[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.
[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]
You're the one who brought up charging machine gun nests to begin with!
[quote]so basically only soldiers charging at machine gun nests got hit by those[/quote]
[editline]24th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157463]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.[/QUOTE]
Oh Jesus fu- Okay, fine, maybe you're right, they're not that lethal in warfare.
But we're not talking about warfare. We're not talking about warzones. We're talking about [I][U]the public space[/U][/I]. [I]Schools.[/I] Things like that? Where people are just ripe for an automatic weapon to cause mass casualties, yes or no? I'm VERY interested in seeing what kooky mental gymnastics you guys pull out to skirt around this one.
You guys keep trying to paint this picture to make automatic weapons seem completely harmless but they're fundamentally [I]not[/I].
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157466]You're the one who brought up charging machine gun nests to begin with![/QUOTE]
the fuck are you talking about? you said that they have to charge machine gun nests, I said no, that's not how you fight them. when I said "soldiers charging machine gun nests" I was referring to people with more balls than brains running into bullets, not saying that's what you're supposed to do
[editline]24th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157466]You're the one who brought up charging machine gun nests to begin with!
[editline]24th February 2018[/editline]
Oh Jesus fu- Okay, fine, maybe you're right, they're not that lethal in warfare.
But we're not talking about warfare. We're not talking about warzones. We're talking about [I][U]the public space[/U][/I]. [I]Schools.[/I] Things like that? Where people are just ripe for an automatic weapon to cause mass casualties, yes or no? I'm VERY interested in seeing what kooky mental gymnastics you guys pull out to skirt around this one.
You guys keep trying to paint this picture to make automatic weapons seem completely harmless but they're fundamentally [I]not[/I].[/QUOTE]
an automatic weapon is harmless. it takes a shitbag to point it at someone and pull the trigger.
[QUOTE=butre;53157480]the fuck are you talking about? you said that they have to charge machine gun nests, I said no, that's not how you fight them. when I said "soldiers charging machine gun nests" I was referring to people with more balls than brains running into bullets, not saying that's what you're supposed to do[/QUOTE]
Good on you then for nit-picking literally the most irrelevant points of my posts.
The point is that contrary to all this tripe you and others keep bringing up to try and paint fully automatic weapons as completely safe (which is horse-shit because otherwise they'd do fuck-all as a suppressive weapon, wouldn't they? What good is suppression if it's not dangerous, right? It's like you can't ignore how [I]lethal[/I]) it might be...), and it's starting to paint you as absolutely bonkers.
i just cant see the logic behind blaming an inanimate object for a human's misdeeds
[QUOTE=butre;53157490]i just cant see the logic behind blaming an inanimate object for a human's misdeeds[/QUOTE]
"I have created a button that ends all life on earth. Nobody's allowed to ban or destroy it because nobody's used it for its purpose yet - you can't blame it for the things it might do or even worry about them because it hasn't done them yet. It's totally harmless until someone uses it, which I have done my best to make it as possible to make easy, reliable, and obvious on how to do precisely that."
We may as well be calling to unban the usage of asbestos in building materials here because it's 'harmless until humans are exposed to it'.
[QUOTE=butre;53157480]
an automatic weapon is harmless. it takes a shitbag to point it at someone and pull the trigger.[/QUOTE]
All it takes is a person?
A person to [I]acquire[/I] the weapon?
How can you not see the point by now? There is literally NO justification is making it LEGALLY easier if not more inviting to buy a fully automatic weapon that was made easier to buy to satisfy your need to own one "because" or whatever other reason you've decided upon, if it means making it easier for a criminal to be that shitbag who gets to point it and pull the trigger in what is most likely going to be a scenario that is [I]nothing[/I] like what you keep suggesting it was [I]designed[/I] for.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157493]"I have created a button that ends all life on earth. Nobody's allowed to ban or destroy it because nobody's used it for its purpose yet - you can't blame it for the things it might do or even worry about them because it hasn't done them yet."[/QUOTE]
if that was possible outside of terrible sci-fi movies it would fall under weapons of mass destruction which are already illegal as hell and nobody is arguing for them
[QUOTE=butre;53157503]if that was possible outside of terrible sci-fi movies it would fall under weapons of mass destruction which are already illegal as hell and nobody is arguing for them[/QUOTE]
Oh, wait, so there IS some "sane" limit on how dangerous something can be before you're allowed to privately own it? What line is that, good sir? How deadly is "TOO deadly" before you consider making it more difficult to acquire.
