• Trump pushes for ban on gun 'bump stocks'
    330 replies, posted
[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] Guns are the same way as those other examples you just mentioned. They can be used appropriately for benefit or misused by idiots. Overwhelmingly they are used for the former. The background check system could use some improvement and pushing for socioeconomic reforms would drastically cut down violence overall, especially with guns. But I’m getting a strong impression that most people couldn’t care less about solutions which would benefit everyone. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53151047]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.[/QUOTE] Firearms as weapons have a place in our society even if you can’t see the value of them. The fact that firearms are weapons does not make them inherently bad. Let’s just stop dancing around the real issue. [del]This isn’t meant to be directed at you specifically, but[/del] people like you keep making the argument that guns are bad specifically because they are weapons. Not because of facts, statistics, or how they are used, but only because they make you feel uncomfortable. Not just from legitimate concerns, but more of an irrational kind of fear. Many of you don’t like the idea that people are allowed to arm themselves with weapons which can kill efficiently, or the concept that killing is sometimes justified and necessary. Rather than acknowledging these elements exist for a reason, people would rather pretend they didn’t exist by attempting to remove them from society entirely; while allowing ourselves to become deluded into thinking we’re somehow above it all. The same thing already happens with the criminal population on a daily basis, and just look at how well the prison system is doing because of it. It has become evident that society would rather remain complacent and remove anything it considers to be undesirable. What you people really want to do is turn gun owners another class of undesirables not tolerated by society; you just don’t realize it yet. [editline]22nd February 2018[/editline] I take back what I said about it not being directed towards Zero-Point. It’s obvious now that you don’t give a shit about solutions which benefit both sides.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152361]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] 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] You know that legally registered submachine guns are considered 'machine guns' in the NFA and therefore included in that 'two crimes [I]ever[/I]' statistic, right? Big machine guns, small machine guns, submachine guns- doesn't matter, virtually none of the legally-registered ones were ever used for nefarious purposes. What on earth is the point of this? [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152361]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] A way which through demonstrably unnecessary red tape has created an unregulated secondary market that directly benefits criminals, without any public safety benefit. We've already been over this. I mean are you even reading the stuff you reply to, or just going straight for the snide remarks? Point out where I implied it's impossible to get a machine gun. I said it's possible, I said the fact that it's demonstrably over-regulated is why stuff like bump stocks exist, and your counter-argument thus far appears to have been 'BUT WHY DO YOU NEED A MACHINE GUN?!?' repeated over and over again before now turning to this condescending bullshit. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152361]In order to effectively and fairly weigh it against public safety risks, wouldn't they kinda need to know why you want one?[/QUOTE] Obviously not. See: Destructive Devices, Short-Barreled Rifles, and all the other items covered by the NFA. I mean I can give you a boilerplate answer like 'collection', which I expect you won't accept, but that's irrelevant. There's ample precedent for extremely dangerous weapons being regulated such that they are safe in civilian hands, and I can buy an anti-tank rifle or grenade launcher without having to convince you personally that my reason for wanting one is valid. The public health risk of reopening the machine gun registry is, judging by all available evidence, so ridiculously low that no justification is needed. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152361]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]...[/QUOTE] Who's talking about easily buying guns on the black market? It wasn't me.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53152511]Guns are the same way as those other examples you just mentioned. They can be used appropriately for benefit or misused by idiots. Overwhelmingly they are used for the former. The background check system could use some improvement and pushing for socioeconomic reforms would drastically cut down violence overall, especially with guns. But I’m getting a strong impression that most people couldn’t care less about solutions which would benefit everyone. Firearms as weapons have a place in our society even if you can’t see the value of them. The fact that firearms are weapons does not make them inherently bad. [/quote] While not "inherently" bad they [I]are[/I], in-arguably, inherently dangerous, because that's what they're designed to be: Dangerous to anything you point it at. That's why you have responsible owners stressing things like trigger discipline, safes, safeties, etc. We keep bringing up this point because you guys keep acting like we're talking about something literally as harmless as a stuffed dog toy, and we're not. [quote]Let’s just stop dancing around the real issue. [del]This isn’t meant to be directed at you specifically, but[/del] people like you keep making the argument that guns are bad specifically because they are weapons. Not because of facts, statistics, or how they are used, but only because they make you feel uncomfortable. Not just from legitimate concerns, but more of an irrational kind of fear.[/quote] How is it irrational? It's happened before, it keeps happening, it keeps happening with what seems like increasing frequency and efficacy, and with a noticeable pattern in the weapon type used, and it happens because the weapon used are so freely available that even if you don't already have one, then assuming you aren't already on the record for mentally snapping, you can just walk into a store, wait up to three days, and bam, AR-15. No courses on its safe usage and storage, no courses on its maintenance, no certifications that you are physically capable of handling it safely, just "here ya go!" only for it to end up on the news later because it was found in the suspect's trunk. Saying that banning them will do no good aren't paying attention to the amount of these violent gun crimes committed with [I]legally purchased[/I] fire-arms, and the previously mentioned example of the Thompson and how it was marketed, even though it's CLEARLY over-kill for the average home defense. [quote]Many of you don’t like the idea that people are allowed to arm themselves with weapons which can kill efficiently, or the concept that killing is sometimes justified and necessary.[/quote] And many of you don't seem to grasp that allowing people to basically walk in un-checked to purchase these things for cheap to do these shootings with, all the while complaining that it's too expensive for you to own an even more powerful, fully-automatic version, seems a bit selfish and whiny because the defense that everyone seems to eventually come to is "because I wanna"? I don't know you. I don't know a damn thing about you, where you live, where you're from, what you've been through, who you know, or what you're thinking right now. 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]Rather than acknowledging these elements exist for a reason, people would rather pretend they didn’t exist by attempting to remove them from society entirely; while allowing ourselves to become deluded into thinking we’re somehow above it all. The same thing already happens with the criminal population on a daily basis, and just look at how well the prison system is doing because of it.[/quote] The prison system has its own set of problems, and there are better examples of how prison systems can be run such as in Scandinavia. Which funny thing, Scandinavia is one of those "evil socialist hell-holes" conservatives like to keep bringing up when discussing the evils of taxation used to pay for services, yet they have a pretty high number of guns there and they don't have this problem. It's like they fixed the actual root cause of the problems our society is currently facing through rationality and kindness. Why do we keep calling for bans on guns instead of addressing the other, more root causes when these shootings happen? Because we [B]do[/B] talk about corruption, improving social services, mental health, poverty, racism, bullying, suicide, gangs, etc., until we're blue in the fucking face, and as luck would have it, all the people in power who also seem concerned the most about NOT banning any guns are the SAME people who don't seem the least bit interested in any of those OTHER things. [quote]It has become evident that society would rather remain complacent and remove anything it considers to be undesirable. What you people really want to do is turn gun owners another class of undesirables not tolerated by society; you just don’t realize it yet.[/quote] We share how we don't buy that an AR-15 is purely for self-defense or hunting and how not every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have free access to them. Oh, and how we should either reduce the number of "undesirables" that would commit violence with said weapons, legally bought or otherwise, while also limiting access to the more dangerous arms in the meantime. I've seen arguments about how you can get grenades with proper training and registration, tanks, etc., all in fully working order, but somehow asking the same for a dangerous fire-arm is inconceivable and an affront to God and all that is Holy somehow. The Parkland shooter? Bought his gun legally. Even after the FBI and other law enforcement had been told about how creepy and violent he was. Why? Because somebody decided that barring someone from legally owning a gun just for being reported like this kid was is WRONG because what if they WRONGLY accuse YOU of being a terrorist or something?! (I shit you not, I've heard this argument, like why rely on the FBI and the like for a background check and then completely neuter them like that?) [quote]I take back what I said about it not being directed towards Zero-Point. It’s obvious now that you don’t give a shit about solutions which benefit both sides.[/QUOTE] As mentioned, there's a variety of solutions that nobody with the pull seems to be willing to accept or compromise on. The pro-gun side seems not the least bit interested in actually fixing the root cause of society's ills, so what the hell else is left, the ONE thing that you DON'T NECESSARILY 100% need to function as a nation?
