootings committed with [I]legally bought[/I] semi-auto assault rifles. Because they're popular, they're cheap, they're easy to use, and they're versatile, and they're stupidly easy to get outside of you being a criminal in some fashion already.
3) "But cars and trucks are-"
Stop. We've been over this. We license and regulate the hell out of automobiles here, from motorcycles to tractor-trailers. You need a certain license for each major class of vehicle, and you need certain certifications and endorsements to do certain things with said vehicles (legally). And before you can even buy one, you have to have insurance, and to have insurance, you have to get a license, and to get a license, you need to take tests, courses, training, etc., and to keep that license you need to keep it on the straight and narrow. This arguably reduces the number of accidents, lethal or otherwise, that we have in this country now, with a few exceptions of course because not all people are good/perfect, but imagine if just any chucklefuck could go out and buy an 18-wheeler with no certifications, training, nothing, literally all the guy knows how to do is change gears because some video game he played in high school or something. How safe would you feel with a guy like that on the road? What if he bought it because he couldn't get a gun to fuck up somebody's wedding because he's butt-hurt he wasn't invited or whatever?[/QUOTE]
1. Gun bans are not a common sense legislation and not everyone want's to risk losing their guns by ignoring the law and getting +10 years in supermax. Also you claim not to be asking for bans, but everything I've seen you post so far keeps trying really hard to justify them.
2. We already had these things before the assault weapons ban took effect, and the amount of mass shootings was smaller than it was today. Even then mass shootings are still the least likely kind of violent gun crime, and we already established that semi-auto rifles are the least likely to be used in a crime. And some of the last high profile shootings we know law enforcement should have prevented. One because the air force didn't properly report someone for domestic violence (which would have barred them from owning guns and flagged him when he tried to buy the gun he used to shoot people with), and the other because the FBI didn't follow protocol after someone were reported for making threats.
3. Except the way you and a lot of others have been approaching the issue is to just prevent or dissuade anyone from owning an 18-wheeler altogether.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53156573]And why is that? Is it purely because everyone has free access to a gun? I can assure you almost 100% that it's not, unless New Hampshire has some [I]dark secret[/I] you'd care to share.[/QUOTE]
Everyone without a criminal record or other disqualifying factors has free access to get a gun here. Did you think I was implying that the crime rate was low specifically because of the availability of guns? If that's what you meant then no I'm not a subscriber to the equally dumb argument that "an armed society is a polite society". I was pointing out that your argument of "every Bob Dick and Harry shouldn't have access to guns" was flawed by example. You cannot deny people's rights based on the fact that they are capable of committing a crime. You have to have reasonable suspicion of [B]intent[/B] to commit crime first.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53156573]Because they were rare, hard to get, regulated, expensive, bulky, heavy, etc. AR-15s (and pretty much all assault rifles, by design) are cheap, abundant, light, lethal, easy to handle, easily up-gradable, fast-firing, etc.[/QUOTE]
Mac 10 and Sten says hi.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53156573]Cool? Not sure how that's relevant to this conversation, unless you meant to imply the reason for wanting these fancy, rare, dangerous guns is to satisfy some kind of kink or power-trip? You do you man.[/QUOTE]
You made it relevant.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823]I trust you with a machine gun about as far as I can throw you, and I'm a 6'3" beanpole who weighs a buck fifty wet, do the math.[/QUOTE]
I'm just demonstrating how glad I am that you don't have a say in the matter.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823]I didn't imply that all gun-owners were undesirables that needed to have their numbers reduced, I specifically stated that we should try our best to reduce the number of undesirable (that is, violent, twisted, sick, vengeful, etc.) gun owners.
And where did I say "110% impossible to acquire for all guns!!!"? I said they should be [I]harder to get[/I]. Tougher, stricter, more complete background checks. Longer waiting periods. Regulation, mandatory training and licensing.
Most people don't seem the least bit bothered with having to get a license for legal CC, so why is it that so many of them that I've talked to about this are so against the same for any other old fire-arm if it's "not a big deal for us legal gun-owners"? It's because they're acting on [I]emotion[/I] based on the [I]fear[/I] that they'll find themselves completely unarmed and defenseless, breaking rocks in some communist-ran gulag for the crime of having a rebel flag in his Facebook profile, or whatever crazy shit they come up with. (because I've seen some crazy shit, man)
I'm going to try and state this as clearly as I can:
I am not asking for a ban. I'm asking for it to be harder to get a gun than it currently is. That's it. That's all.
