• Trump pushes for ban on gun 'bump stocks'
    330 replies, posted
[QUOTE=phygon;53150354]Uh, probably not dude. He committed the single most deadly shooting in modern US history in ten minutes.[/QUOTE] good job completely ignoring the rest of my post and just attacking an aside
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53150353]And I would totally agree, if the hughes amendment didnt exist, and I had a route of a legal way of building a machine gun. But I dont, because of a bullshit amendment that was added at the last possible second. Reopen the machinegun registry and I'll totally be fine with getting rid of bumpfire stocks and bianary triggers. I feel that'd be a fair and apropriate compromise.[/QUOTE] Why do you feel the need to own a machine gun? How would that possibly be a fair compromise? The sport in weaponry arises from its use as a tool, there isn't any reason for weapons that cannot be used as tools to be available to civilians. [editline]22nd February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=butre;53150350] if I mowed down 50 people with my truck would you move to ban brush guards? I sure hope not, because you know damn well that one singular incident doesn't make for a good reason to ban something.[/QUOTE] You're right. I wouldn't push to ban brush guards. Because brush guards serve a legitimate purpose outside of killing people. [QUOTE=butre;53150350]I think anyone could tell you that an emotional argument is not a rational one. [/quote] Oh come off of it, I am in no way a bleeding heart and I haven't been making emotional arguments for the entire duration of this discussion.
[QUOTE=phygon;53150354]Uh, probably not dude. He committed the single most deadly shooting in modern US history in ten minutes.[/QUOTE] Which probably would have been far worse with a semi automatic battle rifle. Edit: note that he did have battle rifles. I don't believe he used them to fire at anything other than the fuel tanks though.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53148667] Legally-registered machine guns have been used to commit crimes exactly twice in almost a hundred years. One of those was a crooked cop, and the other was eventually ruled self-defense.[/quote] Wonder why it's so rare... Could it be... Because they're so hard to obtain for the most part? Because we as a society [I]decided they shouldn't be easy to get[/I]? :mysterysolved: [quote]Grenades are legal when registered. Cannons are legal when registered. Neither of these have ever been used to commit a crime. There is no logical reason for machine guns [I]not[/I] to be legal when there is no evidence suggesting that an item that requires 6-12 months of fingerprinting and FBI background investigation is a public health risk.[/quote] Because it's an item specifically designed to dispense as much destructive force at a given target/area as possible? The same reason why you need (or at the very least damn well should have) classes, certifications, and registration to build high-power hobby rocket motors, boilers, pyrotechnics, etc., and though many of these items aren't inherently intended for destruction, they can be if not handled properly, and so for reasons of public safety (public includes you) they keep a tight leash on it. And besides, machine guns are also [url=http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/]legal when registered[/url], just with a few caveats, so I'm not sure what you're carrying on about not being able to get one. [quote]It's not up to a historical collector or whoever to justify their desire to own one, [B]it's up to you to explain why an item that historically has virtually never been used for ill purpose[/B] should be illegal- especially when that illegality is driving a workaround market that allows criminals to get their hands on machine-gun-like devices.[/QUOTE] [quote][B]it's up to you to explain why an item that historically has virtually never been used for ill purpose[/B][/quote] Dude, I could post examples of how this argument is complete nonsense all day long, but by the end of it this post would look like a History Channel World War marathon, so given that particular context it should be pretty clear how this statement doesn't pass the smell test. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53150332]More people die to cheeseburgers and shit diet than they do to that single accessory. More people die every day on their way to work due to shit drivers, than that single accessory ever enabled. More people die every day due to etoh than that single accessory. But that single accessory is an easy target, not a hard target like any of the other things, so we'll ban it. If your goal is to reduce deaths, then I can think of a million other ways of reducing deaths. If your goal is merely "but you don't NEEEEED it" then we don't really have a discussion, now do we?[/QUOTE] Well, I mean, if you're talking about [I]reduction[/I] of deaths, then yeah, that would be a solution. Just because "more people die from x than y" doesn't mean that getting rid of y won't reduce the over-all number of casualties, and there are various measures in place/trying to gain traction to take care of the issues you've mentioned, as well, though their efficacy is a topic for another day.