Let's try to keep the multiple letters for emphasis to a minimum.
[QUOTE=Blackavar;53151972]Guns kill more people faster than other methods.[/QUOTE] Debatable. Running a truck into a crowd of people has proven more effective.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53153039]Debatable. Running a truck into a crowd of people has proven more effective.[/QUOTE] True, but the targets these shooters want to get at are behind concrete barriers known as buildings; a structure trucks find difficulty plowing through without suffering a great deal of damage and which aren't well-equipped to handle a vehicle driving through.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53153039]Debatable. Running a truck into a crowd of people has proven more effective.[/QUOTE] Eeh. While that certainly is effective in some cases, there's no denying that guns are really really good and versatile at this. Can't always throw the truck at people. People have a tendency to be in buildings, or other less truck-accessible places. One very important thing to remember is that cars are mainly use for things that are very useful to society - transportation. Guns, while they obviously have some genuinely useful uses like hunting, aren't really in the same class of importance to modern society, which is the reason many countries work well with stricter gun laws. Heck, in Norway you won't even see the police carry guns. Last time i saw a guy with a gun in Norway, I was standing a few meters away from the king. All in all I dont like the truck argument, it's kind of a pointless argument because we obviously NEED cars.
[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53151954]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] No shit. Taking cold medicine doesn't fix the cold - it just makes it bearable. Taking HIV suppressing medicine doesn't cure HIV - it just makes it monumentally less deadly. Banning racial discrimination through the Civil Rights Act didn't solve the issue of "why are people racist." The prohibition on alcohol didn't solve the issue of "why are men drunkenly beating the shit out of their wives." Raising taxes on cigarettes didn't solve the issue of "why do people smoke when they know it's bad for their health." Affirmative action didn't solve the issue of "why are minorities less likely to attend college." No government policy "solves" social issues - they alleviate them. I'm not in favor of an outright gun ban, even for assault weapons or bump stocks - but it's long fucking overdue that we try to reduce the availability of firearms to people who want to use them to do harm. It's criminal that we haven't done so to any meaningful degree. This is a shitty argument and always has been. People will always want to kill each other - should we just allow them to do so because it's human nature? Or should we put common-sense restrictions in place to make sure that certain violent individuals don't get their hands on the tools that allow them to drastically increase their capability for violence? They'll still be violent, no doubt, but they won't be able to put bullets down a hallway. The impact and the damage they can cause will be monumentally reduced. We call this harm reduction - the harm will still happen, but it'll be reduced. This is preventative care - you're advocating that people will just get sick anyways, so better to not use medicine whatsoever since we can't solve illness. [editline]23rd February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;53153039]Debatable. Running a truck into a crowd of people has proven more effective.[/QUOTE] And driving a truck requires standardized training and a licensing process. All trucks have vehicle identification numbers. Why isn't this true for firearms?
Because vehicles are a privilege and firearms are a constitutional right. It's the same reason why poll taxes don't exist.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;53153673]Because vehicles are a privilege and firearms are a constitutional right. It's the same reason why poll taxes don't exist.[/QUOTE] "the freedom of speech" is a constitutional right, and Congress is explicitly told that they have no power to restrict it, yet we as a society recognized that shouting fire in a crowded theatre should be restricted speech. Sharing classified information is just a form of speech - but it's restricted, too, with some of the harshest penalties in our legal system. Incitement is restricted speech for which you can be charged and jailed. There are many, many interpretations of the Second Amendment. The absolute and unrestricted right to own firearms is a very, very recent one only put into precedent by the Supreme Court in 2007. Before that, we banned automatic weapons on the federal level multiple times. What counts as a firearm? We ban fully-automatic miniguns, with the few that still exist being grandfathered in. Why is that ban justifiable, but other limitations on gun ownership are not? Why aren't civilians allowed to own SAM systems? Why can't they privately purchase Predator drones? Why are all those restrictions on the second amendment passively accepted, but any talk of a licensing system is not? The reason's the same for the first amendment: public safety. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is dangerous, and is restricted speech. Unstable and violent individuals using firearms to gun down schoolchildren should be restricted in the name of public safety. There's actually legal and constitutional precedent to ban bump stocks and certain classes of firearms outright - a licensing system would be preferable, because it's less intrusive into the lives of honest and peaceful citizens. Yes, it's a constitutional right. No, it's not absolute - and it's evidently clear that some restrictions are necessary to curb gun violence. Even Trump is admitting that with the bump-stock shit. We have a severe problem in this country that need resolution. There is no absolute enumerated constitutional right to unlimited firearms ownership.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53150310]See, the problem with your emotional argument, is you haven't actually said anything of substance. You've basically said "people dying is bad", and I don't think anyone disagrees, but you've offered nothing of substance to argue, no facts, no statistics, no nothing. You've said "but think of the children" but given nothing to think about.[/QUOTE] This is interesting because your response to "they're dangerous and therefor should remain difficult to obtain/circumvent" is essentially "but I want to do it and you shouldn't be able to stop me from doing it, and why I want to do it is entirely none of your business because you've shot down my 'it's not dangerous' argument and I have nothing else to go on". Like so: [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] So you're okay with a ban on a method that makes it easier to effectively enhance the fire-rate of a device created to destroy whatever you point it at, so long as you can just straight-up make a device with a high fire-rate created to destroy whatever you point it at, because you think that a regulation likely written in the blood of massacre victims is "bullshit". Why yes, there weren't many homicides with automatic weapons after they were regulated, despite legal venues to acquire them and/or make them before the registry closed. But you know what else? There weren't nearly as many mass-shootings in this country before then, either, AFAIK. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53152843]So you're just going to continue making emotional arguments. Even though we've explicitly laid out evidence, suggesting that due to how controlled machine guns were, they were effectively never used in crime. And instead of saying "hey, you make a valid argument, maybe opening the registry again, thanks to the extensive background checks, and long wait period, would be an excellent compromise in getting rid of tools that simulate automatic fire" you say "BUT YOU DON'T NEEEEEEEEEEED IT". There's no further discussion here. It doesn't matter what we say, or what evidence we present, you're still going to ignore us. Fun fact, the republicans are using "but you don't NEEEEEED it too", to great effect. If you want people to join your side, then "but you don't NEEEEED IT" shouldn't be part of your debate vocabulary.[/QUOTE] So then in light of the recent growing trend of using assault rifles and other semi-auto fire-arms to commit these mass shootings (let's even conveniently ignore gang violence, as their connection to crime circles is going to almost certainly guarantee them a fire-arm anyway), do you also believe that including them in such a registration process is fair so long as you can finally have your machine gun? Literally the only points I'm arguing [I]against[/I] is that allowing such easy access to a fire-arm that, whether through slight modification, off-the-shelf legal or otherwise, can have its lethal force greatly increased in such scenarios where they intend to cause as much damage as possible rather than going for singular targets, as per the typical requirements of fully automatic weapons. And when the only non-arguable reasoning you can give for wanting a fully functional and dangerous device like that is "because I should be able to" and you won't explain what on earth you would possibly do with such an extreme creation without automatically assuming I'm going to call bullshit when you claim it's for decorative purposes or whatever, then yeah, the only thing I have to go on is that you have this inexplicable (or rather, you would rather not bother explaining because you automatically assume that by dissecting arguments like "there's no such things as assault rifles", "machine guns aren't inherently dangerous", etc.) [B][I]might need[/I][/B] to own one that's fully functional. I guess it'd be like having a pet tiger: Yeah, it'd be rad as fuck, but at the same time it IS a dangerous thing if mis-handled so unless it's for veterinary/rehab reasons I can't understand why they would put themselves and potentially others at increased risk because "heh, this is cool". Call me weird, I just don't get it. You do you. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T do you even you're not unarguably distressing or otherwise infringing upon someone else's rights, though you seem to assume that I am when I question why on earth anyone would need something as extreme as a machine gun. Because literally all we're arguing for is much for the same as you (regulations, wait periods for dangerous items, basically just making it harder for people to get their hands on this stuff super quick, and through LEGAL venues, in order to commit crime), the problem is that people's opinions seem to vary on what counts as "dangerous", and there appears to be confusion in that some don't seem to grasp that Less Dangerous != Not Even The Slightest Bit Dangerous. [QUOTE=catbarf;53152714]You know that legally registered submachine guns are considered 'machine guns' in the NFA and therefore included in that 'two crimes [I]ever[/I]' statistic, right? Big machine guns, small machine guns, submachine guns- doesn't matter, virtually none of the legally-registered ones were ever used for nefarious purposes. What on earth is the point of this?[/quote] Just making sure you're aware that a fully automatic doesn't need to be as big and scary as possible to be lethally effective, and things like lighter caliber ammo, less propellant, etc., don't make them inherently not-dangerous, is all. [quote]A way which through demonstrably unnecessary red tape has created an unregulated secondary market that directly benefits criminals, without any public safety benefit. We've already been over this.[/quote] 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]I mean are you even reading the stuff you reply to, or just going straight for the snide remarks? Point out where I implied it's impossible to get a machine gun. I said it's possible, I said the fact that it's demonstrably over-regulated is why stuff like bump stocks exist, and your counter-argument thus far appears to have been 'BUT WHY DO YOU NEED A MACHINE GUN?!?' repeated over and over again before now turning to this condescending bullshit.[/quote] Okay let's tackle this one point at a time: [quote]I said it's possible, I said the fact that it's demonstrably over-regulated[/quote] 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]is why stuff like bump stocks exist[/quote] 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. Remember what I said happened in 1929? Something about 7 people killed with a Tommy gun. Not some radical terrorist, not some "lone wolf crazed gunman or bullied kid" but in a scenario where they were brought to an isolated location, murdered with excessive fire-power (purchased legally), and then dumped somewhere to be found as a message. 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? I keep hearing options for why handguns and shotguns are terrible for defense, and that AR-15s and other, high-powered rifles are good for defense and hunting (that is, either hitting your target accurately, with a lot of power, and/or a lot, because your goal is to destroy whatever is threatening you/standing between you and death by starvation or whatever as quickly/efficiently as possible, yes? Does that not make these weapons optimized for these tasks, no matter if it's an assault rifle. And please, don't give me that "there's no such thing as an assault rifle"/"you can't define what an assault rifle is" tripe that's been said and done before, it's literally in the history and heritage of the design and versatility of the weapon. What, you think there weren't rail accessories or some equivalent and the like by the time of its creation? That and the name has recognition. If I ask a gun-ignorant person to name the first assault rifle they can think of, and they say "12 ga.?", then that's to be expected, they don't know anything about fire-arms. But if I ask any one of you gun owners to name the first thing that comes to your mind when I say "think of an assault rifle", odds are you're going to name either the AR-15, M-16, AK-47/74, StG 44, or similar. From Wikipedia: [quote]The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, [B]"assault rifle 44"[/B]) is a German selective-fire rifle developed during World War II. It is also known under the designations MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43, Maschinenpistole 44 respectively). [B]The StG 44 was the first successful and widely produced design to use a new shorter cartridge, which permitted controllable automatic fire from a weapon more compact than a battle rifle, coupled with the recognition that most aimed rifle fire in combat situations did not exceed a few hundred metres.[/B][5] By all accounts, the StG 44 fulfilled its role effectively, particularly on the Eastern Front, [B]offering a greatly increased volume of fire compared to standard infantry rifles.[/B][5] However, it came too late to have a significant effect on the outcome of the war.[6] [B]Its lasting effect was its major impact on modern infantry small arms development, giving rise to an entire class of weapons using the name assault rifle.[/B] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44]LINK[/url][/quote] It offered increased power multiplication of a machine gun, while still being compact, maneuverable, light, and sturdy like a sub-machine gun ("machinepistol", automatic pistol), but more accurate, offering increased killing potential over a single-shot rifle with multiple successive shots in a shorter time-span, all while maintaining the control and handle-ability of a rifle. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. And what was their greatest advantage over a single-shot/semi-auto rifle/pistol/shotgun? [I]Fully automatic fire.[/I] [quote]Obviously not. See: Destructive Devices, Short-Barreled Rifles, and all the other items covered by the NFA. I mean I can give you a boilerplate answer like 'collection', which I expect you won't accept, but that's irrelevant. There's ample precedent for extremely dangerous weapons being regulated such that they are safe in civilian hands, and I can buy an anti-tank rifle or grenade launcher without having to convince you personally that my reason for wanting one is valid. The public health risk of reopening the machine gun registry is, judging by all available evidence, so ridiculously low that no justification is needed.[/quote] 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?). Like, you and others are either slowly listing towards Poe's Law territory with this whole "if assault rifles are a problem because of their high potential rate of fire and ease of modification to increase rate of fire, maybe we should get re-open this 'useless' machinegun registry so people can legally buy or make their own machine guns and own fully automatic weapons again" spiel that I've been seeing throughout this thread, you're trolling, or you literally don't see why a statement like: [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147594][U]Were there a legal method of creating a machine gun (such as having the registry open)[/U], then yea, I'd agree, along with all the other bullshit "full auto" simulators (like binary triggers, etc etc)[/QUOTE] in response to: [QUOTE=booster;53147549]I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban a novelty item that aided a lunatic to massacre people. Sure guns are fun, but at the end of the day they're designed to kill, not for entertainment.[/QUOTE] 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? You said the registry accounted for ALL fully automatic weapons, so surely that would count as legal ownership of an automatic weapon that was easy to get, yes? And all the hoops required to get one? Where do you draw the line on how, how easily, and where people can acquire a dangerous device? 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. If there were gaps in the background check that allows someone to circumvent it, such as inadequate checking or even not returning a result at all due to delays/long checks (you know, like "after three days it's automatically yours, enjoy!~"), then the people responsible for underperforming at their job could be held accountable. You want to be able to hold the agencies in charge accountable if they fuck up your background check and prevent you, a perfectly sane, rational, responsible person, from owning this dangerous thing? I'll gladly accept that amendment if you realize that in doing so it still opens a gap wherein they could exploit the legal system to circumvent certain check procedures if it were somehow possible to do so. This would also require extensive stream-lining of the background check system, which should be made possible if agencies convert their paper systems to digital and state-issued certifications to verify legality. If you're responsible, sane, and have no history of violence in recent times, then mazel tov, it's an AR-15 with a rail-mount grenade launcher, have fun at the range. If not, then sorry, you'll just have to wait or make good on what's preventing us from allowing you to proceed further. Does this not sound sensible? Because to me, it seems a more sane and reasonable method to decide who's a responsible gun owner who isn't just going to kill themselves/others by doing something stupid/sinister than just allowing everyone to have easy access to dangerous devices and see what happens. But apparantley it's not reasonable, because in part debates with pro-2A-ers, doing things like "registration", "licensing", "mandatory safety courses", and "wait periods" are just some evil plan by the government to eventually leave them un-armed and vulnerable against the might of the tyrannical United States government-controlled military that they were literally just minutes ago singing praises to for fighting to protect their freedoms, so you can understand why these arguments being made like "they're not inherently dangerous" when that's exactly what they were intended to be when they were designed and manufactured, no matter if you're using it for hunting food or targets or defending yourself, it becomes a bit maddening, and then you throw in a doozy like "yeah bumpstocks are bad [because they circumvent an otherwise effective regulation on automatic weapons] we should just make it legal to make and/or buy full-auto weapons instead" and it makes my damn head spin. [quote]Who's talking about easily buying guns on the black market? It wasn't me.