People knew this kid was whacked. The kids knew, the schools knew, the [I]fucking[/I] FBI knew, but because such reports can't count against you on your background check (which if they imposed such a flagging system it should be appeal-able by law) for buying a gun, even if you're on the fucking Terror Watch List, he was able to just walk in, buy a gun, and do what he did. Same day too, if not the day after, as many report as I keep hearing from here and other places about just how damn short the waiting times for a gun are.[/QUOTE]
No you didn't state anything other than how much you hate AR15s and machine guns since the beginning of this thread. You're only bringing up a more reasonable position now that everyone else here sees through your emotion fueled rhetoric. I'm not buying it for one second.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157910]So if they open it, and it ends up indeed posing a problem somehow, would you be okay with reclosing it?
[editline]24th February 2018[/editline]
Then like I said, there needs to be expansion of capabilities to enforce it if it's not currently otherwise feasible.
Hell, to fund it, you could even do one of two things.
If it's a government-performed background check from start to finish, add a tax to the purchase to pay for firearm education programs. If it's a private-but-certified third-party that can somehow perform the check satisfactorily, they can opt to pay them before the check rather than after, instead.[/QUOTE]
If I had reason to believe that the availability of automatic weapons under currently existing rules and regulations was significantly harmful to public safety and that the only way to mitigate that risk was through the banning of automatic weapons, sure, I'd support it. No problem.
I am totally in favor of data based solutions with measurable impacts that target specific problems. Any proposal you give to me that fits those criteria is something I'd consider.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53157915]Exactly the way it sounds. Because Zero doesn't like the thought of the average person being able to own weapons, they'd rather have laws passed which turn said people into criminals so they can be rounded up and taken out of society. Even worse, Zero has not once denied or refuted my accusation of them being completely OK with the mass incarceration of gun owners. In fact this response pretty much just confirms that's what they'd want. Not to pass sensible measures which would reduce gun violence, but to remove gun ownership as a concept through institutionalized persecution.
I mean maybe if they had back-peddled even a little bit on that last statement I'd give them the benefit of the doubt of maybe just not thinking through where they were going with that argument; but this just convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt that Zero's intentions are malicious.
Gun registries have a history of being abused in this country. The New York SAFE act being one of the biggest recent clusterfucks.
No, in many states it's not a common problem at all and having a weapon collection isn't paranoia. Look if people want to keep suggesting half-assed gun ban solutions which don't target the causes of gun violence in the first place, at least keep that shit contained within their own states. Immediately going above to the federal level and forcing every state to live by ridiculous rules which have no effect is stupid.
Ok, please calm down and try to fix your sentence structure, I can barely make out the point you're trying to make here. I've already said probably a majority of this shit could be fixed if the Democratic party wasn't rabidly anti-gun and proposed solutions that aren't "ban assault weapons" for the umpteenth time.
1. Gun bans are not a common sense legislation and not everyone want's to risk losing their guns by ignoring the law and getting +10 years in supermax. Also you claim not to be asking for bans, but everything I've seen you post so far keeps trying really hard to justify them.
2. We already had these things before the assault weapons ban took effect, and the amount of mass shootings was smaller than it was today. Even then mass shootings are still the least likely kind of violent gun crime, and we already established that semi-auto rifles are the least likely to be used in a crime. And some of the last high profile shootings we know law enforcement should have prevented. One because the air force didn't properly report someone for domestic violence (which would have barred them from owning guns and flagged him when he tried to buy the gun he used to shoot people with), and the other because the FBI didn't follow protocol after someone were reported for making threats.
3. Except the way you and a lot of others have been approaching the issue is to just prevent or dissuade anyone from owning an 18-wheeler altogether.
Everyone without a criminal record or other disqualifying factors has free access to get a gun here. Did you think I was implying that the crime rate was low specifically because of the availability of guns? If that's what you meant then no I'm not a subscriber to the equally dumb argument that "an armed society is a polite society". I was pointing out that your argument of "every Bob Dick and Harry shouldn't have access to guns" was flawed by example. You cannot deny people's rights based on the fact that they are capable of committing a crime. You have to have reasonable suspicion of [B]intent[/B] to commit crime first.[/quote]
This is all bull-honky consisting of either putting words in my mouth, ignoring, either willingly or unwillingly, what I've stated several times, etc.
