• US Senate Democrats to start an Assault Weapons Ban bill; includes bump stocks & high capacity mags
    288 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52873674]Doesnt LA have a huge gang problem too. Or something? I think its a lot safer than it used to be though but its still a big issue.[/QUOTE]I hear about shootings here in ghettos on the news most days. So yea, gun violence in ghettos is still a thing.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52873822]Basically. 10 minutes of work and BOOM, magically you have a baby killing assault weapon. (according to feinstein).[/QUOTE] A compliant gun wouldnt fix anything anyways since pretty much every single mass shooter brings like 4 guns
[QUOTE=Amber902;52873808]That just means spree killers will use pistols or slightly modify their rifles. Hell most shooters bring multiple guns anyways[/QUOTE] I don't think you're not wrong about that, but clarity is important and your post was written from a position of misunderstanding his, so I wanted to correct it. As you say, many spree-killers already use pistols much of the time and often bring more than one. I'm certainly not disputing that, I wrote a post a little over an hour ago detailing some of the reasons why military weapons are often less effective in a criminal context than simple pistols. Kinda got lost in the hailstorm of low-effort shitposts this thread suddenly turned into, though.
[URL]https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf[/URL] Page sixteen. [QUOTE] ‘‘(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." [/QUOTE] In other words, EVERY SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE, even something like a shotgun. Anything you can wrap your hand around = pistol grip. Fuck 'em.
[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] Bit late to the party but any retard could subvert a bullet button in only a few minutes. They only exist because politicians are retarded and have no clue what they're talking about.
To add to the discussion about magazine capacity bans not working, the only reason why the Sandy Hook shooting's body count was so damn high was that the shooter actually cornered an entire classroom of children that had only 1 doorway that he got in through. He pretty much systematically executed them one by one, and it really wouldn't have mattered if he had 5 round mags or 100 round drum mags as they were 5-6 year old children. Aside from the classroom, which had 22-23 children + 1 teacher in it that he killed, he only killed 2-3 people in the hallways that tried to fight back or were caught by surprise. If it weren't for the outdated intruder drills that tell you to hunker down and hide in a classroom, sometimes with only one doorway to get cornered in, the death count probably wouldn't have gone beyond 5-6 maximum. Now, schools are adopting different strategies for shooters like immediately evacuating the building and getting the hell out of there.
Fuck Feinstein, it's plainly obvious that the stupid policies she and others like her push for don't work. Just look at LA, a city that is affected by California's stupid gun laws. Just look how much it hasn't helped with the gang violence there. Her and people like her are completely clueless about guns and how to solve gun crime.
Came home and saw there were 159 new posts in the thread. Read all of them and concluded that it would be easier to convince Trump climate change is real than persuade gun control nuts that they're functioning only on irrational, ignorant fear.
[QUOTE=download;52875583]Bit late to the party but any retard could subvert a bullet button in only a few minutes. They only exist because politicians are retarded and have no clue what they're talking about.[/QUOTE] The funny bit is that the new restrictions on the bullet button created a faster way to reload than the bullet button. They played themselves.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;52875693]Fuck Feinstein, it's plainly obvious that the stupid policies she and others like her push for don't work. Just look at LA, a city that is affected by California's stupid gun laws. Just look how much it hasn't helped with the gang violence there. Her and people like her are completely clueless about guns and how to solve gun crime.[/QUOTE] IMO, I think someone like Feinstein who's been in the anti-gun agenda for so long knows fully well what guns are and is just feigning ignorance to pass measures purely for the purpose of total disarmament. Basically she's a hypocritical control freak. She's on record saying that she carries her own handgun for personal protection, yet would force everyone else to turn their guns in if she had the power to.
I like how the Bill says you can put a rocket launcher on your assault rifle-15 baby killing machine.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;52876582]I like how the Bill says you can put a rocket launcher on your assault rifle-15 baby killing machine.[/QUOTE] Wait what? Which bill and what is the context of this? I genuinely don't understand what you're referring to. [editline]November 10[/editline] HOLY SHIT I just found what you were talking about and they actually put rocket launchers as a restricted weapon attachment. LMFAO :excited: Is this fucking Elysium where the AKM shoots explosive warheads now?