[/QUOTE] Uh... [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. 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. 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. 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. [B]Denying this legal avenue has created a market for loophole-exploiting devices in a way that benefits nobody but criminals.[/B][/QUOTE] ? Oh, and by the way, I thought I'd check Wikipedia for shits and giggles to see if there was a list of school shootings in America (not just mass shootings, [I]school[/I] shootings specifically), and I found something interesting after doing some copy-pasting in Notepad++. See, with Notepad++, I can just delete irrelevant lines, disable text-wrapping, and voila, I can count the number of incidents and compare by time-frame, so I decided to do the most drastic one first: the 1990s alone (not 2000+, not prior to 1990, just the 1990s) compared to entire prior US history. The results? Egh. I'm only going to share the results as the total number of incidents rather than total casualties, as the main argument seems to be how likely it is to happen vs. the benefit of freely having access to guns, or even the lethal force of the weapon in question (so there's no "good gun vs. bad gun" here, this is truly a list of the number of times people, the ones we all [I]really[/I] blame on these things on top of accessibility to the means to do so more effectively with no hassle at all, snapped, flipped, flew off the handle, whatever you want to call it), so the number of incidents is perfectly fine to illustrate likelihood of guns used in attacks vs. what type of gun and why, I feel. Total number of incidents from the foundation of the United States to just before the 1990s: 162. Total number from 1990-1999: 62. So in one decade alone, in recent times, for whatever societal ill you want to blame it on, exacerbated with the increased accessibility and lethal force of guns as time passed, the number of mass shootings has increased dramatically. I've seen people argue that the founding fathers could have forseen the advancement of weapons technology to an extent, and I'll give them that, but there's no way they could have predicted this societal cataclysm we're facing, and how the accessibility and/or increased damage potential of fire-arms through-out the years have filled more and more body-bags. Now, what about 2000 to the present? 208. [U]Two hundred and eight.[/U] So in seventeen short years, with increasing societal ills compounded with even further available options for more fire-power available to anyone who asks nicely for it, we've achieved a whopping [I]ninety-two percent[/I] of the total number of incidents. Some other disturbing figures from the list provided by Wikipedia: The number of shootings that occurred within the same month (not within days of each other, just in the same month, I'd need some code to accurately plot functions of frequency over the decades vs. when various laws were passed) are as follows, by period again: Foundation - 1989: 10 1990-1999: 12 Yup, In ten years in 1990 we beat the record, but here's another interesting thing about the 90s. Remember the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994? Around that time, frequency started to increase until after 1994, at which point the number of times a shooting occurred within the same month dropped pretty sharply, at least to my eyes it did. But here's where it gets gross again: 2000-Present: [I]53[/I]. And there were some HORRID observations made in this period, even just at a glance, but became more and more disgusting the more I verified what I thought I had seen, I tell ya. Up until this point, most of the times you'd see multiple shootings within the same month, it'd be somewhere between 1-5 shootings, with 5 being the max, and rarely, and that's even a generous estimate as I've not taken the time to plot the months by number of school shootings, and this post is getting verbose as it is. But the most drastic changes I noticed was another increase in frequency after 2007 which, IIRC, is when the AWB expired. There were periods after this where the number of school shootings occurring within the same exact month (and even the same [I]days[/I]) were increasing, to alarming instances where the numbers were in the double-digits. In 2013, the US saw 9 school shootings in January alone. And in the [I]very next year[/I]? Twelve! In January alone! And THIS year? We're only two months in, and we're already tied with all of last year with NINE. Take those numbers for what they are. The page is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#History]here[/url].
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53152756]Because benefiting society like that, and reducing crime in that way, wouldn't fit the narrative of "but you don't NEEEEEED guns" and "you don't need the assault rifle 15" and "Why do you NEEEEEEEED this". Because they don't want to openly realize that society isn't built around what justifying why you need something. Like, why do you need a smart phone? Or internet that's faster than 1mb/s? Why do you need access to youtube, or facebook, or twitch? Why do you need a 4 bedroom house with 3 people living in it. Why do you need video games. Why do you need anything that isn't basic food, water, and basic shelter. Why why why why. Oh wait, our society isn't built around justifying need, its about justifying restrictions. Like there's a damn good reason I can't just shout "fire" in a public building. But there's no statistical reason to support anything that's been mentioned in this thread, that isn't societal reform. none. at all. period.[/QUOTE] Don't you feel like there is maybe a difference between a dangerous item, and a dangerous item that also has use as a tool for those that want to own them? (Not talking about Assault Rifles here)
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823]While not "inherently" bad they [I]are[/I], in-arguably, inherently dangerous, because that's what they're designed to be: Dangerous to anything you point it at. That's why you have responsible owners stressing things like trigger discipline, safes, safeties, etc. We keep bringing up this point because you guys keep acting like we're talking about something literally as harmless as a stuffed dog toy, and we're not.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. People do seem to keep calling them tools which is "technically" correct, but not really accurate in the context of the current discussion. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823] How is it irrational? It's happened before, it keeps happening, it keeps happening with what seems like increasing frequency and efficacy, and with a noticeable pattern in the weapon type used, and it happens because the weapon used are so freely available that even if you don't already have one, then assuming you aren't already on the record for mentally snapping, you can just walk into a store, wait up to three days, and bam, AR-15. No courses on its safe usage and storage, no courses on its maintenance, no certifications that you are physically capable of handling it safely, just "here ya go!" only for it to end up on the news later because it was found in the suspect's trunk.[/QUOTE] It's Irrational fear because the majority of proposed solutions are just poorly thought out variations of "ban everything I don't like" which would neither prevent shootings from happening again, nor address their root causes. Most of the suggestions I've seen only target lawful firearm owners which by far are the least likely demographic to commit crimes involving a weapon. In New Hampshire, we don't have any need for licenses, courses, or storage requirements but we still have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the country per capita. AFAIK, there haven't been much in the way of negligent discharges or accidents either. Also that 3 day waiting period is more like 15 minutes here. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823] Saying that banning them will do no good aren't paying attention to the amount of these violent gun crimes committed with [I]legally purchased[/I] fire-arms, and the previously mentioned example of the Thompson and how it was marketed, even though it's CLEARLY over-kill for the average home defense.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.b61b033916a5"]Now you're just making shit up.[/URL] It's not a statistical zero, but still not anywhere near what you're implying. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823]And many of you don't seem to grasp that allowing people to basically walk in un-checked to purchase these things for cheap to do these shootings with, all the while complaining that it's too expensive for you to own an even more powerful, fully-automatic version, seems a bit selfish and whiny because the defense that everyone seems to eventually come to is "because I wanna"?[/QUOTE] The background checks do seem like they need improvements, but legally owned machine guns caused virtually 0 problems from 1934 to 1986. If the government takes away your ability to do something you like for no fucking reason, why wouldn't you want to have it back? You're just proving my point that regardless of the facts or statistics, you're arguing these things should be banned only because they scare you. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823]I don't know you. I don't know a damn thing about you, where you live, where you're from, what you've been through, who you know, or what you're thinking right now.[/QUOTE] OK then I'll just sum up what's relevant. I live in a state where pretty much anyone without a criminal record can just walk in and by any legally allowed firearms they want within like 15 minutes. The gun crime here is one of the lowest in the nation which normally doesn't exceed like 20 people through the entire state. There is a HUGE opioid crisis going on which kills far more people, but a prosecutor I personally know is saying the courts realize that just banning shit and calling it a day doesn't work. Also there's a giant freaking gun factory here (SIG SAUER) which I used to work at. But more importantly, in response to that last part of your statement... [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] This is hilarious considering I legally already have something better. :evil: [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823] The prison system has its own set of problems, and there are better examples of how prison systems can be run such as in Scandinavia. Which funny thing, Scandinavia is one of those "evil socialist hell-holes" conservatives like to keep bringing up when discussing the evils of taxation used to pay for services, yet they have a pretty high number of guns there and they don't have this problem. It's like they fixed the actual root cause of the problems our society is currently facing through rationality and kindness. Why do we keep calling for bans on guns instead of addressing the other, more root causes when these shootings happen? Because we [B]do[/B] talk about corruption, improving social services, mental health, poverty, racism, bullying, suicide, gangs, etc., until we're blue in the fucking face, and as luck would have it, all the people in power who also seem concerned the most about NOT banning any guns are the SAME people who don't seem the least bit interested in any of those OTHER things.[/QUOTE] This is why the Democratic party needs to drop the anti-gun agenda. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823]We share how we don't buy that an AR-15 is purely for self-defense or hunting and how not every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have free access to them. Oh, and how we should either reduce the number of "undesirables" that would commit violence with said weapons, legally bought or otherwise, while also limiting access to the more dangerous arms in the meantime. I've seen arguments about how you can get grenades with proper training and registration, tanks, etc., all in fully working order, but somehow asking the same for a dangerous fire-arm is inconceivable and an affront to God and all that is Holy somehow.[/QUOTE] Semiautomatic rifles like the AR15 which according to the FBI are statistically the least likely kind of firearm to be used in a crime, should not be accessible to the average law abiding person? Also wow, I can't believe you just straight up admitted that you consider gun owners to be a class of undesirables who should have their numbers "reduced". You should probably start backpedaling now... hard. :bullshit: [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823]As mentioned, there's a variety of solutions that nobody with the pull seems to be willing to accept or compromise on. The pro-gun side seems not the least bit interested in actually fixing the root cause of society's ills, so what the hell else is left, the ONE thing that you DON'T NECESSARILY 100% need to function as a nation?[/QUOTE] Because attempting to enforce a nationwide ban on things used for recreation have worked out so well in the past. I think you'd have an easier time getting Democrats to gain a shit ton of votes by dropping the anti-gun agenda, instead of initiating an authoritarian crusade against gun owners while pissing off absolutely everyone.
[QUOTE=phygon;53154607]Don't you feel like there is maybe a difference between a dangerous item, and a dangerous item that also has use as a tool for those that want to own them? (Not talking about Assault Rifles here)[/QUOTE] Honestly? What [I]is[/I] the difference? And furthermore, why should that even matter? The only justification needed for wanting to own something, is the desire to own it. To justify [I]not[/I] allowing the ownership of said item, be it an automatic rifle, a fast car, a butterfly knife, what have you, you must prove that the ownership of such an item is detrimental to society at large. By the numbers, machine guns are not. None of us are saying machine guns should be sold at Walmart or anything like that. Nobody's even suggesting the process of getting one even be loosened up (beyond being made accessible to someone without $20k-$25k to burn). The only thing opening the registry would do is get whoever passed it good favor with gun owners nationwide, and eliminate an outdated relic of legislation that has prevented no crime. Why is that a bad thing?
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;53154936]Honestly? What [I]is[/I] the difference? And furthermore, why should that even matter? The only justification needed for wanting to own something, is the desire to own it. To justify [I]not[/I] allowing the ownership of said item, be it an automatic rifle, a fast car, a butterfly knife, what have you, you must prove that the ownership of such an item is detrimental to society at large. By the numbers, machine guns are not. None of us are saying machine guns should be sold at Walmart or anything like that. Nobody's even suggesting the process of getting one even be loosened up (beyond being made accessible to someone without $20k-$25k to burn). The only thing opening the registry would do is get whoever passed it good favor with gun owners nationwide, and eliminate an outdated relic of legislation that has prevented no crime. Why is that a bad thing?[/QUOTE] They weren't used in crimes because, as you'll note in the lists of school shootings throughout our entire history (JUST school shootings, not ALL shootings), the frequency of the shootings, as well as the over-all average lethality, are going up. FAST. They probably realized this when they decided to close the machinegun registry, considering that, as I've pointed out, given what we've seen people with semi-autos, imagine what they could do with a fully-functioning Uzi, AK, or hell, even some crappy Chinese copy of some early machine gun? And "loosened up" meaning "being made accessible to someone without $20K-25K to burn"? So what you're saying is they're just very, very expensive then, on top of licensing? So? So is a tank. You could still get one, if you really wanted to, though. And re-opening the registry [I]would[/I] make them easier to get, wouldn't it? Wasn't that the whole point of you guys wanting it to be re-opened to begin with? There's another interesting question. I wonder how many shootings with dangerous weapons are perpetrated by low-income people. I mean, we all know the Vegas guy was wealthy because holy shit, that was a lot of stuff he brought with him, but it'd be interesting to see a plot of that data.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53152823]Oh, and how we should either reduce the number of "undesirables" that would commit violence with said weapons[/QUOTE] The [I]fuck[/I] do you mean by this one
I'm just thinking about way you could even ban the bump fire stock. Firearm accessories are not regulated by the ATF according to an article I read: [quote]As the attorney general, Sessions has the responsibility to enforce the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), and the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), a task which is in turn delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Since 2010, however, the ATF has taken the position that bump stocks are "not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act." The ATF does not have the authority to regulate firearm parts and accessories.[/quote] [url]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/law-may-stop-trump-ordering-bump-stocks-out-business-n850651[/url] So it would seem that you would have to put legislation through that would potentially open up the door to having all semi automatic weapons banned which most certainly turn into a constitutional challenge. You can't regulate the speed at which someone pulls the trigger on a gun any more than you can control who they point it at.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53156555]The [I]fuck[/I] do you mean by this one[/QUOTE] "Reduce, in any quantity, amount, or degree, the accessibility of fire-arms to people who intend to use them violently, especially in terms of new sales". People that would commit crime with a gun shouldn't be able to guy one legally so quickly and easily. [editline]24th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53154911]Fair enough. People do seem to keep calling them tools which is "technically" correct, but not really accurate in the context of the current discussion.