You said I want to see all gun owners locked up. I've literally NEVER said that in this conversation thread, and TOXX me if you can point out where I explicitly state that in this conversation thread.
I've made mention of limiting access to people who shouldn't have guns because of bad backgrounds, and I've said it should be tougher to get one so that if someone is planning to commit a crime but never has before, it's not just easy as well as legal for him to do so.
You know what else has a history of being abused before, and with increasing frequency and lethal potential? Legal gun ownership without registeries. What's your point?
Like if literally the point of a constitutional right to own guns is to preserve whatever freedoms you have from being shat on by your government, including gun ownership, then whatever the hell has happened in the past with registry abuse leading to confiscation shows that the people have failed in enforcing that.
You say "in many states" as if it's as hard to get a gun across the Texas state line as it is to get one snuck in from Guatemala, when literally the point I'm arguing is how easy they are to obtain combined with their lethal potential regardless of how you think they were "meant to be used". when in the end they are designed and manufactured with a very specific purpose in mind: Send projectiles at lethal speeds towards a target that you intend to destroy. There are people who argue that this is somehow an inherently safe device by arguing that you need a human operator to make it dangerous, and I'm sitting here like "yeah, no shit, that's why I want to make it harder for people to [I]legally[/I] acquire them in such a short amount of time before anything can be done to stop them [I]if[/I] they wish to commit a crime with it.
[quote]Mac 10 and Sten says hi.[/quote]
So then you're saying that they ARE suitable for the same sort of scenario you'd see in a typical mass-shooting then?
[quote]You made it relevant.[/quote]
We were discussing automatic fire-arms and you brought up having something somehow [I]worse[/I] with emphasis as if we were discussing whatever mystery machine you just brought up out of the blue, and since you didn't bother to share what it is that's "worse" but only implied it's "worse than" a full-auto, I can only assume it's not that, so it has no relevance to the discussion in that context if we're talking about school massacre potential, in which case if whatever you managed to get is actually "worse" then I would like to know if whatever the hell it is was also incredibly difficult to get, because that's the hill I'm dying on: Is it intended to be destructive? How hard was it to get? How easily could someone conceivably legally and quickly acquire this to do some terrible damage with?
But if you want to keep putting words in my mouth to try and transmute me into the reincarnation of Pol Pot, I guess you could do that, too.
[quote]No you didn't state anything other than how much you hate AR15s and machine guns since the beginning of this thread. You're only bringing up a more reasonable position now that everyone else here sees through your emotion fueled rhetoric. I'm not buying it for one second.[/QUOTE]
Again, all I've said is I don't understand why more dangerous items should be any easier to obtain, especially when said item has shown recent relevant trends.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53153780]But is it impossible? Like I said, if not being able to legally own a certain fire-arm is such a major inconvenience to you, then just get one illegally if it's so easy. As long as you don't commit any crime with it or tell anyone who'd snitch, you're good, right?[/quote]
If I wanted to illegally convert a legally-owned semi-automatic firearm to full-auto, I could do it in my garage in literally thirty minutes. It is not rocket science. Gangs do it all the time. But I am a law-abiding citizen working indirectly for the US government, so I have plenty of incentive to stay on the straight and narrow. And personally, my interest in machine guns is historical, involving antiques that would never be used by a mass shooter. What's your point?