[QUOTE=phygon;53150361]Why do you feel the need to own a machine gun? How would that possibly be a fair compromise? The sport in weaponry arises from its use as a tool, there isn't any reason for weapons that cannot be used as tools to be available to civilians. [editline]22nd February 2018[/editline] You're right. I wouldn't push to ban brush guards. Because brush guards serve a legitimate purpose outside of killing people. Oh come off of it, I am in no way a bleeding heart and I haven't been making emotional arguments for the entire duration of this discussion.[/QUOTE] if you want a utilitarian use, machine guns are really good at wiping out invasive populations of feral hogs. I don't see that holding any weight anyway. the second amendment wasn't written so we have the freedom to plink. [editline]22nd February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53150367]Wonder why it's so rare... Could it be... Because they're so hard to obtain for the most part? Because we as a society [I]decided they shouldn't be easy to get[/I]? :think: Because it's an item specifically designed to dispense as much destructive force at a given target/area as possible? The same reason why you need (or at the very least damn well should have) classes, certifications, and registration to build high-power hobby rocket motors, boilers, pyrotechnics, etc., and though many of these items aren't inherently intended for destruction, they can be if not handled properly, and so for reasons of public safety (public includes you) they keep a tight leash on it. And besides, machine guns are also [url=http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/]legal when registered[/url], just with a few caveats, so I'm not sure what you're carrying on about not being able to get one. Dude, I could post examples of how this argument is complete nonsense all day long, but by the end of it this post would look like a History Channel World War marathon, so given that particular context it should be pretty clear how this statement doesn't pass the smell test.[/QUOTE] god I accidentally rated you star. the machine gun registry was closed in 1986. for over 50 years machine guns were legal under the nfa, easily obtained, dirt fucking cheap, and very common and in that time frame only one was used to commit a crime
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53149179]No, it just didn't change my mind on it. Less guns would still cause less gun deaths[/QUOTE] The US government can't solve the drug problem with a ban, what is banning guns going to stop? And sure, lets say you wave a magic wand and all guns are removed from the US and cannot enter. Now there are 0 gun deaths in total per year. How does that stop people from killing eachother using other ways? You're basically going to replace one statistic with another.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53147907]Are you fucking kidding me? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack[/url] Do you not realize how deadly vehicles are?[/QUOTE] Lots of things that we use in our every day lives are deadly and/or potentially deadly. Allergens can be deadly. Dogs can be deadly. Water can be deadly due to contaminants. The difference is in the intent. Allergens aren't intended to be an allergen, but we make due process banning them in certain scenarios with strict guidance/supervision and sufficient information labels on the packaging to try and prevent a lethal allergic incident before having to resort to more drastic and expensive medical ventures, like epipen. Dogs technically evolved to be deadly in the form of their ancestral wolves, but we discovered years ago that we could temper them to certain extents regarding temperament, size, build, and senses with proper breeding and up-raising. And in doing so, we discovered dogs could be really chill, so we kept hanging out with them and hooking them up on dates to eventually make yappy, ugly-yet-endearing 2-10lbs. bags of hairy, drooling meat that love to jump all over you and lick your face with their tongue. You know... The thing they clean themselves with... But they LOVE you! And so there hasn't been a federal ban on any breeds AFAIK, but there are leash laws, registration laws, training/housing requirements, dietary requirements, veterinary requirements, etc. :dogsleep: But on the other hand, there are assholes out there who use dogs illegally, brutally, and with disgusting amounts of cruelty, both towards and from the dogs. Thankfully, there are laws enforced against these sorts of actions, and the assholes responsible are put in jail, and the dogs might even get a second chance at depending on how far gone they are. This is of course not to mention the various dogs who live to augment humanity's lives, such as seeing-eye dogs, service dogs, bomb/drug-sniffing dogs, etc. Meanwhile, cars and trucks can be dangerous, yes. It's a big, heavy thing with a lot of power behind it, allowing it to accelerate to lethal speeds very rapidly. But they're typically not inherently designed to [I]be[/I] dangerous. (military vehicles are notable, obvious exceptions)