[/quote] Technically, anything built or used by man to do a task is a tool, so just calling them "tools" isn't the best way to make an argument for them to be "inherently safe" when they're designed to be the exact opposite of safe for everyone the thing is pointed at. [quote]It's Irrational fear because the majority of proposed solutions are just poorly thought out variations of "ban everything I don't like" which would neither prevent shootings from happening again, nor address their root causes. Most of the suggestions I've seen only target lawful firearm owners which by far are the least likely demographic to commit crimes involving a weapon.[/quote] 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. "But what about people who already HAVE those/steal them from other people?!" 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). 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. 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]In New Hampshire, we don't have any need for licenses, courses, or storage requirements but we still have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the country per capita. AFAIK, there haven't been much in the way of negligent discharges or accidents either. Also that 3 day waiting period is more like 15 minutes here.[/quote] 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][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.b61b033916a5"]Now you're just making shit up.[/URL] It's not a statistical zero, but still not anywhere near what you're implying.[/quote] All that says is that the number of gun crimes committed by the owner of the weapon were less than the number of those where the owner was not the user. It says nothing of the legality of the weapon regarding how it was acquired, so my point stands. Even then, if a fire-arm isn't freely available to "borrow", as shown with Parkland, there's a very clear gap where the short waiting period is actually a BAD thing, and that maybe having violent and/or disturbing behavior leave a mark (eligible for appeal so you don't freak out the "THEY'RE COMIN' TA TAKE MA GUNS!" crowd) on your background checks against guns (as this kid was reported multiple times for violent/disturbing behavior, as have many (not all, but many) other people who have committed violent crimes with guns). Before, people argued that it was just "unfair discrimination" based in "fear and emotion", and lo and behold, it fucking happened. Is anyone surprised? The disturbing answer, for me at least with the evidence presented to me so far, is "no", and if it isn't for you, then I hope it was at least comfortable under that rock. Come out, feel the sunshine, observe, and take note. [quote]The background checks do seem like they need improvements, but legally owned machine guns caused virtually 0 problems from 1934 to 1986. If the government takes away your ability to do something you like for no fucking reason, why wouldn't you want to have it back? You're just proving my point that regardless of the facts or statistics, you're arguing these things should be banned only because they scare you.[/quote] 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. OK then I'll just sum up what's relevant. I live in a state where pretty much anyone without a criminal record can just walk in and by any legally allowed firearms they want within like 15 minutes. The gun crime here is one of the lowest in the nation which normally doesn't exceed like 20 people through the entire state. There is a HUGE opioid crisis going on which kills far more people, but a prosecutor I personally know is saying the courts realize that just banning shit and calling it a day doesn't work. Also there's a giant freaking gun factory here (SIG SAUER) which I used to work at. But more importantly, in response to that last part of your statement... [quote]This is hilarious considering I already have something better. :evil:[/quote] 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]This is why the Democratic party needs to drop the anti-gun agenda. [/quote] And focus on a gun regulation agenda, yes. [quote]Semiautomatic rifles like the AR15 which according to the FBI are statistically the least likely kind of firearm to be used in a crime, should not be accessible to the average law abiding person? Also wow, I can't believe you just straight up admitted that you consider gun owners to be a class of undesirables who should have their numbers "reduced". You should probably start backpedaling now... hard. :bullshit:[/quote] 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) [quote]Because attempting to enforce a nationwide ban on things used for recreation have worked out so well in the past. I think you'd have an easier time getting Democrats to gain a shit ton of votes by dropping the anti-gun agenda, instead of initiating an authoritarian crusade against gun owners while pissing off absolutely everyone.[/QUOTE] 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=Zero-Point;53156536]They weren't used in crimes because, as you'll note in the lists of school shootings throughout our entire history (JUST school shootings, not ALL shootings), the frequency of the shootings, as well as the over-all average lethality, are going up. FAST. They probably realized this when they decided to close the machinegun registry, considering that, as I've pointed out, given what we've seen people with semi-autos, imagine what they could do with a fully-functioning Uzi, AK, or hell, even some crappy Chinese copy of some early machine gun? And "loosened up" meaning "being made accessible to someone without $20K-25K to burn"? So what you're saying is they're just very, very expensive then, on top of licensing? So? So is a tank. You could still get one, if you really wanted to, though. And re-opening the registry [I]would[/I] make them easier to get, wouldn't it? Wasn't that the whole point of you guys wanting it to be re-opened to begin with? There's another interesting question. I wonder how many shootings with dangerous weapons are perpetrated by low-income people. I mean, we all know the Vegas guy was wealthy because holy shit, that was a lot of stuff he brought with him, but it'd be interesting to see a plot of that data.[/QUOTE] While I don't doubt you entirely, I [I]do[/I] doubt that that's why the registry was closed. As has been stated, from its creation to its closure, two crimes were committed with automatics and one was ruled justifiable. So you have one crime committed with a legal machine gun. Committed by a cop. There we is [I]nothing[/I] to suggest the registry was closed to curb machine gun crime. To compound on your point about the registry closing to prevent school shootings, to the best of my knowledge, Columbine was the first mass school shooting, or at least the largest and worst to date, because nobody had seen anything like it before. And it happened more than a decade after the registry closed. My bad, I worded that improperly. Yes, currently, the price is a massive roadblock, in addition to finding anyone selling one to begin with because they're so rare. I should have worded it differently. I fully advocate for opening the registry, decreasing the price, and increasing accessibility; I'm not suggesting the vetting process be lightened up. You'd still have to go through extensive scrutiny, be on all the watchlists, get your fingerprints taken, and wait up to a year for the tax stamp that you have to keep with the weapon at all times or be in violation of the law. The only thing that should change is that the registry should open. There's no good reason to keep it closed beyond spite. That actually [I]would[/I] be an interesting point. My wager is that unless you only examine high-profile incidents like Vegas or Aurora, the overwhelming majority would be by low-income individuals. I can't imagine gang violence is perpetrated by an appreciable number of people as wealthy as the Vegas guy, or that someone financially secure would need to resort to robberies. I don't have anything tangible to back that up, but I'll get back to you.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;53154936] The only justification needed for wanting to own something, is the desire to own it. To justify [I]not[/I] allowing the ownership of said item, be it an automatic rifle, a fast car, a butterfly knife, what have you, you must prove that the ownership of such an item is detrimental to society at large. By the numbers, machine guns are not. [/QUOTE] I'm actually completely dumbfounded that you would claim that machine guns are not "detrimental to society". They were literally designed with the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible over flat ground and they did a disgustingly good job of it. They are a tool that has literally no utility whatsoever outside of warfare. What time scale are you talking about here? Also, that's not even how we (or any country, really) decides to ban things. It usually comes down to a question of "do the deficits of allowing this get outweighed by the benefits?" when an item comes under scrutiny. Finally, ya'll seriously need to stop talking about these weapons as if they're equatable to any other item and realize that there are intrinsic differences. A machine gun is a tool specifically designed to kill a fuckton of people. That's why it exists. Not all weapons check this particular box, but some do.
Still doesn't change the fact that having them in the hands of law-abiding citizens that went through the long process to get them over the course of 84 years hasn't had a detrimental effect on society at all, in the slightest. One crime being committed with legal machine guns over 84 years. Real detriment to society there.