This is like saying it's okay if weed is illegal because 'well just grow it yourself, who cares if you're breaking the law'. If there isn't a compelling reason for it to be illegal it shouldn't be illegal, the triviality of breaking the law is not a justification for unjust laws.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53153780]The vibe I was getting was that it wasn't even possible, because you or someone along those lines kept bringing up tanks, grenades, etc., as if being able to legally own one was possible (which is nuts when you think about it), but not a machine gun. Especially since when I pointed out that it was perfectly legal to own a functional machine gun [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1594179&p=53150367&viewfull=1#post53150367]here[/url] in response to [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1594179&p=53147594&viewfull=1#post53147594]this post.[/url][/quote]
Yes, it is possible to legally own a machine gun, just as it is possible to legally own a tank gun, grenade, rocket launcher, sawn-off shotgun, or any other device covered by the NFA. Only machine guns have a closed registry, so only machine guns have wildly inflated prices.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53153780]So let me get this straight:
1) We've had practically no homicides from fully automatics since 1934. Yes? Am I reading this correctly? I want to be 100% certain that I'm correctly picking up what you're putting down here because you and others are sending some SERIOUSLY weird messages.[/quote]
Practically no homicides from [b]legally-registered[/b] fully-automatics. Illegal full-autos are dime a dozen because, again, it is not hard to convert. Your average gangbanger is not going to shell out $200 for a tax stamp, fill out three copies of the NFA application, attach their fingerprints, and wait 6-12 months for the background check, [i]even if[/i] the guns were only marginally more expensive than a semi-auto version. No, they're just going to buy the semi-auto version, throw in a DIY lightning link or other sear disconnector, and enjoy an illegal full-auto. They're felons anyways, they have no reason to jump through the legal hoops, and if you want to spray a bunch of bullets during a drive-by a full-auto is the easiest way to do it.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53153780]The government stepped in, regulated the SHIT out of fully-automatic weapons, despite there being several hundred thousand privately owned machine guns, and for whatever reason you want to conjur out of your behind, we've had only [I]two[/I] homicides with them, and have acknowledged that ever since they've closed the registry (that dang ol' pesky thing you brought up [url=]here[/url] that means you can't have one that isn't already registered) the number of violent mass-shootings in America involving fully-automatic weapons has fallen to what? Zero? And you've acknowledged this? So what you're saying is, making it super hard to get, makes it harder for people to get it, which means it makes it less accessible, which means that people who don't have the means to get one can't use it to do violent crimes with and may have to resort to an alternative, possibly inferior option?[/quote]
Yes, that is exactly why I think the NFA should stay on the books and machine guns should remain heavily regulated. It worked extremely effectively at curbing violence inflicted with automatic weapons. I have said [b]nothing[/b] to imply that machine guns should be fully deregulated and available off the shelf.
But there is one part I have to disagree with because you are very clearly being dishonest: The homicide rate with registered machine guns didn't drop virtually to zero after they closed the registry, it dropped virtually to zero after they instituted the NFA. The closing of the registry came [i]fifty-two[/i] years later, during which time there had been, again, virtually no homicides committed with one. Closing the registry was unneeded and it was done through extremely suspect means, tacked onto an existing bill as an amendment through an oral tally.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53153780]I could personally give a shit less about why someone wants to responsibly own and operate a machine gun, anymore than I would for someone responsibly owning and operating a tank. The point that I'm trying to make is that I just don't understand why they feel the need to be in no way, shape, or form possibly, perceptibly, [I]conceivably[/I] inconvenienced in one form or another (in this case, registration, closed registries, licensing, training, wait periods, etc.), things that don't make it impossible to obtain if you truly need one, but is meant to ensure that, while not 100% impossible, it's at least [I]substantially[/I] more difficult to purchase or otherwise obtain exceptionally dangerous fire-arms or weapons (like, say, grenade launchers? fully-automatic weapons? tanks?).[/quote]
The [i]point[/i] is that regulation should exist [b]to the degree needed and no further[/b]. The wild success of the NFA from 1934-1986 concerning machine guns, and 1934 to the present concerning everything else it regulates, should clearly demonstrate sufficient regulation. I have not heard any compelling reason from you why having the registry closed and adding an additional 'deterrent' factor is needed.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53153780]So a literal interpretation of what ilikecorn just said, and what you seem to be defending, is that if they're going to ban the means to get around an otherwise proven effective regulation of fully automatic weapons that, while not completely eliminating fatalities in mass-shooting scenarios, is arguably decreasing the damage caused, then they should just let them buy and/or make their own? What do you classify as "making your own machine gun"? Is it milling it out of scrap you forged in your own garage on a hobbyist gunsmith's lathe, or is it taking AK-47 parts, filing them a bit, and making a shovel gun? Or is it possibly taking an existing, off-the-shelf AR-15 and buying/making/otherwise acquiring a part to make into a fully automatic version? [/quote]
Doesn't matter the method. Submit a Form 1 application to the ATF like you would for any other NFA-regulated item. When it's approved, you can build the device.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53153780]And you also seem to conveniently forget that, yes, you can legally own those "more dangerous" things, but with registration, certification, courses, training, etc., to do so legally in order to verify that when you purchase a grenade or a 105mm sabot round or whatever that you're not just some stupid chucklefuck who's going to "#tankprank" his boss's car at work. [/QUOTE]
[b][i]That is exactly what the NFA was set up to do, and the same exact process applies to grenades, 105mm sabot rounds, and machine guns[/b][/i].
