• US Senate Democrats to start an Assault Weapons Ban bill; includes bump stocks & high capacity mags
    288 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873214]Doesnt mean passing laws that nerf legal rifles is meaningless, if this passes it might even give people hope that something will be done [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] I think if gun ranges were exceptions to these rules it would solve a lot of the hobbyist objections[/QUOTE] Yeah it kind of is meaningless. If the only effect of these laws is a decrease in peoples freedoms, why is that at all a good thing? If the only meaning of these laws is to restrict legal and peaceful ownership, why is that a good enough reason? You have already admitted that most crime is done with handguns and illegally obtained guns, so what on earth would this proposal accomplish other than arbitrarily restricting other people's ability to enjoy their freedoms, and how on earth can you stand behind that goal? Less freedom for only the sake of having less freedom should never be a goal. If you don't like assault weapons, then don't own one. But it's not ok for your paranoia to control other people's life choices. And if the goal is to "give hope" that something could be done, how does that make any sense!? Why on earth should you enact stupid laws, just to give hope that passing a smart law could be accomplished? Why not just try to pass the better law in the first place?
[QUOTE=Zombinie;52873243]Yeah it kind of is meaningless. If the only effect of these laws is a decrease in peoples freedoms, why is that at all a good thing? If the only meaning of these laws is to restrict legal and peaceful ownership, why is that a good enough reason? You have already admitted that most crime is done with handguns and illegally obtained guns, so what on earth would this proposal accomplish other than arbitrarily restricting other people's ability to enjoy their freedoms, and how on earth can you stand behind that goal? And if the goal is to "give hope" that something could be done, how does that make any sense!? Why on earth should you enact stupid laws, just to give hope that passing a smart law could be accomplished? Why not just try to pass the better law in the first place?[/QUOTE] Maybe we shouldn't have free ownership of guns in the first place? Maybe the reason why conservatives have been able to push us down for so long is because we lack hope? Illegal firearms are a serious problem in large part because of lax gun laws in the first place. No one loses freedom cuz they have to reload after 10 shots at a slower fire-rate, no one loses freedom cuz they can't get the AR-15, they lose freedom if we ban all guns. We seem to be obsessed with the 2nd amendment and we can't even have any basic common sense gun reform to disallow bump fire stocks and high-capacity magazines!
It's amazing to see politicians with so little notion of decent political strategy. Now of all times is literally the worst time to push gun control. The people who want it will vote for you anyways, and the people who don't want it could be swayed to your side by softening there and focusing on enforcement and other shit rather than trying to pass new restrictions... Instead they're probably going to try and push unpopular legislation right around the time they should be focusing on building up for a wave election in 2018. It's unbelievable how moronic the dem establishment can be sometimes.
This literally comes down to people defending their right to shoot at stuff in their backyard, and I'm sorry but your personal feelings don't take precedent over meaningful legislative change to attempt to curb the manufacture of EFFECTIVE dangerous killing machines.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873258]This literally comes down to people defending their right to shoot at stuff in their backyard, and I'm sorry but your personal feelings don't take precedent over meaningful legislative change to attempt to curb the manufacture of EFFECTIVE dangerous killing machines.[/QUOTE] Stop deflecting and answer the question with something more substantial than "gunz r ebil" Why is this necessary and how will it have an impact on crime rates? The last AWB made things [I]worse[/I] - how will this one, which is largely similar, make a different impact? If you can't come up with a coherent answer to this - it's time to admit you don't know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52873265]Stop deflecting and answer the question with something more substantial than "gunz r ebil" Why is this necessary and how will it have an impact on crime rates? The last AWB made things [I]worse[/I] - how will this one, which is largely similar, make a different impact?[/QUOTE] Take away the second most effective killing machines on the market? High capacity rifles modified to be nearly automatic? The only gun more dangerous is a fullly automatic shotgun with a magazine lol