[QUOTE=phygon;53156750]I'm actually completely dumbfounded that you would claim that machine guns are not "detrimental to society". They were literally designed with the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible over flat ground and they did a disgustingly good job of it. They are a tool that has literally no utility whatsoever outside of warfare. What time scale are you talking about here? Also, that's not even how we (or any country, really) decides to ban things. It usually comes down to a question of "do the deficits of allowing this get outweighed by the benefits?" when an item comes under scrutiny. Finally, ya'll seriously need to stop talking about these weapons as if they're equatable to any other item and realize that there are intrinsic differences. A machine gun is a tool specifically designed to kill a fuckton of people. That's why it exists. Not all weapons check this particular box, but some do.[/QUOTE] [I]The design does not matter.[/I] What something was designed for has no bearing on whether or not a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own it. We come back to, a ban must be justified, and proof must be substantiated by the pro-ban crowd, based on evidence that the item is a threat to society. Of the two crimes committed with machine guns [I]since 1934,[/I] one was done by a cop and the other was self-defense and ruled as such. A single crime does not justify such a ban, or even the level of restriction placed on it. As I said above, I do [I]not[/I] advocate for loosening the checks and precautions. I advocate for opening legal channels for law-abiding citizens to purchase items they want. Think of it this way: Opening the registry would remove the perceived [I]need[/I] for items like bump stocks, and thus you could be better assured that someone with an automatic had gone through stringent legal channels to obtain said automatic, rather than just any old guy who put a stock on his rifle.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;53156832]Still doesn't change the fact that having them in the hands of law-abiding citizens that went through the long process to get them over the course of 84 years hasn't had a detrimental effect on society at all, in the slightest. One crime being committed with legal machine guns over 84 years. Real detriment to society there.[/QUOTE] Welcome to the wonderful world of compromise. From Time: [quote]In 1986 the Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed by Congress. [B]The law mainly enacted protections for gun owners[/B] — prohibiting a national registry of dealer records, limiting ATF inspections to once per year (unless there are multiple infractions), softening what is defined as “engaging in the business” of selling firearms, and allowing licensed dealers to sell firearms at “gun shows” in their state. It also loosened regulations on the sale and transfer of ammunition. The bill also codified some gun control measures, including expanding the GCA to prohibit civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns made after May 19, 1986, and redefining “silencer” to include parts intended to make silencers.[/quote] It tuns out that they decided that in exchange for offering protections to gun owners in OTHER ways, and in the process decided that fully automatic weapons would be too dangerous to easily obtain. Now, as I've said time and time again, historically, maybe, they haven't been used to commit a lot of crime. But a fully automatic weapon is inherently more dangerous by design, and it's probably a good thing they added such a tough measure when they did, otherwise we might be talking about whether to [I]close[/I] the registry today. You [B]can[/B] still get a machine gun, it's not impossible, just difficult, like it should be, because the only way to ensure you don't make it easy for criminals to buy one is to make it tough for everybody to buy one, so much as you're able, and the compromise that you get is you [B]still[/B] get to have an avenue of obtaining one, so if you desperately want one then I suggest that you find out everything you need to do, follow the steps, and acquire one. [editline]24th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;53156914][I]The design does not matter.[/I] What something was designed for has no bearing on whether or not a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own it. We come back to, a ban must be justified, and proof must be substantiated by the pro-ban crowd, based on evidence that the item is a threat to society. Of the two crimes committed with machine guns [I]since 1934,[/I] one was done by a cop and the other was self-defense and ruled as such. A single crime does not justify such a ban, or even the level of restriction placed on it. As I said above, I do [I]not[/I] advocate for loosening the checks and precautions. I advocate for opening legal channels for law-abiding citizens to purchase items they want. Think of it this way: Opening the registry would remove the perceived [I]need[/I] for items like bump stocks, and thus you could be better assured that someone with an automatic had gone through stringent legal channels to obtain said automatic, rather than just any old guy who put a stock on his rifle.[/QUOTE] It's not just if it's a threat to society, but [I]how[/I]. Obviously, people are more threatening to society than a machine gun, because people are clever bastards when it comes to inventing ways to arm ourselves. But guess what greatly increases a person's damage potential? A gun! And what bumps it up even higher? A [I]fully automatic[/I] gun. I've already explained how the [I]frequency[/I] of violent gun crime [I]with schools alone[/I] have gone up, are still going up [I]waaay[/I] faster than anyone should be comfortable with, and there's no sign of it slowing down, and in instances of a single person causing mass casualties, and do NOT bring up that knife massacre in China where a bunch of people died, because 1) it was a VERY crowded space, and 2) there were 4 attackers, not one guy, so it's nothing similar at all to how much a gun increases your lethal effectiveness, and besides, imagine if they had guns, let alone fully automatic ones. So if you want to keep beating the dead horse that is the "but the number of crimes!" argument, then consider this: What if keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of just anybody who wants one with less effort than it currently (and possibly at the time heavy-handedly) is, turns out to be a good idea given the current climate the US is in? I'm sure there's tons of people who would LOVE to own a machine gun just for funsies who never, ever, ever, [I]ever[/I] intend to shoot [I]any[/I] living thing with it, if they fire it at all, but this nation isn't ready for it yet. It's also funny because that Time article suggests that the automatic weapons registry was closed as well as offering additional protections for gun owners in other ways, such as neutering that notorious registry that's going to be used to gobble up everyone's guns someday, if you ask a lot of 2A fans.
The 1986 Hughes Amendment was not part of the original FOPA. It was an amendment that was shoved through by way of a voice vote, which doesn't even need a recorded number of votes to be valid. That is not compromise and it does not add to public safety. It had no point being in the FOPA The whole point is that legal machine guns have such a high price point for purchase, that these other devices popped up in order to get around it. I looked into buying one for myself, and I did not balk at the nearly year paperwork processing time, form 4, background checks, 200 dollar tax stamp, all the pain in the ass BS behind it. No, I balked at the 25,000 USD price tag it had. And that was for an M16A1. That's one of the cheaper ones. Instead, when slidefire came out with their stocks, I was intrigued. Then the FOSTECH Echo trigger came out, and I rolled with that instead. 300 dollar trigger on my custom AR-15 VS 25 grand. It's really easy to see who won here. I would have gladly paid 3 grand and gone through the process. The Hughes Amendment did absolutely nothing to protect the public. Instead, it made much smarter gun manufacturers and accessory manufacturers. If anything, it absolutely created a problem where there was no prior problem before. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] Also, being in the Army, I have met people from all walks of life. I know one who used to do shady things in ports, and joined to get away from that life. He was telling me about how it is dead easy to get fully automatic AKMs for about 300 bucks on the "black market." I have since known others that can back up that statement. I would never buy one, because I don't want to be a felon, however it strikes me as ironic that I'm the one being restricted and monetarily punished by the law when these dudes don't give a shit, and can get em for way cheaper than a lawful person ever could. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] Oh, and hitting the giggle switch on a select fire weapon won't suddenly increase its lethality. In fact, it dumps a lot of rounds downrange at complete sacrifice to any sort of accuracy. Single aimed shots are way more lethal than full auto spray n' pray. It's for suppressive fire only, and only to be used in dire circumstances like a close ambush to keep the heads down of the ambushers so you can get the hell out of there. Stuff like that. When room clearing, you are firing with semi. Reopening the registry will do nothing of what you are implying might happen as a result.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;53157174]The 1986 Hughes Amendment was not part of the original FOPA. It was an amendment that was shoved through by way of a voice vote, which doesn't even need a recorded number of votes to be valid. That is not compromise and it does not add to public safety. It had no point being in the FOPA The whole point is that legal machine guns have such a high price point for purchase, that these other devices popped up in order to get around it. I looked into buying one for myself, and I did not balk at the nearly year paperwork processing time, form 4, background checks, 200 dollar tax stamp, all the pain in the ass BS behind it. No, I balked at the 25,000 USD price tag it had. And that was for an M16A1. That's one of the cheaper ones. Instead, when slidefire came out with their stocks, I was intrigued. Then the FOSTECH Echo trigger came out, and I rolled with that instead. 