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;52875693]Fuck Feinstein, it's plainly obvious that the stupid policies she and others like her push for don't work. Just look at LA, a city that is affected by California's stupid gun laws. Just look how much it hasn't helped with the gang violence there. Her and people like her are completely clueless about guns and how to solve gun crime.[/QUOTE] Those people don't actually want to solve the problem. They want to score quick and easy political brownie points without ever actually having to do anything There's already mountains of gun legislation on the books but much of it is largely unenforceable and what isn't tends to not be enforced in the first place It's a lot easier to pass another single feel good piece of legislation and hail it as a great victory than it is to admit that a place like LA has much worse problems than just guns existing Deep running economic and social issues are something you actually have to work at to fix. You have to actually understand why they're there in the first place, you need to empathize, learn, research, plan, implement, rethink, collaborate, and then do it all again. You certainly can't fix them with one magical piece of legislation that solves everything and there's no easy singular causes to rally around Actually fixing the problem over the course of, say, the next decade doesn't score you the same political brownie points right away, so hey, why bother? Let's just put another piece of legislation on the pile and pretend we fixed the problem until the next time people suddenly care and need another piece of legislation to put on the pile
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52876615]Wait what? Which bill and what is the context of this? I genuinely don't understand what you're referring to.[/QUOTE] Bill I linked a few posts up. While I was hunting through it for the pistol grip definition after a member on a gun forum told me about it, I did come across something that defines what a rocket is in the bill, around page 16. Edit: and while a grenade launcher can mean something like an M203, I think in the federal 10 year AWB of 1994, they were defining those little rings you can screw a rifle grenade onto, like the M1 Garand etc.
[QUOTE=Megadave;52871903]Fuck in extreme circumstances it could include your thumb and hip, where the Bumpstock originally came from. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] Bumpstocks are the designer drug of guns, if people are smart enough they will come up with ways around the law, something I'm quite impressed with.[/QUOTE] ya except bump stocks and other such items appear to be exempt from the liability protections afforded to other gun manufacturing and ammo manufacturing, so if your business advertises a product to circumvent legislation and its used to kill a lot of people then you have the liability on your hands 100% the NRA will try to amend that but its not a bad trade off really [editline]10th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=PaChIrA;52875693]Fuck Feinstein, it's plainly obvious that the stupid policies she and others like her push for don't work. Just look at LA, a city that is affected by California's stupid gun laws. Just look how much it hasn't helped with the gang violence there. Her and people like her are completely clueless about guns and how to solve gun crime.[/QUOTE] california's gun problem is arizona and nevada just like chicago's gun problem is Gary indiana and the rest of illinois, new federal regulations are broad enough in scope to close the loopholes, its just we haven't passed anything meaningful federally for decades. Don't get me wrong, another AWB is not the answer but theres plenty of steps we could take if there wasn't a total ban on gun control legislation directed by the NRA. We don't even collect reliable statistics or do any research that could lead to fair and balanced policy decisions, which should be at least a first step, plus we can close certain well known loopholes in the meantime [editline]10th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Toybasher;52877166]Bill I linked a few posts up. While I was hunting through it for the pistol grip definition after a member on a gun forum told me about it, I did come across something that defines what a rocket is in the bill, around page 16. Edit: and while a grenade launcher can mean something like an M203, I think in the federal 10 year AWB of 1994, they were defining those little rings you can screw a rifle grenade onto, like the M1 Garand etc.[/QUOTE] thats covered under the NFA as destructive devices
The only way to keep guns out of the hands of most of the people who would use them to do harm is to require [I]much[/I] stricter legislation than this. While I think that bumpstocks and trigger modifications designed to increase fire rate should absolutely be illegal, you're only scraping a mole off a much bigger beast. The impact will be negligible at best. America has reached a point where our weapon stockpile has become so outrageously huge that the only way to make guns difficult enough to obtain to start making a substantial difference in gun violence is to fully ban the production and sale of all new weapons, and to wage a war of attrition against existing weapons through the ban of private sales, storage requirements, voluntary gun drives, and other long-term measures designed to slowly whittle down the number of weapons in circulation. Even that would take decades to fully realize, however.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52877267]The only way to keep guns out of the hands of most of the people who would use them to do harm is to require [I]much[/I] stricter legislation than this. While I think that bumpstocks and trigger modifications designed to increase fire rate should absolutely be illegal, you're only scraping a mole off a much bigger beast. The impact will be negligible at best. America has reached a point where our weapon stockpile has become so outrageously huge that the only way to make guns difficult enough to obtain to start making a substantial difference in gun violence is to fully ban the production and sale of all new weapons, and to wage a war of attrition against existing weapons through the ban of private sales, storage requirements, voluntary gun drives, and other long-term measures designed to slowly whittle down the number of weapons in circulation. Even that would take decades to fully realize, however.[/QUOTE] We have a better chance of getting universal healthcare than any of this. Policy that extreme will never be passable.