[QUOTE=butre;53157503]if that was possible outside of terrible sci-fi movies it would fall under weapons of mass destruction which are already illegal as hell and nobody is arguing for them[/QUOTE]
Asbestos being allowed in the construction of buildings can certainly cause just as much suffering and death as a 'weapon of mass destruction' - which is why it was banned.
People will still argue for it because 'we can make it safe, promise'. Thankfully, people see through that - realizing that it's not worth the risk to allow it in the cases where people [I]will[/I] be negligent and cause untold suffering for years without a knowable cause.
If your item, allowed to be used negligently, causes far more harm than it would otherwise do good, then I think it's a fine time to question whether or not access to it should be restricted or banned without particular prior purpose being both established and proceduralized to minimize risks of negligence and misuse.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157466]Oh Jesus fu- Okay, fine, maybe you're right, they're not that lethal in warfare.
But we're not talking about warfare. We're not talking about warzones. We're talking about [I][U]the public space[/U][/I]. [I]Schools.[/I] Things like that? Where people are just ripe for an automatic weapon to cause mass casualties, yes or no? I'm VERY interested in seeing what kooky mental gymnastics you guys pull out to skirt around this one.
You guys keep trying to paint this picture to make automatic weapons seem completely harmless but they're fundamentally [I]not[/I].[/QUOTE]
if you're walking around a school gunning down fleeing children the only thing automatic fire is going to do is make you run out of ammunition faster
like don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't kill a lot of people with an automatic weapon. You can with practically any gun. Guns are really good at killing people. But automatic weapons aren't better at killing people because they shoot faster. That's like, videogame logic.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157509]if you're walking around a school gunning down fleeing children the only thing automatic fire is going to do is make you run out of ammunition faster
like don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't kill a lot of people with an automatic weapon. You can with practically any gun. Guns are really good at killing people. But automatic weapons aren't better at killing people because they shoot faster. That's like, videogame logic.[/QUOTE]
So for what purpose do you need a semi-automatic for? It just allows you to fire faster, right?
And we're talking about firing into crowded spaces here. Not the open fields of Kursk.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157502]All it takes is a person?
A person to [I]acquire[/I] the weapon?
How can you not see the point by now? There is literally NO justification is making it LEGALLY easier if not more inviting to buy a fully automatic weapon that was made easier to buy to satisfy your need to own one "because" or whatever other reason you've decided upon, if it means making it easier for a criminal to be that shitbag who gets to point it and pull the trigger in what is most likely going to be a scenario that is [I]nothing[/I] like what you keep suggesting it was [I]designed[/I] for.[/QUOTE]
there was no justification for closing the registry in the first place. a grand total of two people have died from legally owned automatic weapons. one of them was self defense and the other was killed by a cop. you're more likely to get struck by fucking lightning but nobody is calling to ban the sky
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157509]But automatic weapons aren't better at killing people because they shoot faster. That's like, videogame logic.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I'd say they do raise the lethality of the event somewhat otherwise because most people are terrible shots. The gun increases the amount of fire being delivered to a particular spot at a given time by being automatic, thereby increasing the likelihood of a hit being delivered by a single pull of the trigger; possibly turning a single miss/hit into a more probabilistic affair.
That assumes the operator of the weapon knows how to manage recoil though and isn't just letting the gun fly about without a care in the world.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157522]I dunno, I'd say they do raise the lethality of the event somewhat otherwise because most people are terrible shots. The gun increases the amount of fire being delivered to a particular spot at a given time by being automatic, thereby increasing the likelihood of a hit being delivered by a single pull of the trigger.