I'm very, very concerned with the potential wording and "pork" included in this potential ban. That was the original issue, as well.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53150393]Lots of things that we use in our every day lives are deadly and/or potentially deadly. Allergens can be deadly. Dogs can be deadly. Water can be deadly due to contaminants. The difference is in the intent. Allergens aren't intended to be an allergen, but we make due process banning them in certain scenarios with strict guidance/supervision and sufficient information labels on the packaging to try and prevent a lethal allergic incident before having to resort to more drastic and expensive medical ventures, like epipen. Dogs technically evolved to be deadly in the form of their ancestral wolves, but we discovered years ago that we could temper them to certain extents regarding temperament, size, build, and senses with proper breeding and up-raising. And in doing so, we discovered dogs could be really chill, so we kept hanging out with them and hooking them up on dates to eventually make yappy, ugly-yet-endearing 2-10lbs. bags of hairy, drooling meat that love to jump all over you and lick your face with their tongue. You know... The thing they clean themselves with... But they LOVE you! And so there hasn't been a federal ban on any breeds AFAIK, but there are leash laws, registration laws, training/housing requirements, dietary requirements, veterinary requirements, etc. :dogsleep: But on the other hand, there are assholes out there who use dogs illegally, brutally, and with disgusting amounts of cruelty, both towards and from the dogs. Thankfully, there are laws enforced against these sorts of actions, and the assholes responsible are put in jail, and the dogs might even get a second chance at depending on how far gone they are. This is of course not to mention the various dogs who live to augment humanity's lives, such as seeing-eye dogs, service dogs, bomb/drug-sniffing dogs, etc. Meanwhile, cars and trucks can be dangerous, yes. It's a big, heavy thing with a lot of power behind it, allowing it to accelerate to lethal speeds very rapidly. But they're typically not inherently designed to [I]be[/I] dangerous. (military vehicles are notable, obvious exceptions)[/QUOTE] is this meant to be an argument for or against gun control? I could point to a parallel between your post and the history of firearms every step of the way
I feel like regulating bump fire stocks is about as far as they should've gone. Fill out some paperwork and pay a fee and you can own one. That way, people that want to fuck around with one could still own one. Either solution is going to have about the same effect though. Gun violence isn't going to magically decrease, and somebody that wants to bump fire a gun is going to use or invent another way to do it.
[QUOTE=Extronic;53150443] as for your points, i couldnt disagree more. yes, mustard gas is illegal and guns are not, however one could make the argument that guns SHOULD be illegal, and considering that a higher percentage of people survive a gas attack than a gunshot to the head, one could argue that guns are in fact more dangerous.[/QUOTE] One could make that argument but it'd be a completely pointless argument that does nothing productive in the end.
[QUOTE=Extronic;53150452]honestly was just trying to add some form of debate to a post that was mostly about this users CONSTANT shitty attitude.[/QUOTE] Fair enough.
[QUOTE=butre;53150413]is this meant to be an argument for or against gun control? I could point to a parallel between your post and the history of firearms every step of the way[/QUOTE] Dude. From its conception. A gun? Is literally a man-portable cannon. Which was a [I]weapon[/I]. Designed to [I]destroy[/I] things. While being man-portable. Except now, instead of destroying walls, it's intended to punch through plate-mail. I mean, surely if the gun [I]wasn't[/I] intended to kill from its conception, we'd still be using swords and bows and arrows, as those have done the job satisfactorily for thousands of years, eh? Oh right, except plate-mail was tough to crack with swords and arrows, so we invented the gun. Guns were invented to kill. Historically proven. Period. End-of. I know you'd like to think the gun had humble beginnings like our friend the atom bomb, who was CLEARLY intended to dig ditches until some evil asshole decided to bomb some people with a couple of them instead, but this is clearly not the case.
