• US Senate Democrats to start an Assault Weapons Ban bill; includes bump stocks & high capacity mags
    288 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873339]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..[/QUOTE] So the stock doesn’t do anything by your definition. If someone practices, they wouldn’t need it anyways. Rapid fire is incredibly difficult to control. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873344]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.[/QUOTE] Oh no if I wanted to shoot a lot I could just buy more magazines and then reload. Tell me what does a magazine capacity ban stop, exactly.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52873345]So the stock doesn’t do anything by your definition. If someone practices, they wouldn’t need it anyways. Rapid fire is incredibly difficult to control. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] Oh no if I wanted to shoot a lot I could just buy more magazines and then reload. Tell me what does a magazine capacity ban stop, exactly.[/QUOTE] It makes it take more time for them to kill people? Like what the fuck am I arguing for at this point, do you guys just want every gun ever to be free to own?
He would shit his bricks if he realize the "ballistics" of a bolt action .50 cal BMG.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873349]It makes it take more time for them to kill people? Like what the fuck am I arguing for at this point, do you guys just want every gun ever to be free to own?[/QUOTE] We’re asking you to argue from a perspective that isn’t entirely emotional
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873336]So you think no one could counteract the inaccuracy problem? The Las Vegas shooter seemed to do fine.[/QUOTE] It's not just an inaccuracy problem, it's a mobility problem, a reliability problem, and a skill problem. You can't move while firing with a bump stock, because any other motion interrupts the perfect reciprocation a bump stock relies on to function. They introduce problems by pulling the trigger before the bolt is fully reset (which isn't a problem faced by a true automatic), which causes the hammer to follow the bolt down instead of hitting it with force sufficient to fire a cartridge. This is a really common stoppage no matter how good you are with a bump stock. Finally, they require quite a bit of practice to use repeatably. These drawbacks didn't impact the Vegas shooter because he was so far away he was able to take his time and fire uninterrupted. A stoppage caused by the stock or lack of skill wasn't a concern for him, and he wasn't shooting while on the move. Which, again, is the only situation I can think of where one of these things would actually be practical.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52873357]We’re asking you to argue from a perspective that isn’t entirely emotional[/QUOTE] Lol you think firerate and magazine capacity has nothing to do with lethality and you're telling me to change my perspective?
I don't know about this whole suicide debate when it comes to guns. People act like everyone that ideates ends up attempting, but I feel that one of the reasons I'm still alive is because I never had easy access to a seriously lethal method like a gun. Ive had plenty of fully thought-out attempts thought of but usually the combination of conflict of intent and lack of access to the method keeps me from doing it. I think it pretty naturally follows that if the most lethal vector of suicide is harder to access, people might not use it as much in their attempts (which, a vast majority of the time when dealing with firearms, are successes). There's a reason that strong barbiturates, the holy grail of suicide methods, have been harder and harder to get your hands on and have been prescribed less and less over time. However, I don't think wholesale "bans", or any gun-related legislation for that matter, is the most effective method of addressing suicide rates. Mental healthcare and making it more accessible undoubtedly comes first. If *any* gun related measures we're to improve the situation, it would be more of background checks relating to mental health issues.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52873362]It's not just an inaccuracy problem, it's a mobility problem, a reliability problem, and a skill problem. You can't move while firing with a bump stock, because any other motion interrupts the perfect reciprocation a bump stock relies on to function. They introduce problems by pulling the trigger before the bolt is fully reset (which isn't a problem faced by a true automatic), which causes the hammer to follow the bolt down instead of hitting it with force sufficient to fire a cartridge. This is a really common stoppage no matter how good you are with a bump stock. Finally, they require quite a bit of practice to use repeatably. These drawbacks didn't impact the Vegas shooter because he was so far away he was able to take his time and fire uninterrupted. A stoppage caused by the stock or lack of skill wasn't a concern for him, and he wasn't shooting while on the move. Which, again, is the only situation I can think of where one of these things would actually be practical.[/QUOTE] Those drawbacks would barely impact a mass shooter. They can simply not use the automatic firing and take potshots while moving into position.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873365]Those drawbacks would barely impact a mass shooter. They can simply not use the automatic firing and take potshots while moving into position.[/QUOTE] Wow The drawbacks of a bump stock don't matter because a shooter could simply not use it? No fucking kidding?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52873368]Wow[/QUOTE] What? Am I wrong? Why the fuck aren't you thinking about this practically, you think that just because there are some situations where the bump firing wont work that the mass shooter wont just...wait? [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] Lol...but they will use it when they get the chance and won't use it when they don't want to, giving them the OPTION to EFFICIENTLY manage their firerate, something that improves their general lethality.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873363]Lol you think firerate and magazine capacity has nothing to do with lethality and you're telling me to change my perspective?[/QUOTE] Because a bullet is a bullet. What are you going to do? Ban fingers? What would stop a guy from carrying 3 10 round magazines?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52873374]Because a bullet is a bullet. What are you going to do? Ban fingers? What would stop a guy from carrying 3 10 round magazines?[/QUOTE] It would take up way more room than the equivalent 30 round magazine which would mean he wouldn't have the ability to easily transport incredibly high amounts of ammo as easily.