That assumes the operator of the weapon knows how to manage recoil though and isn't just letting the gun fly about without a care in the world.[/QUOTE]
yeah except if you don't fire in bursts you're reloading every 2 or 3 seconds and running completely out of ammo in 30 or 40 seconds. I would bet money that less people would have died if he were carrying an automatic weapon
[QUOTE=butre;53157518]there was no justification for closing the registry in the first place. a grand total of two people have died from legally owned automatic weapons. one of them was self defense and the other was killed by a cop. you're more likely to get struck by fucking lightning but nobody is calling to ban the sky[/QUOTE]
question
has the incidence of crimes involving illegally obtained automatic weapons gone down since the implementation of the hughes amendment?
[QUOTE=butre;53157528]yeah except if you don't fire in bursts you're reloading every 2 or 3 seconds and running completely out of ammo in 30 or 40 seconds. I would bet money that less people would have died if he were carrying an automatic weapon[/QUOTE]
That would depend on how many of his misses would've been converted to hits otherwise.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53157517]So you mean to say, that the background checks and waiting period for an automatic weapon, would not be sufficient enough to stop a crime from being committed with one, yes? You're straight up saying "background checks, storage requirements, and waiting periods, do nothing to stop criminals".
So why the hell are you arguing in favor of these things. If they're so obviously inadequate? Lets stop beating around the bush. Because you don't want those things. You don't want gun reform, you want gun bans. At the end of the day, that's what you're looking for. And nothing is safe from the gun ban either. You'll ban assault weapons then another texas clock tower will happen, then you'll push for "ban on high capacity assault bolt action rifles", and then an incident will happen with a pistol and you'll push for "ban on evil baby killing assault pistols, with shoulder things that go up". And you wouldn't stop until everything is banned, and yet big fucking surprise, crime hasn't been affected in the slightest, and our rates are still stupidly high, and we've done nothing to actually address this.
And then the left loses every election for the next fucking decade, like they did under the '94 assault weapons ban, because "its totally worth it guys". And societal reform NEVER happens, because you were so shortsighted you went for the bandaid, and the fucking country bled out from the gaping hole in its chest.
You make arguments like these, and wonder why gun owners wouldn't compromise anymore. Gee, I wonder why?[/QUOTE]
I NEVER ONCE IN THAT QUOTE SAID THAT IT PREVENTED 100% OF EVERY SINGLE GUN CRIME THAT COULD EVER BE COMMITTED FROM HERE ON FOREVER AND EVER UNTIL THE END OF TIME. NEVER ONCE HAVE I SAID THAT. IF YOU CAN POINT OUT WHERE I HAVE EXPLICITLY STATED THAT IN THAT QUOTE, THEN I TOXX MYSELF TO BE PERMAD WITH NO ESCAPE CLAUSE.
The point I am arguing is that there is literally no point in making such things easier to acquire LEGALLY so that they CAN be used in crime, and that f you're not planning on doing something illegal with it in a hurry, then you should have literally zero objection to waiting a little longer or having to buy a safe if it means saving even ONE life. It doesn't have to stop every single one, if it stops ONE, then I'll call that progress.
If some whack-job adult decides he'd going to shoot up a school, and has had no criminal connections before, what do you think his mostly likely course of action is?
1) Go down to the gun store, wait maybe 15 minutes, get his AR-15, and walk-out, or
2) Risk exposing himself to investigators by looking for a connection to get one illegally, likely having to wait anywhere from hours to possibly weeks.
Because in the case of the kid at Parkland, the answer is obvious.
Guns in the illegal market are another matter for another series of social directives and legislation.
[QUOTE=butre;53157490]i just cant see the logic behind blaming an inanimate object for a human's misdeeds[/QUOTE]
I'm not blaming the object. The object cannot help how it was built. The object cannot help anything.
What I've BEEN SAYING ALL THIS TIME is they shouldn't be easy to get. Period. Machine guns, hell, even semi-autos. Make 'em tougher to get. Don't ban 'em, don't confiscate 'em, just make them tougher to get.