I don't get this like what's stopping you from just pulling the trigger multiple times
[QUOTE=Rolond Returns;53151051]I don't get this like what's stopping you from just pulling the trigger multiple times[/QUOTE] There are techniques to do so, the devices in question that are on the chopping block are pretty much bolt-on accessories that makes it even easier to do.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53151054]There are techniques to do so, the devices in question that are on the chopping block are pretty much bolt-on accessories that makes it even easier to do.[/QUOTE] so we're basically bandaging a bruise? makes sense seeing as it the US and guns.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53149179]No, it just didn't change my mind on it. Less guns would still cause less gun deaths[/QUOTE] If there are mass murders occurring in a country on a frequent enough basis that people start making dark humor jokes about how common they are, the method by which they are conducted should be of secondary concern. There is something much more malignant in American culture and infrastructure that pushes (and allows) people to put together these plans and actually come through with them. Not to say that they are the only developed nation in the world to ever fall victim to these events, if these last two decades have been any indication, but there seems to be a disproportionate amount of them which occur on US soil, with disproportionate coverage of US-specific mass murders. Perhaps it would be better to actually start dealing with [I]that[/I] shit first before trying to ban weapons, if only for how interchangeable weapons are.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53151069]If there are mass murders occurring in a country on a frequent enough basis that people start making dark humor jokes about how common they are, the method by which they are conducted should be of secondary concern. [B]There is something much more malignant in American culture and infrastructure that pushes (and allows) people to put together these plans and actually come through with them.[/B] Not to say that they are the only developed nation in the world to ever fall victim to these events, if these last two decades have been any indication, but there seems to be a disproportionate amount of them which occur on US soil, with disproportionate coverage of US-specific mass murders. Perhaps it would be better to actually start dealing with [I]that[/I] shit first before trying to ban weapons, if only for how interchangeable weapons are.[/QUOTE] That was a vague block of nothing, but infrastructure issues like easy access to firearms? They aren't just 1:1 interchangeable anyways. A gun is a vastly superior weapon for killing than a knife. One of the pretty well accepted downsides for gun ownership is an increase in suicides, because impulsive gun suicides are much less likely to fail, as an example.
[QUOTE=aydin690;53150294]"My weekend hobby is more important than people's lives."[/QUOTE] Bring me back the witch’s broom so I can find you a brain for that strawman.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53150367]Wonder why it's so rare... Could it be... Because they're so hard to obtain for the most part? Because we as a society [I]decided they shouldn't be easy to get[/I]? :mysterysolved:[/QUOTE] The machine gun registry was open from 1934 to 1986, during which time those exactly one real crime was committed using a registered item. When the registry was open and people could legally build and register machine guns, they weren't used for ill intent. [I]Then[/I] the registry was closed, making them harder to acquire without any apparent public safety benefit, and as a side effect a new industry appeared devoted to circumventing the law. I'm not sure what you're missing here. Do you think I said somewhere that machine guns should be available without any regulation whatsoever? I said nothing of the kind, only that closing the registry was unnecessary when machine guns, under the regulation system already in place, never posed a public safety risk. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53150367]And besides, machine guns are also [URL="http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/"]legal when registered[/URL], just with a few caveats, so I'm not sure what you're carrying on about not being able to get one.[/QUOTE] One of those 'few caveats' is that the registry being closed has caused prices to skyrocket due to extremely limited supply. Spend $25,000 on a registered machine gun, including 6-12 months of background checks and paperwork, or spend $100 on a workaround device with no regulation? People go for the latter. And now machine-gun-simulating devices are all over the place, whereas if the registry were in place, the people who want that would undergo an extremely thorough series of background checks and registration. The unnecessary closing of the registry has directly incentivized law-abiding citizens to develop workarounds that can be abused by non-law-abiding citizens. You keep saying 'but why do you [I]need[/I] a working machine gun?' and it's not a legitimate objection. Under the 1934 NFA rules all kinds of things more dangerous than a machine gun are legal to own and have never been used to commit crimes. The system can objectively be observed to work almost flawlessly, so it's up to you to explain why that's not good enough. 