300 dollar trigger on my custom AR-15 VS 25 grand. It's really easy to see who won here. I would have gladly paid 3 grand and gone through the process. The Hughes Amendment did absolutely nothing to protect the public. Instead, it made much smarter gun manufacturers and accessory manufacturers. If anything, it absolutely created a problem where there was no prior problem before. [editline]25th February 2018[/editline] Also, being in the Army, I have met people from all walks of life. I know one who used to do shady things in ports, and joined to get away from that life. He was telling me about how it is dead easy to get fully automatic AKMs for about 300 bucks on the "black market." I have since known others that can back up that statement. I would never buy one, because I don't want to be a felon, however it strikes me as ironic that I'm the one being restricted and monetarily punished by the law when these dudes don't give a shit, and can get em for way cheaper than a lawful person ever could.[/QUOTE] You know who else wins from this situation? The "creepy kid" who can buy a gun and, quite potentially, in the same day, blow dozens or more kids away with little to no effort, and all he likely had to do at the worst to pull it off was mow some lawns. He went to [I]buy[/I] a gun. Why would you [I]buy[/I] a gun to commit a crime if you have easy access to one already? The answer: You don't. So clearly, since he bought his, rather than "borrow" someone else's that he had [I]easy access[/I] to (and remember, the key here is finding a correlation between how dangerous something is ("I want a *fully automatic weapon*, please!"), what it's intended for ("What for?" "Oh, you know, reasons..."/"That's none of your business"), and how it's intended by design and manufacture to be used("*fully automatic weapon* is a device intended to kill lots of people at once") to determine things like how easy they should be to get. [editline]24th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=SKEEA;53157174]Oh, and hitting the giggle switch on a select fire weapon won't suddenly increase its lethality. In fact, it dumps a lot of rounds downrange at complete sacrifice to any sort of accuracy. Single aimed shots are way more lethal than full auto spray n' pray. It's for suppressive fire only, and only to be used in dire circumstances like a close ambush to keep the heads down of the ambushers so you can get the hell out of there. Stuff like that. When room clearing, you are firing with semi. Reopening the registry will do nothing of what you are implying might happen as a result.[/QUOTE] So I guess all those poor boys at Normandy died mostly from mines and regular single-shot/semi-auto fire, eh? And if that's all it's good for, then why the push for machine guns to begin with? And then the sub-machine gun? And then the assault rifle, which was basically both a machine gun and a rifle at the same time, making it more versatile, so you can either spray into a group, and hit multiple people, injuring many if not killing them, but if you send enough bullets into a crowd, especially from an elevated position as we've seen, it doesn't matter the accuracy or even the caliber. It's simple math: More bullets into more people means more chances to hit which means more chances to wound which means more chances to kill. Also, as for the legality of buying it on the "black market", why should you care if you so badly want one? Why are you afraid of becoming a felon? Nobody's going to know, right? You're not going to do something stupid with something dangerous but perfectly safe when used by a responsible guy like you, riiight?:thatwasfunnyright:
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157221]You know who else wins from this situation? The "creepy kid" who can buy a gun and, quite potentially, in the same day, blow dozens or more kids away with little to no effort, and all he likely had to do at the worst to pull it off was mow some lawns. He went to [I]buy[/I] a gun. Why would you [I]buy[/I] a gun to commit a crime if you have easy access to one already? The answer: You don't. So clearly, since he bought his, rather than "borrow" someone else's that he had [I]easy access[/I] to (and remember, the key here is finding a correlation between how dangerous something is ("I want a *fully automatic weapon*, please!"), what it's intended for ("What for?" "Oh, you know, reasons..."/"That's none of your business"), and how it's intended by design and manufacture to be used("*fully automatic weapon* is a device intended to kill lots of people at once") to determine things like how easy they should be to get. [editline]24th February 2018[/editline] So I guess all those poor boys at Normandy died mostly from mines and regular single-shot/semi-auto fire, eh? And if that's all it's good for, then why the push for machine guns to begin with? And then the sub-machine gun? And then the assault rifle, which was basically both a machine gun and a rifle at the same time, making it more versatile, so you can either spray into a group, and hit multiple people, injuring many if not killing them, but if you send enough bullets into a crowd, especially from an elevated position as we've seen, it doesn't matter the accuracy or even the caliber. It's simple math: More bullets into more people means more chances to hit which means more chances to wound which means more chances to kill. Also, as for the legality of buying it on the "black market", why should you care if you so badly want one? Why are you afraid of becoming a felon? Nobody's going to know, right? You're not going to do something stupid with something dangerous but perfectly safe when used by a responsible guy like you, riiight?:thatwasfunnyright:[/QUOTE] why is star right above reply jfc yeah a good chunk of those poor boys at Normandy were killed by bolt action rifles. barely any stg44s were issued at that point, mg42s were used as emplaced weapons to suppress an enemy advance so basically only soldiers charging at machine gun nests got hit by those, and mp40s were used almost exclusively by paratroopers. on the axis side most of them got killed by semi-auto m1 garands or mortar fire. the real world ain't a video game, soldiers don't get to just pick up the most expensive and complicated gun ever made, they get what they're issued. late war stuff like that, they were issued the cheapest guns the country could get their hands on [editline]24th February 2018[/editline] and no, full auto weapons arent designed to kill lots of people at once, theyre not even designed to kill people at all. theyre designed to keep enemy combatants behind cover.
[QUOTE=butre;53157400]why is star right above reply jfc yeah a good chunk of those poor boys at Normandy were killed by bolt action rifles. barely any stg44s were issued at that point, mg42s were used as emplaced weapons to suppress an enemy advance so basically only soldiers charging at machine gun nests got hit by those, and mp40s were used almost exclusively by paratroopers. on the axis side most of them got killed by semi-auto m1 garands or mortar fire. the real world ain't a video game, soldiers don't get to just pick up the most expensive and complicated gun ever made, they get what they're issued. [editline]24th February 2018[/editline] and no, full auto weapons arent designed to kill lots of people at once, theyre not even designed to kill people at all. theyre designed to keep enemy combatants behind cover.[/QUOTE] ...Because if they're NOT in cover, WHAT could possibly happen to them? And no shit most of the people killed by MGs in Normandy were killed when they charged them, they HAD to charge them because they're DANGEROUS to leave un-checked, and of course the nest is going to shoot back instead of sitting there and letting themselves get flanked. Jesus Christ, dude. Seriously, [I]not designed to kill people at all[/I]?! Are you ill?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157410]...Because if they're NOT in cover, WHAT could possibly happen to them?[/QUOTE] I could make that argument about a hammer. the fact is machine guns weren't conceived to kill, they were conceived as a method for buying time. [editline]24th February 2018[/editline] lol no you don't charge machine gun nests, you flank them or wait till they blow out the barrel to throw a grenade in you obviously have zero clue about military tactics if you think machine guns are for killing. enemy casualty is not an objective of machine guns in any way shape or form
[QUOTE=butre;53157421]I could make that argument about a hammer. the fact is machine guns weren't conceived to kill, they were conceived as a method for buying time.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously comparing the amount of killing power a hammer grants vs. crowds Are we seriously have this conversation now? Like, Jesus elephant-rimming Christ, okay, cool, fine, tell you what: Here's an experiment you can try at home! Get a shitload of mannequins, like, 100 or more. They don't have to be store-bought manequinns, they can be shitty home-made cardboard box mannequins, just get a shitload of squishy targets that can fall when damaged. Now you have some rules: Put them in an open-ish area roughly 5-10 feet apart. Your goal is to use one of four items to "destroy" as many mannequins as possible. A mannequin is considered "destroyed if it has at least one puncture through the brain area, or 2+ punctures in the mid-section/torso. Puncture meaning you need enough force to go through whatever squishy material your mannequins are made of. Each puncture must be verified to have been its own unique shot, shots that pass through squishy mannequins don't count. And these items are located on a table roughly 150 feet away, or about the distance one would signal a turn on a highway, simply laying there, making them all as easy to acquire. And the items are as follows: A Thompson sub-machine gun, fully automatic, with 4 fully loaded drum magazines. A semi-automatic AR-15. A single-action revolver, any caliber of your choice. A 5 lbs. steel engineer's hammer. Which would you chose to destroy the most targets as quickly as possible in this scenario, and why? For fun, you can do simple alterations to make it more or less difficult. Put the mannequins in an enclosed space, make certain tools easier/harder to get than others, give yourself more or less time, do it blind-folded, go nuts.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157410]...Because if they're NOT in cover, WHAT could possibly happen to them? And no shit most of the people killed by MGs in Normandy were killed when they charged them, they HAD to charge them because they're DANGEROUS to leave un-checked, and of course the nest is going to shoot back instead of sitting there and letting themselves get flanked. Jesus Christ, dude. Seriously, [I]not designed to kill people at all[/I]?! Are you ill?[/QUOTE] you clearly know very little about the use of automatic fire in warfare, so I don't know why you're choosing to act so smug and indignant There's a reason that soldiers are trained to rarely, if ever, use automatic fire. There might be niche scenarios where automatic fire is more deadly than SA/burst, but those situations practically never come up in combat, and those aren't the situations automatic weapons were designed for. like it's not even a super important point but for some reason you just can't admit you're wrong
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.