Will it prevent all instances of any future school shootings from here on out? NO. It doesn't have to. It just has to prevent ANY.
Will it prevent criminals from getting guns illegally? NO. It's not supposed to. It's supposed to essentially NOT be the state's way of saying "Fuck it, not our problem what you do with it, knock yourself out" when there are people having more difficulty buying [I]cough syrup[/I] even if there's basically next to no scenarios in which they could damage anyone other than themselves with that cough syrup.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157529]question
has the incidence of crimes involving illegally obtained automatic weapons gone down since the implementation of the hughes amendment?[/QUOTE]
no, it's actually gone up just a hair in the wake of the atf gunwalking scandal. the ones not cartel related are almost exclusively ones that were imported illegally or built from scratch illegally, with an occasional filed disconnector thrown in here and there, and none of that is anything that banning legal machine guns could stop. besides that, crimes committed with illegal machine guns were rare before and after the Hughes amendment anyway. it's something like once a year and it's always gang related.
Zero-Point, I find it impressive that you continue to use smug, condescending "arguments" when you completely fail to understand what he's saying. Nobody here is arguing for off the shelf select fire rifles being sold like any other firearm and subject only to a 4473. All that's being stated is that reopening the registry, subject to the exact same NFA paperwork and background check process as currently exists for existing machine guns, would avoid the issue of bumpstocks being accessible due to a lack of demand. The way you bring up "well if it's so easy to get guns off the black market why don't you" as an epic zinger demonstrates your obvious complete lack of respect for the other side. I refuse to believe that you don't understand why someone would not want to be a felon while enjoying their hobby, or the implications of bringing an illegal machine gun to a public range. It's very simple to create a simple blowback automatic, or a full auto sear, but intentionally breaking the law can and will lead to seizures and arrests as the ATF is notorious for enforcing these sorts of things. You continue to not only ignore reasonable statements, but make fallacious, emotional arguments that only serve to derail discussion. Your what-ifs and absolutely horrendous smug remarks and theatrics only make you come across as an asshole and complete idiot. Seeing as you behave similarly across several threads it's evident that you do not understand nor respect firearm owners and have a personal dislike for firearms that you are heavily biased towards. If you want to continue to argue without any respect then I fail to see why anyone should respect your opinion on the topic in the future. I could repeat many of the same points that others have but clearly that's a waste of time.
[QUOTE=butre;53157550]no, it's actually gone up just a hair in the wake of the atf gunwalking scandal. the ones not cartel related are almost exclusively ones that were imported illegally or built from scratch illegally, with an occasional filed disconnector thrown in here and there, and none of that is anything that banning legal machine guns could stop. besides that, crimes committed with illegal machine guns were rare before and after the Hughes amendment anyway. it's something like once a year and it's always gang related.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any stats for that? Searching for gun crime related stats on google is absolute cancer.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53157551]Except you're just going to move the tool of choice, even if guns magically disappeared today. Even if EVERY gun disappeared, right now, you'd still have massive amounts of gang violence, and school stabbings instead of shootings.
Because we've done nothing to address society as a whole. Because you can only do one (regardless of those who scream that we can do both), and gun control is the easier thing.[/quote]
If you've paid ANY attention at all to the thread, you'll see that I've already addressed and considered this (the "society as a whole" problem), and even stated that even though you see stricter regulations as a "band-aid" solution to a bigger problem, it may be better than allowing us to bleed-out while waiting to fix the bigger problem. And band-aids aren't permanent, death is.
[quote]Because you don't care if it's violence, you care if its being done with a gun. That's it.[/quote]
I do care if it's violence, but if there's currently no feasible way to completely stop the violence, I'd rather a solution that makes it harder for them to get something that allows them to commit more violence against more victims more quickly, [I]legally[/I] of all things, and I'm not even asking to ban or confiscate any of it, but you're all acting like I don't want anyone to have these things, when that's not at all what I'm saying. "But they can still get one" Yeah, and so can you. And if you're only using a machine gun for "shits and giggles" and not some great and mighty need, then surely you can afford to wait until you can get one legally, right?