[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 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] 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] At least you realized you fucked up calling them "full auto" again and edited that bit out I think the part that bothers me mostly is people playing up how evil 'assault weapons'(a made up term with a very loose definition) are when handguns are responsible for more actual killings? Most average people seem to think that handguns are a reasonable thing for people to have for home defense when they're far more practical than an AR to kill a single person in a surprise shooting. Kind of like why certain kinds of concealable knives like switchblades are restricted in some areas. Not to imply that I don't believe rifles should receive some measure of further regulation with mass shootings a bit more common lately, I just find it strange that handguns are so often ignored.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873375]It would take up way more room than the equivalent 30 round magazine which would mean he wouldn't have the ability to easily transport such an incredibly high amount of ammo.[/QUOTE] Or he just has a satchel bag...
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873379]So are we going to ban sewing machines, so you can't sew more pockets onto your clothes?[/QUOTE] What the fuck? I'm literally arguing against having efficient killing tools stored and you're equating that to general storage solutions??
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873383]What the fuck? I'm literally arguing against having efficient killing tools stored and you're equating that to general storage solutions??[/QUOTE] Read his post with context instead of getting worked up
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52873378]Or he just has a satchel bag...[/QUOTE] And it weighs way more because of all the magazine casing, makes way more noise, and means he generally has less ammo than someone with 30 round magazines.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873383]What the fuck? I'm literally arguing against having efficient killing tools stored and you're equating that to general storage solutions??[/QUOTE] I pride myself on going far out of my way to give the other side a platform and hear them out and fairly discuss the issue with them, whether they change their mind or not. That is my thing. You do not deserve that effort. The last thing I'm going to say to you is do some fucking research.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873389]And it weighs way more because of all the magazine casing, makes way more noise, and means he generally has less ammo than someone with 30 round magazines.[/QUOTE] Empty magazines weigh barely anything. 30 rounds of ammo weighs as much as 30 rounds of ammo. The extra couple ounces of extra magazines will not way someone down. They won’t be going in for combat, they’re going in for murder. They don’t care about mobility, weight, or noise. Why do you think that matters?
[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] There's reasons they're not commonly used to kill people and those reasons tie in to why it isn't really the best killing machine. There's no such [i]thing[/i] as a single objective best killing machine, the best tool for the job is completely dependent on the situation. How useful a gun is for a situation comes down to a whole lot more than how much lead it can fire down range. Automatic rifles are made to be effective for military purposes, but most of their advantages aren't really such a big deal when it comes to domestic crime, while their downsides become much more significant. Longer effective range is of little use in almost every non-military engagement. Larger rifle calibers are really quite pointless when you're invariably shooting at largely unarmored targets, also such ammunition is more expensive, weighs more and takes up more space, so it's also rather inefficient. A higher rate of fire adds little when it completely ruins your accuracy- even in military environments you will almost always be using single shots or short bursts at most. The more bullets you shoot the faster you run out, and they're going to be hitting significantly less targets. In other words, most of the time the faster your weapon fires the [i]less[/i] people you're going to kill with it. Larger magazines can be made for pistols too, but even if you don't the entire point of magazines in the first place is that they're quick to replace, and carrying a less bulky weapon means it's easier for you to carry more ammunition anyway. The fact that rifles are big and bulky make them extremely ineffective in a lot of ways. You can't easily hide them, you can't carry them around casually day to day, they're more difficult to use in cramped spaced or close quarters and require both your hands. Rifles excel at medium to long range but if someone manages to get up close to you it's completely fucking worthless compared to a pistol. This even applies to shotguns, yes they're extremely deadly at short ranges but once someone gets up close and starts grappling you it gets rather difficult to shoot them with such a long weapon. Also I already mentioned how you can't effectively hide a longarm on your person but it really bears repeating, the fact that you can keep a pistol hidden in your back pocket is such a massive advantage it can hardly be put into words.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;52872395]Its kind of hard to convince us that you don't want to take our guns when bills that would ban the sale of the most popular gun in the US keep getting proposed that would ban said gun. Lets not forget that the only time gun owners have ever gotten their inch back was because of legislative inaction. Lets not forget the fact that gun control is a slippery slope because every time new gun control does get passed its not enough and a new loophole needs to be closed.