'I don't like them, so nobody else should be able to have them' isn't a reason. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53150367]Dude, I could post examples of how this argument is complete nonsense all day long, but by the end of it this post would look like a History Channel World War marathon, so given that particular context it should be pretty clear how this statement doesn't pass the smell test.[/QUOTE] See above. Our government doesn't keep a laundry list of things you are [I]allowed[/I] to have and citizens are not required to justify every item they own. If you want to ban something it's up to you to demonstrate that a credible public safety risk outweighs its subjective desirability, not up to me to justify a 'legitimate' reason to own it. In this case we have nearly a century of evidence showing that this regulation system is perfectly adequate for keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of those who would misuse them, while still making them available to collectors and hobbyists. Denying this legal avenue has created a market for loophole-exploiting devices in a way that benefits nobody but criminals.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53151171]That was a vague block of nothing, but infrastructure issues like easy access to firearms? They aren't just 1:1 interchangeable anyways. A gun is a vastly superior weapon for killing than a knife. One of the pretty well accepted downsides for gun ownership is an increase in suicides, because impulsive gun suicides are much less likely to fail, as an example.[/QUOTE] When I say infrastructure I was more thinking about how easy it is for someone who is deeply mentally ill to actually get past any form of health care, and how there is very little control in terms of what the media shows leading to glorification of murderers and thus enabling pathologically egocentric individuals to attempt and go for mass murder themselves in order to try and also gather some attention. There's a reason why in the aftermath of the recent shooting several people were stopped while putting together their own plan for mass murder. As for weapons not being 1:1 interchangeable, yes that's obvious, but guns do not even sit at the top in terms of deadliness, or even accessibility. Bombs are easy to make and far more destructive, although less deadly since they tend to outright maim people more than they kill them (the Boston bombings most notably had 3 deaths and other 200 injured if I recall). You could also just run a truck into a crowd of people, and vehicles are in many ways easier to access and more inconspicuous than a gun: and the Nice attacks of 2016 have lead to nearly 90 deaths and over 400 injured. As much as I wish banning guns was a miracle solution to the problem, it's obviously not the case.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53151505]When I say infrastructure I was more thinking about how easy it is for someone who is deeply mentally ill to actually get past any form of health care, and how there is very little control in terms of what the media shows leading to glorification of murderers and thus enabling pathologically egocentric individuals to attempt and go for mass murder themselves in order to try and also gather some attention. There's a reason why in the aftermath of the recent shooting several people were stopped while putting together their own plan for mass murder. As for weapons not being 1:1 interchangeable, yes that's obvious, but guns do not even sit at the top in terms of deadliness, or even accessibility. Bombs are easy to make and far more destructive, although less deadly since they tend to outright maim people more than they kill them (the Boston bombings most notably had 3 deaths and other 200 injured if I recall). You could also just run a truck into a crowd of people, and vehicles are in many ways easier to access and more inconspicuous than a gun: and the Nice attacks of 2016 have lead to nearly 90 deaths and over 400 injured. As much as I wish banning guns was a miracle solution to the problem, it's obviously not the case.[/QUOTE] I get this argument, but do keep in mind that while a partial solution isn't an absolute and total one, it's still a partial solution and will have some effect. While shutting of your kitchen light at night isn't gonna stop global warming, it's a step in that direction. Obviously a focus on mental health is more important, but it doesn't really seem like the US Government cares much about that.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53151521]I get this argument, but do keep in mind that while a partial solution isn't an absolute and total one, it's still a partial solution and will have some effect. While shutting of your kitchen light at night isn't gonna stop global warming, it's a step in that direction. Obviously a focus on mental health is more important, but it doesn't really seem like the US Government cares much about that.[/QUOTE] I just think that there's very little that can be done related to gun culture that actually revolves around the type of gun someone can access, which was the argument presented fairly frequently at the start of this thread. There's likely plenty that could be done in terms of addressing gun culture itself. To cite Ian of Forgotten Weapons who pointed this out once, there's a sort of respect for guns in European firearm enthusiasts that tends to be lacking among many American gun owners because the value of ownership is very different.