[quote]"if it stops one". So you'd outlaw freedom of speech, if it'd save a life? You'd outlaw freedom from search without a warrant, if it'd save a life? Surely there's a line here. If we're doing anything and everything to save lives, then surely we should keep people in their homes, with no electricity (so we can't have fires), eating only the healthiest of foods, drinking only water. Correct? Anything to save a life, right?[/QUOTE]
You keep saying "outlaw", as in "ban". Again, did I say "ban guns"? No, I said "keep them hard to get, if they're currently easy to get then make it a little tougher". Nobody's guns get banned, nobody's preventing from buying the gun of their choice legally if they choose to, and we can focus on the problems that cause/allow people to buy guns illegally to do crimes with. Deal?
[QUOTE=JETFIGHTER5;53157563]Zero-Point, I find it impressive that you continue to use smug, condescending "arguments" when you completely fail to understand what he's saying. Nobody here is arguing for off the shelf select fire rifles being sold like any other firearm and subject only to a 4473. All that's being stated is that reopening the registry, subject to the exact same NFA paperwork and background check process as currently exists for existing machine guns, would avoid the issue of bumpstocks being accessible due to a lack of demand. The way you bring up "well if it's so easy to get guns off the black market why don't you" as an epic zinger demonstrates your obvious complete lack of respect for the other side. I refuse to believe that you don't understand why someone would not want to be a felon while enjoying their hobby, or the implications of bringing an illegal machine gun to a public range. It's very simple to create a simple blowback automatic, or a full auto sear, but intentionally breaking the law can and will lead to seizures and arrests as the ATF is notorious for enforcing these sorts of things. You continue to not only ignore reasonable statements, but make fallacious, emotional arguments that only serve to derail discussion. Your what-ifs and absolutely horrendous smug remarks and theatrics only make you come across as an asshole and complete idiot. Seeing as you behave similarly across several threads it's evident that you do not understand nor respect firearm owners and have a personal dislike for firearms that you are heavily biased towards. If you want to continue to argue without any respect then I fail to see why anyone should respect your opinion on the topic in the future. I could repeat many of the same points that others have but clearly that's a waste of time.[/QUOTE]
And YOU'RE/THEY'RE not getting that the reason bump-stocks and AR-15s are a hot-topic issue to begin with is because of what's going on in the news lately, not only because of what they are and what they can do, but because of how [I]easy[/I] they were to get. [I]THAT[/I] is the WHOLE point I've been trying to make. Not "BAN ALL GUNS", not "THIS WILL FIX EVERYTHING TRUST ME GUYS" ,literally just "make them tougher to get so it's not so easy to get one to enhance the damage one can cause until we can find an acceptable fix for the root cause".
I will repeat that, on a separate line, so that I can partially ensure that you have read this, if not understood it.
All I want is for it to remain/get tougher to acquire dangerous fire-arms legally while not making it 100% impossible for citizens with clean records to obtain them. That is all.
Repeat.
All I want is for it to remain/get tougher to acquire dangerous fire-arms legally while not making it 100% impossible for citizens with clean records to obtain them.
Any other arguments I've made were to counter silly statements like "machine guns aren't meant to kill, you silly man!"
[QUOTE=butre;53157503]if that was possible outside of terrible sci-fi movies it would fall under weapons of mass destruction which are already illegal as hell and nobody is arguing for them[/QUOTE]
Then try and find the logic that per se (on its own) justifies not regulating guns.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157569]Do you have any stats for that? Searching for gun crime related stats on google is absolute cancer.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html[/url]
here's some older statistics that essentially say illegal machine guns were a non issue in the time around the ban.
there's not a national list of what kind of gun was used in a crime so basically you just have to call departments and ask or extrapolate from available data.
in fact if you want to get real funny with the numbers, you could argue that the ban increased incidents with legally owned machine guns, since both incidents occurred after 1986
"stricter background checks" and "common sense reform" are solutions to gun crime in the same way that "establish a proactive paradigm" is a business strategy
They're meaningless non answers. It's like saying "increase vetting on immigrants" or "enforce the law harder".
