US Senate Democrats to start an Assault Weapons Ban bill; includes bump stocks & high capacity mags
288 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52873714]No, and you want to know why? Because it's incredibly difficult, nigh impossible, to purchase one without tens of thousands of dollars, or being in the US military.
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
So why even bring it up?[/QUOTE]
Let me rephrase what I posted earlier “Well I guess we could just pass some magazine restrictions so you get to keep your cool lookin military gun that doesn’t shoot burst fire”
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873722]Let me rephrase what I posted earlier “Well I guess we could just pass some magazine restrictions so you get to keep your cool lookin military gun that doesn’t shoot burst fire”[/QUOTE]
No that's not a rephrase at all. What does the fact that it doesn't have burst capabilities have to do with magazine restrictions?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873722]Let me rephrase what I posted earlier “Well I guess we could just pass some magazine restrictions so you get to keep [B]your cool lookin military gun [/B]that doesn’t shoot burst fire”[/QUOTE]
Are you doing this in mockery?
Also what does banning 30 round mags accomplish exactly? Making someone carry more magazines has no effect at all in shootings
Why does this always happen.
Every thread.
Or I could just keep my assault clipazines I guess
That one sounds good
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52873727]Are you doing this in mockery?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Mockery was the point of what I originally said, I’ll admit it was pretty dumb.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873733]Yes. That was the point of what I originally said, I’ll admit it was pretty dumb.[/QUOTE]
Fucking why though?
Whats your point? What does it matter how the gun looks?
Did you have a point? Did you have any kind of end goal with your argument when you made that post?
[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]
I don't think "remedy" in this context means quite what you intended to mean?
I largely agree with you, but I don't think banning weapons entirely is a very good solution. In general making someone's hobby illegal is something I'd be extremely against, unless of course the hobby is inherently harmful like killing kittens or similar cartoon villainy.
I think you're right that the ridiculous number of guns in America is a large contributing factor to the violence, but it's the ridiculous number of handguns much more than any other kind. In America just about anyone at any time could be carrying a handgun, and you'd never know. The potential that has for escalating situations is immense, and probably in and of itself a big part of why violent crime is so common. It's also probably why even the police in America are far more violent than most countries. Almost every single person they have to confront could pull a gun on them out of nowhere, at any time.
There's also no doubt that many social factors are a big part, from the excessive wealth inequality to lacking mental health care, stigma against it, and the variety of gang cultures.
It's all a part of a very complex puzzle, but while it may be tempting to just bring down the hammer of a gun ban I really don't think it's a very effective way to solve the problems, nor is it fair to all the legitimate gun owners that just want to go have some fun down at the shooting range every other weekend.
But just like how people need a license and training to drive as well as a registration for the huge metal boxes they send hurtling down the road at 80 miles per hour, so should gun owners have mandatory background checks, gun safety lessons and their guns should be registered- preferably federally but at the least the databases should be easily checkable across states. Just like cars it's just natural precaution due to the inherent danger involved with guns, whether you want one as a hobby or for personal protection.
Voluntary buyback programs are also a fine idea if you ask me, just emphasis on the voluntary part is all. Guns are not inherently bad, but they are oversaturated.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873722]Let me rephrase what I posted earlier “Well I guess we could just pass some magazine restrictions so you get to keep your cool lookin military gun that doesn’t shoot burst fire”[/QUOTE]
are you trying to low key trying to condescend us because you're in the military? Lmao
Get over yourself
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873733]Yes. That was the point of what I originally said, I’ll admit it was pretty dumb.[/QUOTE]
Okay so do you have a point or are you just shitposting.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873678]Bruh it’s semi auto that’s the main feature with the civilian platform. You could have magazine restrictions and keep your cool looking shooty M4 without burst fire I guess.[/QUOTE]
I don't think having 10 rounds vs 30 rounds would prevent much. You of all people should know how quick mag changes with AR-15s are once you've got a little practice and the right type of LBE.
Also, it would do nothing to prevent shootings like the DC sniper attacks, or the UT bell-tower incident. It's not the volume of fire that makes it lethal in all instances, you only need one bullet to kill someone. A person could commit mass murder with a bolt-action hunting rifle, under the right circumstances. There's no magic round count where a gun goes from being useless for crime while retaining its usability for lawful purposes.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52873742]Okay so do you have a point or are you just shitposting.[/QUOTE]
Well my original post was just me commenting on my agreeance with the legislation and then it trailed off onto people thinking I’m an ignormaus about weapons because of semantics, then I made an offhand remark about people fetishizing cool looking military guns..so maybe we can move on from this.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873753]Well my original post was just me commenting on my agreeance with the legislation and then it trailed off onto people thinking I’m an ignormaus about weapons because of semantics, then I made an offhand remark about people fetishizing cool looking military guns..so maybe we can move on from this.[/QUOTE]
How about you dont do any of that?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52873738]Fucking why though?
Whats your point? What does it matter how the gun looks?
Did you have a point? Did you have any kind of end goal with your argument when you made that post?[/QUOTE]
Man he already admitted what he said was dumb, let it rest dude. Shits already derailed like a whole page of the thread.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873753]Well my original post was just me commenting on my agreeance with the legislation and then it trailed off onto people thinking I’m an ignormaus about weapons because of semantics, then I made an offhand remark about people fetishizing cool looking military guns..so maybe we can move on from this.[/QUOTE]
It trailed off because you called us mongs lol
And you have yet to prove your supposed knowledge of firearms in your argument
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52873749]I don't think having 10 rounds vs 30 rounds would prevent much. You of all people should know how quick mag changes with AR-15s are once you've got a little practice and the right type of LBE.