[QUOTE=aydin690;53150294]"My weekend hobby is more important than people's lives."[/QUOTE] People drink on the weekends. Drunk driving is a serious problem that results in 10,000 deaths a year. A lot of people drive to destinations on the weekend, and road rage results in approximately 300 serious injuries or death a year. There are widespread drug problems in the U.S. Approximately 16.3 out of every 100,000 people die yearly from drug overdoses, which is about 52,000 people a year. So why the hell are you so up in arms about a piece of niche machinery that has had hardly any impact compared to many of the other problems in the U.S.? (And now you know what a strawman argument feels like!)
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53151521]I get this argument, but do keep in mind that while a partial solution isn't an absolute and total one, it's still a partial solution and will have some effect. While shutting of your kitchen light at night isn't gonna stop global warming, it's a step in that direction.[/QUOTE] It's kind of like tackling alcohol abuse by banning shot glasses, tackling obesity by banning milkshakes, tackling vehicle ramming by banning cruise control, or tackling suicide by banning sad music. It's a tiny step that isn't going to do shit because there are plenty of workarounds or alternatives and it doesn't solve the main cause of the issue, but you get to say it's a "partial solution." If there's no demonstrable, evidence-based change to be made that causes a net positive by banning something, there's no reason to restrict law abiding citizens from it. Banning bump stocks will not change anything. It's an arbitrary, useless ban that only serves to annoy people who aren't doing anything wrong. It's an emotion-based ban. If you're going to ban things based on hypotheticals then you better ban bleach, fertilizer, swords, race cars, crossbows, piano wire, nail guns, hair spray, lighter fluid, and anything else that can be made into a bomb/weapon since hypothetically you can kill a lot of people with them.
[QUOTE=SleepyAl;53151914]It's kind of like tackling alcohol abuse by banning shot glasses, tackling obesity by banning milkshakes, tackling vehicle ramming by banning cruise control, or tackling suicide by banning sad music. It's a tiny step that isn't going to do shit because there are plenty of workarounds or alternatives and it doesn't solve the main cause of the issue, but you get to say it's a "partial solution." If there's no demonstrable, evidence-based change to be made that causes a net positive by banning something, there's no reason to restrict law abiding citizens from it. Banning bump stocks will not change anything. It's an arbitrary, useless ban that only serves to annoy people who aren't doing anything wrong. It's an emotion-based ban. If you're going to ban things based on hypotheticals then you better ban bleach, fertilizer, swords, race cars, crossbows, piano wire, nail guns, hair spray, lighter fluid, and anything else that can be made into a bomb/weapon since hypothetically you can kill a lot of people with them.[/QUOTE] Yes, in reality this won't work out the ideal way. But imagine if a gun ban really did work - people stop shooting eachother, yay, woo! But then people still are killing eachother in other ways, as discussed. So we're not really solving the issue of "why do people want to kill eachother"
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53151954]But then people still are killing eachother in other ways, as discussed, so we're not really solving the issue of "why do people want to kill eachother"[/QUOTE] Guns kill more people faster than other methods.
[QUOTE=Blackavar;53151972]Guns kill more people faster than other methods.[/QUOTE] It's pretty clear that a lot of Americans value guns immensely, so it'd be a bit difficult to just make them go away. Probably better to invest the time and effort into fixing the root cause of the issue. As in, the issue where a lot of people really want to kill each other.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53152200]It's pretty clear that a lot of Americans value guns immensely, so it'd be a bit difficult to just make them go away. Probably better to invest the time and effort into fixing the root cause of the issue. As in, the issue where a lot of people really want to kill each other.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's feasible to ban all guns, I was simply responding to your point "People will still kill each other in different ways", to which I responded "Less effectively, though." The root cause is mental health. Let's fix that issue. Universal Healthcare, etc...