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53157581]Ok, i'll bite, what do you have in mind? I'll humor you this once, if you're going to say "well we should start with an AWB" then i'm not even remotely going to acknowledge your argument. Go ahead, what's your suggestion?[/QUOTE]
Longer, mandatory waiting times. Length debatable.
Background checks MUST be completed before you can proceed.
Mandatory training for that class of fire-arm with licensing (similar to Scandinavia IIRC).
Mandatory safe storage requirements need to be met (sturdy gun safe of any size, even portable, at minimum, up for debate/compromise as long as it does [I]something[/I] to alleviate "borrowing" guns for crimes)
Periodic review of certification for certain classes of fire-arm and above (up for debate on where to draw the line but I'd start with semi-auto anything, whether it's pistols, shotguns, whatever, going up to full auto, possibly with frequency of reviews dependent on class of weapon, again, up for debate)
Being on a criminal watch-list (FBI, NSA, etc.) bars you from buying new guns for a certain period upon its entry into the records (I think it's 5 years or something currently for the Terror Watch List?).
Regulate devices that circumvent the full-auto regulations [I]with[/I] full-auto regulations, in terms of difficulty to obtain (maybe not as extreme as a closed registry)
Military service could be utilized as a way to speed the process along somehow (either the courses thing is covered or something else, I dunno)
You are required to buy health insurance (this one's a bit of a joke but oh god imagine the uproar if you suggested mandatory health insurance in case you hurt yourself or somebody else with your gun)
[QUOTE=butre;53157592][url]http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html[/url]
here's some older statistics that essentially say illegal machine guns were a non issue in the time around the ban.
there's not a national list of what kind of gun was used in a crime so basically you just have to call departments and ask or extrapolate from available data.
in fact if you want to get real funny with the numbers, you could argue that the ban increased incidents with legally owned machine guns, since both incidents occurred after 1986[/QUOTE]
this is some guy's website that's citing some guy's book
not really something I could or anybody should cite for information, but the BJS report is interesting on it's own, even if it doesn't have the information I want.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53157625]Longer, mandatory waiting times. Length debatable.
Background checks MUST be completed before you can proceed.
Mandatory training for that class of fire-arm with licensing (similar to Scandinavia IIRC).
Mandatory safe storage requirements need to be met (sturdy gun safe of any size, even portable, at minimum, up for debate/compromise as long as it does [I]something[/I] to alleviate "borrowing" guns for crimes)
Periodic review of certification for certain classes of fire-arm and above (up for debate on where to draw the line but I'd start with semi-auto anything, whether it's pistols, shotguns, whatever, going up to full auto, possibly with frequency of reviews dependent on class of weapon, again, up for debate)
Being on a criminal watch-list (FBI, NSA, etc.) bars you from buying new guns for a certain period upon its entry into the records (I think it's 5 years or something currently for the Terror Watch List?).
Regulate devices that circumvent the full-auto regulations [I]with[/I] full-auto regulations, in terms of difficulty to obtain (maybe not as extreme as a closed registry)
Military service could be utilized as a way to speed the process along somehow (either the courses thing is covered or something else, I dunno)
You are required to buy health insurance (this one's a bit of a joke but oh god imagine the uproar if you suggested mandatory health insurance in case you hurt yourself or somebody else with your gun)[/QUOTE]
waiting periods have never proven to do anything to stop gun violence. if you want to kill someone to the extent that you're willing to go buy a gun, 3 days, 3 months, 3 decades ain't gonna stop you.
background checks generally are completed instantly. that's what the I in NICS stands for. the 3 day thing is a failsafe, not something that gets invoked on the regular.
bring firearms safety classes back to schools instead.
I would be ok with having to use gun locks for anything that's not on my person or within my reach. I'm not ok with having to buy a safe.
hahaha
you're probably on a watch list just for being on this forum. how many times have you seen birdman's title?