Also, it would do nothing to prevent shootings like the DC sniper attacks, or the UT bell-tower incident. It's not the volume of fire that makes it lethal in all instances, you only need one bullet to kill someone. A person could commit mass murder with a bolt-action hunting rifle, under the right circumstances. There's no magic round count where a gun goes from being useless for crime while retaining its usability for lawful purposes.[/QUOTE]
You have a point and I think California has been trying to address that with making it more difficult to effectively reload these weapons.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873753]Well my original post was just me commenting on my agreeance with the legislation and then it trailed off onto people thinking I’m an ignormaus about weapons because of semantics, then I made an offhand remark about people fetishizing cool looking military guns..so maybe we can move on from this.[/QUOTE]
No, people weren't thinking you're an "ignoramus", we were wanting you to clarify what "semi automatic assault style weapons" means, as well as present as to why you don't want law abiding citizens to own one.
You then decided to mock people responding to you.
And no, again, its not semantics, you have to be specific if you're gonna ban something, man. You still havent said WHY they should be banned.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873764]You have a point and I think California has been trying to address that with making it more difficult to effectively reload these weapons.[/QUOTE]
Which does nothing but hamper people who follow the law.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873764]You have a point and I think California has been trying to address that with making it more difficult to effectively reload these weapons.[/QUOTE]
Banning high capacity magazines has demonstrably just made shooters carry more magazines with little to no reduction in the efficacy of their attack
[QUOTE=Amber902;52873772]Banning high capacity magazines has demonstrably just made shooters carry more magazines with little to no reduction in the efficacy of their attack[/QUOTE]
That’s not just what California has done, look up the bullet button for example. IIRC too you have to effectively detach the upper and lower receiver to reload your weapon anymore.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873788]Except its not about looking cool. The M-16 was adopted because it works, are you saying that the AR-15 magically works worse because of the lack of burst fire? (Bear in mind that half the time burst isn't even used in engagements)[/QUOTE]
And hell, people get the AR platform because it's ergonomic. It's comfortable, easy to carry, easy to move around, and can be customized out the wazoo if someone so desires.
[QUOTE=Amber902;52873772]Banning high capacity magazines has demonstrably just made shooters carry more magazines with little to no reduction in the efficacy of their attack[/QUOTE]
That's what he's saying actually, the post he's replying to was making much the same point- it's the point he's acknowledging in the post.
Unless I'm mistaken, he's saying that California has been trying to actually make it more difficult to change magazines in weapons to make it take a bit longer, thus making low capacity magazines a more effective way to limit killings.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873789]That’s not just what California has done, look up the bullet button for example. IIRC too you have to effectively detach the upper and lower receiver to reload your weapon anymore.[/QUOTE]
Thats retarded
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873789]That’s not just what California has done, look up the bullet button for example. IIRC too you have to effectively detach the upper and lower receiver to reload your weapon anymore.[/QUOTE]
What does that prevent?
[QUOTE=elowin;52873794]That's what he's saying actually, the post he's replying to was making much the same point- it's the point he's acknowledging in the post.
Unless I'm mistaken, he's saying that California has been trying to actually make it more difficult to change magazines in weapons to make it take a bit longer, thus making low capacity magazines a more effective way to limit killings.[/QUOTE]
That just means spree killers will use pistols or slightly modify their rifles. Hell most shooters bring multiple guns anyways
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52873659]No, its not semantics.
Not when it comes to legislature, and also in terms of what the gun does. I remember in another thread someone compared, what was it? Looked like a Garand or something, I forget, some rifle with wood furniture that does exactly the same thing an AR-15 can do, but it just doesnt look like one so nobody cares.[/QUOTE]
I saw this while I was on the pot and forgot to reply to it, the gun being compared is a Mini 14 (very similar to a shrunk Garand)
[img]https://i.imgur.com/o8g8Trf.jpg[/img]
It's a semi automatic 5.56 that can accept 30 round magazines and is practically little different to a civilian AR-15 other than being less scary looking.
There is even a !!!scary!!! military/police model with full auto capability:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/7xkhOkz.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873812]Or they just buy a standard magazine release.. and use that.. like everyone else. The compliance rate with that new law is AMAZINGLY low, especially out in rural areas where people just shoot on their own land.[/QUOTE]
Aka they slightly modify their rifles
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52873764]You have a point and I think California has been trying to address that with making it more difficult to effectively reload these weapons.[/QUOTE]
They banned AR-15s that were previously considered "not assault weapons" due to them having "bullet button" magazine releases. Basically, the idea was that you needed a bullet or other tool to press the magazine release, meaning changing mags required "disassembly" of the rifle. The whole point was to let you have a pistol grip on a semi-auto without violating the law. It was purely for looks.
Semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines haven't been banned outright, and I don't believe that's even on the horizon at this point. Even if it were, that would still leave semi-auto rifles like the SKS or Garand, or fixed-magazine "featureless" ARs. The SKS is fed by stripper clip, the Garand uses an en-bloc clip that functions similarly to a detachable magazine, and they make stripper clips specifically for fixed-mag ARs now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.