US Senate Democrats to start an Assault Weapons Ban bill; includes bump stocks & high capacity mags
288 replies, posted
[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]
It's not a 'loophole' if it's breaking the law. It's just breaking the law. Loophole implies something technically legal but unintended. It's not a 'loophole' that you can take stuff from a store without paying. It's just theft.
Use of the word 'loophole' in relation to gun shows and states having different laws is a transparent attempt to imply that there's an unintended void in the laws that needs to be filled by new legislation. When there [i]isn't[/i] a loophole, and any exploitation of the system is the result of a law being violated, it undercuts the idea that more laws against already-illegal acts will help.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52879662]It's not a 'loophole' if it's breaking the law. It's just breaking the law. Loophole implies something technically legal but unintended. It's not a 'loophole' that you can take stuff from a store without paying. It's just theft.[/QUOTE]
I found a loophole that allows you to get unlimited money from the bank and it doesn't even go against your account, just give the teller a note demanding cash, and they'll hand it over no questions asked. Wow!
List of gun legislation I currently support:
1) Mandatory one-day waiting period
2) Universal background checks
3) No bumpstocks
Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you
[QUOTE=mcharest;52883544]List of gun legislation I currently support:
1) Mandatory one-day waiting period
2) Universal background checks
3) No bumpstocks
Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you[/QUOTE]
1 wont do anything
2 we have
3 wont do anything, semi auto is 10000% better
gun legislation doesn't work if there are still guns available
and you won't disarm the american population
so gun legislation doesn't work, it's just a way to reduce your rights and power as a citizen
[QUOTE=mcharest;52883544]List of gun legislation I currently support:
1) Mandatory one-day waiting period
2) Universal background checks
3) No bumpstocks
Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you[/QUOTE]
1. What does this accomplish besides wasting people's time?
2. We already have this for any gun store purchase, and applying it to personal sales will probably be unenforceable.
3. Actually yeah, ban them. They're gimmicks that offer nothing to responsible gun use other than using shitloads of expensive ammo. But, they've been used in exactly one high profile crime as far as I know, which sort of limits what extent that banning them will do for public safety.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52883544]List of gun legislation I currently support:
1) Mandatory one-day waiting period
2) Universal background checks
3) No bumpstocks
Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you[/QUOTE]
One day waiting periods kinda make sense if it's your first purchase, but beyond that, nah. If you already own a gun and you decide you're gonna kill someone, you're not going to go out and buy a brand new gun just to do it.
UBCs? I'm all for it, but that won't solve the problem by itself. We still need to work on enforcement. Expand the ATF's personnel at the same time, and sic the new agents on straw-buyers. UBCs solve the problem of the prosecution proving intent, because at this point you're not trying to prove the dude [I]knowingly[/I] sold to a felon, you're just trying to prove he sold to a non-relative without background-checking them.
[QUOTE=remnar;52883568]1 wont do anything
2 we have
3 wont do anything, semi auto is 10000% better
gun legislation doesn't work if there are still guns available
and you won't disarm the american population
so gun legislation doesn't work, it's just a way to reduce your rights and power as a citizen[/QUOTE]
1. Yes it will. Suicide attempts are overwhelmingly impulsive acts and cutting off access to the means by which one can carry out a plan, even briefly, will have a marked effect on success rate. "[I]But then they'll just jump off a bridge![/I]" you say. Think again. By nature, suicide attempts by firearm have a much higher success rate than hanging/jumping/ODing. If you force someone to use a different method, fewer suicides will succeed.
You want to cut down on gun deaths without giving up your second amendment rights? Put your money where your mouth is and support a mandatory one-day waiting period with free suicide prevention literature. It's not an undue burden to ask buyers to hold off for a day, it shifts the national focus off of mass shootings and back to suicide prevention where it should be, and it will work. ([url=http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/11/1619896114]This study[/url] found that a one-day waiting period reduced suicides by 17% - nearly one in five suicides prevented. Not bad for a single piece of legislation.)
2. By "universal" I mean the kind you can't fuck up. The system we have currently has hundreds of blind spots and loopholes that can be exploited. If we have the political will to revolutionize it, you can be damn sure that someone like Devin Kelley (a man with a history of domestic abuse and eloping from a mental hospital) won't be able to get his hands on a gun.
3. Bumpstocks exist solely as a cheap and easy way to circumvent federal laws. On principle, they should not be legal. Please don't tell me how you can accomplish the same effect with a bit of training and a thumb/stick. This method is still very cumbersome except in the case of an experienced shooter, which your average mass shooter is not. Bumpstocks by comparison make it significantly easier to kill a lot of people really fast. I'm not saying banning them will prevent every mass shooting but you can be damn sure it will decrease the likelihood of another Las Vegas-style event.
None of these measures requires disarming the population. Not a single gun would be confiscated. And yet, in their own way, each will have a positive impact on reducing gun deaths. So yes, gun legislation can work if we're smart about it, and our second amendment rights shall not be infringed.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52883544]List of gun legislation I currently support:
1) Mandatory one-day waiting period
2) Universal background checks
3) No bumpstocks
Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you[/QUOTE]
1). First time purchaser, sure.
2). This is already a thing. Apparently it doesn't work because people don't do their job as shown by the texas shooter.