I could get behind that if the machine gun registry was reopened. if you want a giggle switch, pay the fee, if you want to pretend you have a giggle switch, pay the same fee, only difference is how much you spent on the device itself.
this point is pretty much made null by my suggestion to bring firearms safety courses back to schools.
[editline]24th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53157634]this is some guy's website that's citing some guy's book
not really something I could or anybody should cite for information, but the BJS report is interesting on it's own, even if it doesn't have the information I want.[/QUOTE]
again, there's not a national list. I only cited this website because they already did some of the legwork for me.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53157633]I have questions before I can debate you. Are the mandatory periods mitigated by those who already own a gun (after all, what's the point in waiting if you've already got the means).[/quote]
Possibly also mitigated by how many courses you've already taken and/or years without a violent incident, or even since your last purchase (like, buying a gun a month within your last gun purchase means you must wait at least another month to do so, but trying within a week means waiting [I]two[/I] months, thus slowing down one's ability to stock-pile for nefarious deeds, but not making it impossible, which could buy time for investigators to catch them before they commit the act. All while giving people who've never used a gun or might need time to think about, can have plenty of time to think about it/take the needed courses, maybe?
[quote]Who's paying for the training, how are you going to enforce safe storage requirements, how are you going to pay for review of certifications.[/quote]
This could be up to local law enforcement, private entities, certified by local law enforcement, local military bases, anyone willing to meet whatever both sides can agree are the minimum requirements to say "yes, this person is competent/responsible enough to own a gun. Part of the test may even involve monitoring you in a class with your "first" (that is, either your first licensing/training session, or your first-ever encounter with a fire-arm) exposure to a fire-arm, to see how you react. They could possibly judge your reaction based on how you handle it, as in whether or not you point it at someone, make threatening gestures with one, etc. Things that could indicate criminal or negligent behavior which may not necessarily completely fail you from the course, but may affect your score to certain degrees. Sort of a test of common sense vs. what you already know before we trust you with a dangerous weapon.
[quote]Watch lists I completely agree with, though only if there's a route of recourse for getting yourself off the list.[/quote]
I agree, as I've mentioned this as well when I've brought up "no freebies" on background checks, especially when it seems most people's shared experiences are akin to "since I truly AM a responsible law-abiding citizen informing the necessary witnesses that I have/wish to procure a dangerous item but I am competent in its safe use, handling, and storage, because that's the responsible thing to do, my background check takes all of 10-15 minutes" anyway.
[quote]Devices that circumvent FA regulations: Ban the shit out of them, as long as you reopen the machinegun registry. That way there's NO argument against it. If we're going to regulate them like FA, then why not just reopen the registry.[/quote]
If you're going to open the registry, then you might as well take the above systems we've discussed and slap on the regulations they have on full-autos anyway, since it's effectively, if not exactly, the same thing.
[quote]Military service does not mean the person is even remotely competent with a gun (there are plenty of non combat positions that get to shoot a grand total of 1 time a year).[/quote]
Most combat positions don't, know, but as far as I'm aware, most military training installations have some sort of trainers, materials, space, and certification to show you how to safely operate certain classes of weapons. They could also have access to body armor, bullet-proof shields, bunkers, you name it, and if you want it, you should be able to go through the required training to use it once you're certified competent enough to begin, as we currently do with military recruitment, except this time you're just trying to certify you're competent enough to own a Browning, not signing up to fire one out of an armored vehicle in a foreign country.
[quote]I'll leave out your joke requirement.[/QUOTE]
:cry:
Generally CCW permit holders act responsibly, though I don't know if that's a result of the process of obtaining one or just a result of more responsible gun owners obtaining them. I don't know if expanding that process to general firearm ownership would be practical or legal.
I think firearm related misdemeanor convictions should come with restrictions on gun ownership. Someone who mishandles guns probably shouldn't be allowed to use them freely.
I think it should be mandatory if you're a parent that your firearms be locked in a secure container, the enforcement of which feeds into that earlier point about more severely punishing the mishandling of firearms. People might not always do it, but it's something we really should encourage as much as possible.