It does not involve certification, courses, or training, but it [i]does[/i] involve an extremely stringent background check process and registering to the owner. That's what we had from 1934 to 1986 when people could legally register machine guns. It [b]overwhelmingly worked[/b] with virtually no misuse of legally-registered machine guns. Why is that not enough for you?
[editline]25th February 2018[/editline]
Like, do you realize that all those crazy dangerous explosives and cannons and stuff are regulated through the exact same law as machine guns, and still have open registries? That's literally all we're asking for, apply the same process like we did for over fifty years, because there's no logical reason for the registry to be closed on one specific NFA item.
Trump has doubled down, suggesting that he will do it directly through the ATF
[QUOTE]“Bump stocks, we are writing that out. I am writing that out,” he said, addressing a group of state governors at the White House. “I don’t care if Congress does it or not, I’m writing it out myself."
The president’s comments come after the Feb. 14 shooting at a Florida high school that left 17 students and staff dead. Last week, he directed the Department of Justice to create regulations that ban bump stocks.
Trump also said bump stocks should be put into the same category as certain firearms, making it “tough” to get them.
“You do a rule, have to wait 90 days,” he said. “That’s sort of what’s happening with bump stocks. It’s gone, don’t worry about it. It’s gone, essentially gone, because we are going to make it so tough, you’re not going to be able to get them. Nobody’s going to want them anyway.”[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/26/trump-bump-stocks-424693[/url]
The ATF already made a determination on them previously after Las Vegas. They don't fall under the definition of a machine gun under the NFA, so they couldn't really ban them in that aspect. Putting them under the NFA would have to be an act of law, as It would also need to be written into the tax code due to the tax stamp. What exactly does he plan on doing that is within his powers, I wonder.
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
I'm kinda apprehensive. I sense a poorly thought out, half-baked executive order. That's not good for anyone.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53157915]
Gun registries have a history of being abused in this country. The New York SAFE act being one of the biggest recent clusterfucks.[/QUOTE]
I'm unfamiliar with this. Would anyone be able to explain to me the history of The New York SAFE act and how it was abused?
I read the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act]wikipedia page[/url] and it mostly talks about how the law extends open/concealed carrying permits to handguns (which have to be recertified every 5 years), makes health care professionals need to report patients to the police if they posses reasonable suspicion that the patient is likely to commit a mass shooting, requires firearms to be held in a secure location if there is a household member who is a felon and, finally, creates a new broader definition for 'assault weapon' which requires owners to register their gun with police. Other stuff like background checks are now pretty much standard across the country as I understand it. They also originally included stuff like limiting handguns to 7-round magazines and requiring personal information be provided when applying for a gun permit, but they later rescinded those parts when they came under criticism.
Most of this seems fairly reasonable except for the 7-round magazine limit (because there weren't many 7-round magazines in production during the time this part of the law was active, so it was effectively a hand gun ban), the requiring of personal information when applying for a gun permit (because it could be used to single out and harass gun owners, which is what happened), and the part requiring doctors to release their patients personal information to the police (because it would encourage people not to seek help from medical professionals due to the fear of being targeted by police, especially when there's already a social stigma about mental illness).
[QUOTE=Zyler;53162882]I'm unfamiliar with this. Would anyone be able to explain to me the history of The New York SAFE act and how it was abused?
I read the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act]wikipedia page[/url] and it mostly talks about how the law extends open/concealed carrying permits to handguns (which have to be recertified every 5 years), makes health care professionals need to report patients to the police if they posses reasonable suspicion that the patient is likely to commit a mass shooting, requires firearms to be held in a secure location if there is a household member who is a felon and, finally, creates a new broader definition for 'assault weapon' which requires owners to register their gun with police. Other stuff like background checks are now pretty much standard across the country as I understand it. They also originally included stuff like limiting handguns to 7-round magazines and requiring personal information be provided when applying for a gun permit, but they later rescinded those parts when they came under criticism.
Most of this seems fairly reasonable except for the 7-round magazine limit (because there weren't many 7-round magazines in production during the time this part of the law was active, so it was effectively a hand gun ban), the requiring of personal information when applying for a gun permit (because it could be used to single out and harass gun owners, which is what happened), and the part requiring doctors to release their patients personal information to the police (because it would encourage people not to seek help from medical professionals due to the fear of being targeted by police, especially when there's already a social stigma about mental illness).[/QUOTE]
as it was originally passed it banned most guns from police and military as well. it took an amendment a few weeks after the fact to fix that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.