[QUOTE=zombini;52872013]The reason it's so hard to do ANY gun control legislation in the US is that typically they're based on emotion and not facts. This AWB, and the one like it before, were written out of pure emotion with no regard for the facts, which is why it didn't reduce gun murders AT ALL. The only thing it did was fuck over the typical gun owner. Rifles of ANY type are present in something like 0.3% of murders, and yet Senators like Feinstein want to restrict those the most, and not cheap throwaway handguns like Hi-Points that make up the other 99.7% of murders. [/QUOTE] Handguns are far more practical though. While they may be used more often, they're useful for something other than going to the range.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52873186]Maybe there's some miscommunication here, but it really sounds like you're trying to imply that assault weapons are inherently more lethal than any other weapon regardless of how it functions or what type of round it uses. You realize rifles which use 22lr can still be classified as assault weapons right? Also break action shotguns exist.[/QUOTE] Maybe I've miscommunicated then. I don't buy into the definition of "assault weapons" at all, I think it's a very stupid politicized term that means very little - so creating a catch-all policy for something that has very stupid definitions is always going to be bollocks. What I [I]do[/I] think is that lethality of method has a significant impact on suicide rates because of the (relative) low chance of a second attempt, and that from the studies that I've seen, firearms have a lower rate of survival than other methods, and that within the category of firearms, there is again a variance in survival chance correlated with the method. So I think that reduction in the availability of more lethal methods of suicide would correspond to a reduction in suicide rates purely by way of increased survival chance of course, there's monstrous caveats in here just because statistics are a bitch (for example, people who survive a suicide attempt with a shotgun might have a 0% chance of reoccurrence rather than the ~9% for other methods! Or removing higher lethality methods might cause an increase in suicide rate among people who liked those methods etc), but I think my argument is sound not sound enough to enact policy, but that there should be research into it
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873275]Take away the second most effective killing machines on the market? High capacity rifles modified to be nearly automatic? The only gun more dangerous is a fullly automatic shotgun with a magazine lol[/QUOTE] You are literally clueless. Stop parroting emotional "think of the children!!!" talking points and do some research.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52873279]You are literally clueless. Stop parroting talking points and do some research.[/QUOTE] I'm not parroting shit, I'm telling you what the ballistics of the guns indicate as to their lethality. If you mean in terms of how many people they kill as compared to other guns in the population then yeah, they may be low, but that doesn't mean they aren't one of the best killing methods :v:
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873288]I'm not parroting shit, I'm telling you what the ballistics of the guns indicate as to their lethality. If you mean in terms of how many people they kill as compared to other guns in the population then yeah, they may be low, but that doesn't mean they aren't one of the best killing methods :v:[/QUOTE] You are literally clueless. Stop parroting emotional "think of the children!!!" talking points and do some research. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] I want you to, independently, put forth a little effort and conduct some research of your own into the statistics of crime. Then I want you to exercise critical thinking skills to see how all the pieces fit together. Eliminate your emotional predispositions and think with your brain, not your heart. Then I want you to come back and repeat with a straight face everything you've said in this thread.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52872361]Making a federal gun registry is actually illegal and the last time expanded background checks were on the table it was voted down by Republicans. I seriously doubt any gun control measure is going to pass before 2019 at the very earliest.[/QUOTE] [quote]Making a federal gun registry is actually illegal[/quote] Wow, for real? Suddenly trying to ban whatever guns you can makes a whole lot more sense.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873255]Maybe we shouldn't have free ownership of guns in the first place? Maybe the reason why conservatives have been able to push us down for so long is because we lack hope? Illegal firearms are a serious problem in large part because of lax gun laws in the first place. No one loses freedom cuz they have to reload after 10 shots at a slower fire-rate, no one loses freedom cuz they can't get the AR-15, they lose freedom if we ban all guns. We seem to be obsessed with the 2nd amendment and we can't even have any basic common sense gun reform to disallow bump fire stocks and high-capacity magazines![/QUOTE] Firstly, it's not a high capacity magazine. 30 rounds is standard capacity. And it has been repeatedly shown that magazine size limits are not "common sense" gun restrictions, they are only common sense if you know nothing about firearms which evidently you do not as you called 30 rounds high capacity. And yes. When I am not able to enjoy shooting my rifle the way I want, I am loosing freedoms. Obviously you do not value those freedoms, but they are freedoms nonetheless. The distinction between the freedom of owning an AR and the freedom of owning guns as a whole is just plain stupid. We don't have the right to own ONE gun or one TYPE of gun, we have the right to own GUNS as a whole, period. Especially considering that the AR is by and large the most common rifle owned in the US because it is excellent for hunting, home defense, recreation, is very modular and inexpensive. It is the honda civic of the gun world. [QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873258]This literally comes down to people defending their right to shoot at stuff in their backyard, and I'm sorry but your personal feelings don't take precedent over meaningful legislative change to attempt to curb the manufacture of EFFECTIVE dangerous killing machines.