Gang crime is kind of a separate issue. If we can't keep cocaine out of the hands of gangs, I don't see how we could keep guns out of their hands either. You kinda have to do something that targets gangs, not the things gangs use. And that's a really complicated subject.
[editline]25th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=butre;53157669]waiting periods have never proven to do anything to stop gun violence. if you want to kill someone to the extent that you're willing to go buy a gun, 3 days, 3 months, 3 decades ain't gonna stop you.
background checks generally are completed instantly. that's what the I in NICS stands for. the 3 day thing is a failsafe, not something that gets invoked on the regular.
bring firearms safety classes back to schools instead.
I would be ok with having to use gun locks for anything that's not on my person or within my reach. I'm not ok with having to buy a safe.
hahaha
you're probably on a watch list just for being on this forum. how many times have you seen birdman's title?
I could get behind that if the machine gun registry was reopened. if you want a giggle switch, pay the fee, if you want to pretend you have a giggle switch, pay the same fee, only difference is how much you spent on the device itself.
this point is pretty much made null by my suggestion to bring firearms safety courses back to schools.
[editline]24th February 2018[/editline]
again, there's not a national list. I only cited this website because they already did some of the legwork for me.[/QUOTE]
I think any device that disallows the use of a firearm that can't be easily bypassed through the use of cheap/easily available tools would be fine, be that a safe or sufficiently sturdy lock.
I wonder how practical it would be to just sell locking devices along with guns? I can't imagine it would add substantially more to the price.
[QUOTE=butre;53157669]waiting periods have never proven to do anything to stop gun violence. if you want to kill someone to the extent that you're willing to go buy a gun, 3 days, 3 months, 3 decades ain't gonna stop you.[/quote]
Would you consider the Parkland shooting gun violence? How long did he wait to get that gun? How often did people report him saying the things he did, and how often was the FBI allowed/capable (some expansion/third-parties may be required to enforce properly) of telling the [I]legal[/I] seller "No can do, sorry".
"Well he could have just gotten it from someone else!"
If he could have, why didn't he? Wouldn't you?
[quote]background checks generally are completed instantly. that's what the I in NICS stands for. the 3 day thing is a failsafe, not something that gets invoked on the regular.[/quote]
Yes, and so by the logic of "there's no point of keeping the registry on automatic weapons closed because they were used in crime so rarely to begin with", then you shouldn't mind the possibility that you MIGHT have to wait a while before you can get a gun, and if you fail, you can't get it unless you appeal the case.
[quote]bring firearms safety classes back to schools instead.[/quote]
Could do, but schools are under-funded as-is (maybe put those NRA dollars to work, eh?) and a localized source of stress for developing children these days, so I'm iffy on that.
[quote]I would be ok with having to use gun locks for anything that's not on my person or within my reach. I'm not ok with having to buy a safe.[/quote]
As long as the lock does as much as possible to ensure that the weapon is only dangerous in YOUR hands, I'm cool with it.
[quote]hahaha[/quote]
I don't necessarily mean some guy in a blue-collar shirt comes by and inspects your house to make sure your gun-safe is the right color or anything, but just updates on things like "Oh hey he has dementia now" or "hey he's developed PTSD, keep an eye on him, possibly suggest recommending aid in form of X", stuff like that.
[quote]you're probably on a watch list just for being on this forum. how many times have you seen birdman's title?[/quote]
I'm likely on a watch list just for being on the internet TBH.
[quote]I could get behind that if the machine gun registry was reopened. if you want a giggle switch, pay the fee, if you want to pretend you have a giggle switch, pay the same fee, only difference is how much you spent on the device itself.[/quote]
Agreed. If you want legal full-auto, then you gotta go through the hassle of getting it just like everyone else.
[quote]this point is pretty much made null by my suggestion to bring firearms safety courses back to schools.[/quote]
Not really, as public schools are a possible education outlet for fire-arms, but for the reasons I listed previously... :thinking:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.