[/QUOTE] If banning or buying back guns is what it takes, then so be it. Im tired of dancing around gun control with every other action taken but one thats meaningful. Its this "fuck you dont take my guns" mentality thats put us in this position where america is nothing more than a big ol' gun range. We'll blame the mentally ill, videogames, and everything else under the sun than rather address the actual sale of guns. Even go so far as to say there isnt ENOUGH guns out there, like everyone in a texas church should have been conceal carrying. But c'est la vie, its easier to shift the blame away from something you like rather than acknowledge that its detrimental to modern day society. An amendment made 300 years ago is more relevant to your interests than whats happening around you. Its no better than saying the bible should be followed religiously and without question, made easier when you yourself believe it.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873420]Its the idea of "guns are evil, therefore ban them" that keeps us from getting anything done. If you argued, even for 2 seconds, on improving the social climate of america, you'd reduce murder and crime far more than any gun control bill EVER could. If you spent, even a tenth of the political capital spend on gun control, on attacking the real issues at hand, you'd have FAR more results. But we can't do that. Because guns are evil.[/QUOTE] Were it so easy. I'm not one for thinking that firearm legislation will fix everything, but you're grossly underestimating how monumentally difficult it would be to universally improve "the social climate of america", a vague enough standard as it is, as if it were a concrete thing that you could just "change" at will.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873363]Lol you think firerate and magazine capacity has nothing to do with lethality and you're telling me to change my perspective?[/QUOTE] Your arguments are terrible but please keep arguing, people like you who argue badly for gun control are one of the main reasons gun control bills fail horribly.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873420]Its the idea of "guns are evil, therefore ban them" that keeps us from getting anything done. If you argued, even for 2 seconds, on improving the social climate of america, you'd reduce murder and crime far more than any gun control bill EVER could. If you spent, even a tenth of the political capital spend on gun control, on attacking the real issues at hand, you'd have FAR more results. But we can't do that. Because guns are evil. You want mental healthcare checks? Fine. With what system? The US's system is in absolute shambles, so what system would you have us do these checks with? Furthermore how should we pay for these checks? Our health insurance systems are fucked beyond belief. So tell me, what should we do? Should we continue to waste capital on the symptom? Or should we finally attack the problem?[/QUOTE] No one is arguing against any of those things, I just think that the ridiculous number of guns coupled with our poor situation is a remedy for continued violence and problems.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;52873431]Were it so easy. I'm not one for thinking that firearm legislation will fix everything, but you're grossly underestimating how monumentally difficult it would be to universally improve "the social climate of america", a vague enough standard as it is, as if it were a concrete thing that you could just "change" at will.[/QUOTE] But you can change "the gun problem" at will? No, by the grabbers' own admission, it'd take many years to start having a meaningful impact, so it's not some quick band-aid fix we can apply while we start working on other issues. So what, then? Ban guns or attack social issues?
Tetracycline, dude, i only have a passive understanding of firearms but you're completely uninformed on what you're talking about. Just be honest and say you think they're scary so they should be banned, christ.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52873442]Tetracycline, dude, i only have a passive understanding of firearms but holy fuck you're completely uninformed on what you're talking about. Just be honest and say you think they're scary so they should be banned, christ.[/QUOTE] I was literally arguing that things like bump fire stocks and having more bullets in your magazine can equate to increased lethality. I don't see how this is arguing that I think they're scary or even that guns should be banned?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873446]And your solution is to ban the gun, rather than treat the situation. Because the party that bans guns is the party that loses the next election. Which means you're not getting ANYTHING done. You ban guns, you don't get another chance to fix the problem.[/QUOTE] That's absolutely pathetic, but if that's the state of the American people then so be it. I never had much faith in them anyway.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873435]No one is arguing against any of those things, I just think that the ridiculous number of guns coupled with our poor situation is a remedy for continued violence and problems.[/QUOTE] Unless you're insinuating the presence of guns somehow generates violence in individuals fail to see how banning guns curtails violent behaviors. Guns are a means to violent acts, not a causative factor in violence.
[QUOTE=bob4life;52873413]If banning or [B]buying back[/B] guns is what it takes, then so be it.[/QUOTE] Highly impractical at this point. We have over 300 million guns in this country, and the number is only going up. I'm not turning mine in unless I get proper compensation for them, a $50 starbucks gift certificate isn't going to cut it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.