[QUOTE=OvB;52877362]We have a better chance of getting universal healthcare than any of this. Policy that extreme will never be passable.[/QUOTE] I don't disagree. Just commenting on how out of hand things have gotten.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52877411]how out of hand things have gotten.[/QUOTE] But violent crime rates have been decreasing for years now, including homicides committed with the rifles you seem to hate being in civilian hands...
[QUOTE=Sableye;52877181]california's gun problem is arizona and nevada just like chicago's gun problem is Gary indiana and the rest of illinois, new federal regulations are broad enough in scope to close the loopholes, its just we haven't passed anything meaningful federally for decades. (...) plus we can close certain well known loopholes in the meantime[/QUOTE] It's illegal for a California resident to buy any long arm from an FFL in Arizona or Nevada that would be illegal in California. It's illegal for a California resident to buy a handgun in any state besides California, period. It's illegal for a California resident to buy a firearm through private sale in any state besides California, period. What's the loophole? [QUOTE=OvB;52877362]We have a better chance of getting universal healthcare than any of this. Policy that extreme will never be passable.[/QUOTE] Alternatively, addressing the current primary sources of weapons used in crime (straw purchase and unscrupulous FFL holders), while improving existing systems (eg state/federal reporting so that people don't slip through the cracks), and carrying out social programs like gun buybacks, would have substantial effects without having [i]any[/i] reason for gun owners to oppose them. The Democrats had a chance here to propose reasonable measures and go after statistically significant factors in gun violence, to actually be part of the solution, but unsurprisingly they're instead choosing to score points with a gun-ignorant base.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;52877511]But violent crime rates have been decreasing for years now, including homicides committed with the rifles you seem to hate being in civilian hands...[/QUOTE] Violent gun crime rates are still higher than any other developed nation on earth, so I'm not exactly sure why you're celebrating. We'd be in a much better place without the massive stockpile of guns in our country. While it may be effectively impossible to get rid of them at this point (at least without resorting to some fairly extreme measures), that doesn't mean it's a good thing that they're here, or that it's a necessary or acceptable problem to have.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52877603]Violent gun crime rates are still higher than any other developed nation on earth, so I'm not exactly sure why you're celebrating. We'd be in a much better place without the massive stockpile of guns in our country. While it may be effectively impossible to get rid of them at this point (at least without resorting to some fairly extreme measures), that doesn't mean it's a good thing that they're here, or that it's a necessary or acceptable problem to have.[/QUOTE] And it's people who are violent, not the tools they use. Any effort at curbing violence should be directed towards the people. Government's shouldn't be banning dangerous objects but educating and supporting it's people in using them safely. If you could set off nuclear weapons without harming other humans I firmly believe the government should allow it. Government's should strive to enable all people to follow what makes them happy.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52877603]Violent gun crime rates are still higher than any other developed nation on earth, so I'm not exactly sure why you're celebrating. We'd be in a much better place without the massive stockpile of guns in our country. While it may be effectively impossible to get rid of them at this point (at least without resorting to some fairly extreme measures), that doesn't mean it's a good thing that they're here, or that it's a necessary or acceptable problem to have.[/QUOTE] America is also unique among developed nations for its poverty rate, the war on drugs, its incarceration rate and it's long rooted didcrimination against minorities. Things that likey contribute far more to its crime rate.