[/QUOTE] Firstly, even if it was about simply shooting stuff in your back yard, that freedom would be worth it. It is the freedom of 300+ MILLION people versus [URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls"]<300 deaths per year[/URL]. If you think that we have to go to any limits to prevent the death of any number of citizens, we should ban personal swimming pools. After all, no one NEEDS a pool, and [URL="http://snicc.org/files/uploads/Facts_about_Swimming_Pool_Drowning_Accidents.pdf"]far more people are killed by them[/URL]. Secondly, it's not JUST the freedom to shoot in your back yard. It's the freedom to own a gun that can be used for, as I said before, hunting, self defense, long and short range shooting recreating, and collecting.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52873292]You are literally clueless. Stop parroting emotional "think of the children!!!" talking points and do some research. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] I want you to, independently, put forth a little effort and conduct some research of your own into the statistics of crime. Then I want you to exercise critical thinking skills to see how all the pieces fit together. Then I want you to come back and repeat with a straight face everything you've said in this thread.[/QUOTE] So you basically are just sitting on the fact that handguns are well represented in shooting statistics as your only argument for why assault weapons are basically nothing and shouldn't be worried about?
[QUOTE=elowin;52873296]Wow, for real? Suddenly trying to ban whatever guns you can makes a whole lot more sense.[/QUOTE] A gun's serial number being on a list somewhere neither reduces the likelihood that it will be used in crime nor makes it easier to locate the person who used it to commit a crime. Registries are useless and serve one purpose - they make it easy for the government to target legal gun owners with draconian bans after the registry is set up.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873301]The ballistics of the gun? You're incorrect. By your logic we should ban hunting rifles instead, because those tend to have far better killing ballistics, rather than the 5.56 or 7.62 "assault rifles" that you want to ban.[/QUOTE] Uh no, a bolt action hunting rifle is not as good at killing people as a fully automatic 5.56 or 7.62 easy to reload rifle, sorry to say. That's what I'm talking about, I'm speaking about this extremely practically.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873258]This literally comes down to people defending their right to shoot at stuff in their backyard, and I'm sorry but your personal feelings don't take precedent over meaningful legislative change to attempt to curb the manufacture of EFFECTIVE dangerous killing machines.[/QUOTE] This literally comes down to people being scared of things they don't understand and I'm sorry your personal irrational fears don't take precedent over people's civil rights.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873304]Uh no, a bolt action hunting rifle is not as good at killing people as a fully automatic 5.56 or 7.62 easy to reload rifle, sorry to say. That's what I'm talking about, I'm speaking about this extremely practically.[/QUOTE] Then obviously you don't even understand the word "ballistics". Tell us again why we should take your clearly uneducated and uninformed opinion seriously?
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873304]Uh no, a bolt action hunting rifle is not as good at killing people as a fully automatic 5.56 or 7.62 easy to reload rifle, sorry to say. That's what I'm talking about, I'm speaking about this extremely practically.[/QUOTE] Oh so how like that one guy didn’t use a bolt action rifle to kill JFK
[QUOTE=Zombinie;52873313]Then obviously you don't even understand the word "ballistics". Tell us again why we should take your clearly uneducated and uninformed opinion seriously?[/QUOTE] You really don't understand how a gun that shoots at about 8~ rounds a second can do way more damage than one that shoots at MAYBE 1-2? Sure the penetration may be higher but that really doesn't mean a whole lot for "lethality", what are we even talking about here? You guys really want to argue a 30 shot fully auto assault rifle doesn't lend itself to killing groups of people better than a bolt action 10 shot hunting rifle? [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873312]You're far more likely to be killed by 30-06 than 5.56, sorry, that's what the Ballistics say. You argued about ballistics, and you're wrong. If you want to argue about reloading weaponry then that's fine, but don't sit and bring ballistics into the equation when you don't understand them. And you're right, a fully automatic weapon would be exceptionally good at killing people.. except that they're heavily regulated and new manufacture is banned. So tell me again, what are we talking about?[/QUOTE] We're talking about 30 round magazines and bump stocks being legally allowed, which is exactly what makes assault weapons closer to true assault rifles lol.