[QUOTE=catbarf;53151364]The machine gun registry was open from 1934 to 1986, during which time those exactly one real crime was committed using a registered item. When the registry was open and people could legally build and register machine guns, they weren't used for ill intent. [I]Then[/I] the registry was closed, making them harder to acquire without any apparent public safety benefit, and as a side effect a new industry appeared devoted to circumventing the law. I'm not sure what you're missing here.[/quote] Here's the thing though: There's more than one type of machine gun. If you're talking Browning .50 cal or even some other heavy military piece of hardware, yeah, no shit They're big, bulky, heavy, awkward, etc. There's a reason even light machine guns often used teams of people for their deployment and operation. But there's also [I]sub[/I]-machine guns. [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/how-the-st-valentines-day-massacre-changed-gun-laws.html[/url] [quote]Its manufacturer, facing ruin, [B]tried to market the gun as a self-defense weapon[/B], aided by the fact that [B]the Thompson was so novel the law had yet to catch up with it[/B]. In those days, [B]Chicagoans could buy a Tommy gun more easily than they could a handgun[/B].[/quote] Passable killing power, high rate of fire, comparatively lower recoil than a full MG, smaller, more maneuverable, cheaper ammo. Though turns out we acted pretty quick on this. Note the stuff in bold above. Any of that sound familiar? If you've been in any gun discussion thread, it should. [quote]Do you think I said somewhere that machine guns should be available without any regulation whatsoever? I said nothing of the kind, only that closing the registry was unnecessary when machine guns, under the regulation system already in place, never posed a public safety risk.[/quote] Neither did the AR-15, if you ask many of the pro-2A members here. And yet, here we are, discussing yet [I]another[/I] shooting performed with an AR-15, that was legally purchased on top of that. [quote]One of those 'few caveats' is that the registry being closed has caused prices to skyrocket due to extremely limited supply. [B]Spend $25,000 on a registered machine gun, including 6-12 months of background checks and paperwork, or spend $100 on a workaround device with no regulation? People go for the latter.[/B] And now machine-gun-simulating devices are all over the place, whereas if the registry were in place, the people who want that would undergo an extremely thorough series of background checks and registration. The unnecessary closing of the registry has directly incentivized law-abiding citizens to develop workarounds that can be abused by non-law-abiding citizens.[/quote] Oh shit, damn. See, I was worried after reading through here that the mean ol' government literally made it 110% impossible for you to ever own a working machine gun because they closed that dagum registry so long ago, but now you're telling me there [I]is[/I] still a way? And a way to do it [I]legally[/I]?! Dude, I"m so happy for you! :D [quote]You keep saying 'but why do you [I]need[/I] a working machine gun?' and it's not a legitimate objection. Under the 1934 NFA rules all kinds of things more dangerous than a machine gun are legal to own and have never been used to commit crimes. The system can objectively be observed to work almost flawlessly, so it's up to you to explain why that's not good enough. 'I don't like them, so nobody else should be able to have them' isn't a reason.[/quote] See above. [quote]See above. Our government doesn't keep a laundry list of things you are [I]allowed[/I] to have and citizens are not required to justify every item they own. If you want to ban something it's up to you to demonstrate that a credible public safety risk outweighs its subjective desirability, not up to me to justify a 'legitimate' reason to own it.[/quote] In order to effectively and fairly weigh it against public safety risks, wouldn't they kinda need to know why you want one? Y'know, to see if the reason you want one outweighs the potential danger of the device, and all. I mean it's the same reason you need licensing and certification to legally make high-power hobby rocket motors, because they would like to know that you know what you're doing and that you're not going to intentionally do something colossally stupid with what mounts to a BOMB in your garage. [quote]In this case we have nearly a century of evidence showing that this regulation system is perfectly adequate for keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of those who would misuse them, while still making them available to collectors and hobbyists. Denying this legal avenue has created a market for loophole-exploiting devices in a way that benefits nobody but criminals.[/QUOTE] It's funny, we keep talking about how easy it is to get a gun from the black market (in which case, if you really want a gun for self-defense and they ban them all, or your precious machine gun for that matter, just buy one on the black market. See, and you acted like you had no options), and yet a large portion, if not a majority of, these shootings were committed with guns that were purchased [I]legally[/I]...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.