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52877267]The only way to keep guns out of the hands of most of the people who would use them to do harm is to require [I]much[/I] stricter legislation than this. While I think that bumpstocks and trigger modifications designed to increase fire rate should absolutely be illegal, you're only scraping a mole off a much bigger beast. The impact will be negligible at best. America has reached a point where our weapon stockpile has become so outrageously huge that the only way to make guns difficult enough to obtain to start making a substantial difference in gun violence is to fully ban the production and sale of all new weapons, and to wage a war of attrition against existing weapons through the ban of private sales, storage requirements, voluntary gun drives, and other long-term measures designed to slowly whittle down the number of weapons in circulation. Even that would take decades to fully realize, however.[/QUOTE] You keep mentioning this "huge stockpile" bit as if the amount of weapons per capita in itself is a major factor which causes gun crime. I highly doubt this is the case, and believe that your suggestion of methodical disarmament wouldn't have any discernible effect other than pissing off a huge percentage of the population. Looking at the violent crime rates of different places makes things not add up. Let's start with Japan as a baseline. That place has very little firearms and not too much violence compared to some other places. Then you have the U.K. Where firearms are extremely restricted, yet the rate of violence/murder is quite a bit higher than Japan, but still lower compared to any major USA city. Most states with major cities like New York, California, Massachusetts, and Illinois have some of the strictest firearms regulations, but also some of the worst violent crime rates in the country. Then you have my state. New Hampshire generally had one of the lowest crime rates in the country each year and is commonly considered one of the safest states in the nation, yet the amount of firearms here is estimated to be the [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/most-heavily-armed-states-in-america/42/"]13th highest in the nation per capita.[/URL] On top of that we also own the most registered [I]actually full automatic[/I] [URL="http://nhpr.org/post/which-state-has-most-machine-guns-capita-new-hampshire#stream/0"]machine guns in the country per capita.[/URL] Murders are extremely rare and mass killings are completely unheard of around here. And to top it all off, state residents no longer need a permit to concealed carry a firearm. Since we can be virtually burried in guns over here without devolving into a 3rd world hell hole level of violence, I would argue that the availability of firearms to citizens who obey the law has very little to do with the rate of violence and murders.
Shall not be infringed
[QUOTE=catbarf;52877557]It's illegal for a California resident to buy any long arm from an FFL in Arizona or Nevada that would be illegal in California. It's illegal for a California resident to buy a handgun in any state besides California, period. It's illegal for a California resident to buy a firearm through private sale in any state besides California, period. What's the loophole? [/QUOTE] the loophole is that people DO BUY THOSE GUNS and carry them into california. California has no jurisdiction on nevada or arizona, criminals buy guns in nevada and arizona and truck them into california, same with chicago
[QUOTE=Sableye;52878526]the loophole is that people DO BUY THOSE GUNS and carry them into california. California has no jurisdiction on nevada or arizona, criminals buy guns in nevada and arizona and truck them into california, same with chicago[/QUOTE] Shit like this is exactly what the ATF exists for.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52878526]the loophole is that people DO BUY THOSE GUNS and carry them into california. California has no jurisdiction on nevada or arizona, criminals buy guns in nevada and arizona and truck them into california, same with chicago[/QUOTE] The law already says it's illegal for FFLs to sell guns to people out of state across the US; it's a federal law. It's not a loophole if it's not being enforced, it's just the government not doing their job. That said, as I understand it that should be flagged when you do the background check.
atf is more concerned with hurting legal gun owners and giving weaponry to cartels and criminals democrats are more concerned with their arms deals than they are with tackling actual problems, thanks senator yee
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52877267]The only way to keep guns out of the hands of most of the people who would use them to do harm is to require [I]much[/I] stricter legislation than this. [/QUOTE] Explain how stricter laws would have prevented last week's church shooting? Or how criminals in general follow the laws because now they're so much more stringent than before? Or why legal gun owners who have never harmed a fly in their life must be punished by harsher laws?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.