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873304]Uh no, a bolt action hunting rifle is not as good at killing people as a fully automatic 5.56 or 7.62 easy to reload rifle, sorry to say. That's what I'm talking about, I'm speaking about this extremely practically.[/QUOTE] You are arguing with people who own these rifles about terminal ballistics from a position of absolute ignorance. Assault rifles are compromises - they accept a reduction in outright killing power in exchange for portability and endurance. Additionally, not everything chambered in 5.56 or 7.62(x39) is an assault rifle. In fact the vast majority of rifles chambered in either do not qualify, to include AR-15s and most AK-pattern rifles. Do. Some. Research.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873319]You really don't understand how a gun that shoots at about 8~ rounds a second can do way more damage than one that shoots at MAYBE 1-2? Sure the penetration may be higher but they really doesn't mean a whole lot for "lethality", what are we even talking about here? You guys really want to argue a 30 shot fully auto assault rifle doesn't lend itself to killing groups of people better than a bolt action 10 shot hunting rifle?[/QUOTE] So which gun fires 8 rounds a second ? Tell me, please. Also lol with “fully auto assault rifle”. Such as? [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] Define assault weapon for me
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52873323]So which gun fires 8 rounds a second ? Tell me, please. Also lol with “fully auto assault rifle”. Such as?[/QUOTE] Bump fire stock? I did the mathematics for 500 RPM which is pretty low [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873325]Penetration has everything to do with lethality, calibre has everything to do with what it does inside the body once it hits. Getting hit by 5.45 is significantly worse than getting hit by 5.56 because of its yaw factor. Again, you're arguing completely wrong. If you want to argue about "high capacity magazines" and killing groups of people, then do that, but don't sit and argue lethality, because quite frankly i'd take getting hit with 5.56 over getting hit by .300 win mag any day of the week.[/QUOTE] I'd much rather get hit by a bullet that goes through me than one that stays inside me and dumps all its energy straight into me.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873326]Bump fire stock? I did the mathematics for 500 RPM which is pretty low[/QUOTE] And the bumpfire stock makes the gun more deadly...how, exactly?
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873326]Bump fire stock? I did the mathematics for 500 RPM which is pretty low[/QUOTE] Do you even know what a bump fire stock does, mechanically? Do you understand the specific impact it has on the way a gun functions? I think Vegas is the only time a bump fire stock has been involved in a violent crime, and the shooter's specific situation is pretty much the only one I can think of in which it would be practical to use one. If they were as deadly and practical as you think, they would be serving with militaries.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52873332]Do you even know what a bump fire stock does, mechanically? Do you understand the specific impact it has on the way a gun functions?[/QUOTE] So you think no one could counteract the inaccuracy problem? The Las Vegas shooter seemed to do fine.
Haven't even read the details but the bill should be restricted solely to bump stocks. Reasonable given recent events and less likely to cause an uproar. Doesn't matter if you can do the same thing with a stick or whatever the arguments are, commercial products are a different animal and create significantly more reliability in execution and ease of use.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52873331]And the bumpfire stock makes the gun more deadly...how, exactly?[/QUOTE] lol what, lethality is 100% related to how many bullets hit flesh so...the more bullets per second into flesh the better. If you practice you can improve your accuracy greatly. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873338]Ok, so 30 round magazines. You do realize that those are "standard" capacity, right? You do realize that that's exactly what's issued to cops, and military, and what usually come with the rifle, right. You do realize that in order to call something "standard" it must be an industry standard, which is what a 30 round magazine is. Calling something "high capacity" implies that it's more than the industrial standard, so a 45 or 60 round mag would be "high capacity", calling 30 round magazines "high capacity" is idiotic, and entirely wrong in every sense of the law.[/QUOTE] Industry standard for defense organizations, yeah thanks. We are talking about civilians.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873339]lol what[/QUOTE] Answer the question. What does it do to make the gun more deadly.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873343]My AR-15 came with 2 30 round magazines.. doesn't that mean than my 30 round mag is "standard", its part of the package that it came with. Did the word "standard" suddenly change meaning?[/QUOTE] Are we arguing semantics now? You wish I didn't refer to it as high capacity when I'm arguing from a perspective in a state where such magazines are not even allowed? Sorry to say that I don't see "30 rounds" as "standard" for civilians.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.