3). No reason to ban them other than to feel like you've done something. Bump-stocks have been used in one major crime, and you can replicate the same effects with a finger, twig or piece of string. Not only that, but if someone where to seriously sit down and want to commit a crime with a fully automatic weapon, they can pay a machinist to make a piece that looks like a can-opener that can convert some guns to full auto.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;52883716]2). This is already a thing. Apparently it doesn't work because people don't do their job.[/quote]
Be that as it may, it's not a legitimate excuse. If I told you that 10,000 people died every year from lead poisoning because the EPA doesn't do its job, you would probably be outraged and demand reform. I see no reason why that should not be the case here. Otherwise, we're just wasting money on useless bureaucracy.
[quote]3). No reason to ban them other than to feel like you've done something. Bump-stocks have been used in one major crime, and you can replicate the same effects with a finger, twig or piece of string. Not only that, but if someone where to seriously sit down and want to commit a crime with a fully automatic weapon, they can pay a machinist to make a piece that looks like a can-opener that can convert some guns to full auto.[/QUOTE]
Again, bumpfiring a weapon effectively without a convenient tool like a bumpstock demands a level of skill beyond your average mass shooter. Sure you can train yourself to do anything, but the idea is to put up barriers that will hinder the vast majority of shooters. And again, bumpstocks are nothing but a middle finger to federal gun laws. On principle alone, they should be illegal. As for feeling like we've accomplished something, I don't know what to say other than that if we're willing to consider spending billions on a useless border wall for the sake of our peace of mind, banning a chunk of plastic seems like a comparatively tame proposal.
The word I keep hearing in gun control debates is [I]could[/I]. In theory, someone [I]could[/I], with enough effort, find a way around every piece of gun legislation we could possibly conceive of. There's no magic-bullet law for guns (or anything else really) that would 100% eliminate all risk. Conversely, there are an infinite number of situations/exceptions/whatever that can be dreamed up to illustrate the futility of gun legislation. We've been conditioned to ignore the fact that these situations get statistically more and more difficult to achieve, and therefore less and less probable, if gun legislation is actually implemented. You can't eliminate all risk, but you can whittle it down.
Will a mandatory waiting period stop all gun suicides? No. But it will help. Will UBCs stop all gun sales to criminals? No. But they'll help. Will banning bumpstocks prevent every single mass shooting? No. But it'll help.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52883870]Be that as it may, it's not a legitimate excuse. If I told you that 10,000 people died every year from lead poisoning because the EPA doesn't do its job, you would probably be outraged and demand reform. I see no reason why that should not be the case here. Otherwise, we're just wasting money on useless bureaucracy.
Again, bumpfiring a weapon effectively without a convenient tool like a bumpstock demands a level of skill beyond your average mass shooter. Sure you can train yourself to do anything, but the idea is to put up barriers that will hinder the vast majority of shooters. And again, bumpstocks are nothing but a middle finger to federal gun laws. On principle alone, they should be illegal. As for feeling like we've accomplished something, I don't know what to say other than that if we're willing to consider spending billions on a useless border wall for the sake of our peace of mind, banning a chunk of plastic seems like a comparatively tame proposal.
The word I keep hearing in gun control debates is [I]could[/I]. In theory, someone [I]could[/I], with enough effort, find a way around every piece of gun legislation we could possibly conceive of. There's no magic-bullet law for guns (or anything else really) that would 100% eliminate all risk. Conversely, there are an infinite number of situations/exceptions/whatever that can be dreamed up to illustrate the futility of gun legislation. We've been conditioned to ignore the fact that these situations get statistically more and more difficult to achieve, and therefore less and less probable, if gun legislation is actually implemented. You can't eliminate all risk, but you can whittle it down.
Will a mandatory waiting period stop all gun suicides? No. But it will help. Will UBCs stop all gun sales to criminals? No. But they'll help. Will banning bumpstocks prevent every single mass shooting? No. But it'll help.[/QUOTE]
Bump stocks have literally been used in only one mass shooting. The only reason they exist is because the Machine Gun registry was closed in 86 even though there were only 2 cases of legal automatic weapons being used in crimes.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;52883954]Bump stocks have literally been used in only one mass shooting.[/QUOTE]
And in that one mass shooting alone, they were used to kill 58 people and wound over 500. If you don't think that's reason enough to ban a plastic gimmick that shouldn't have been legal in the first place, I don't know what to tell you.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52883657]1. Yes it will. Suicide attempts are overwhelmingly impulsive acts and cutting off access to the means by which one can carry out a plan, even briefly, will have a marked effect on success rate.
2. By "universal" I mean the kind you can't fuck up. The system we have currently has hundreds of blind spots and loopholes that can be exploited.
3. Bumpstocks exist solely as a cheap and easy way to circumvent federal laws. On principle, they should not be legal. Please don't tell me how you can accomplish the same effect with a bit of training and a thumb/stick. This method is still very cumbersome except in the case of an experienced shooter, which your average mass shooter is not. Bumpstocks by comparison make it significantly easier to kill a lot of people really fast.
[/QUOTE]
1. How about you think a little bit further and not reactionary; It wont have any effect on those who already have access to firearms. Secondly if a suicidal person goes out, purchases a gun, and waits one day to obtain it, they may have gotta past this initial "impulsive act" this time. But you still have a person with suicidal thoughts and tendencies with a firearm that will likely fall into the same rut and mindset as they were only 24-48 hours ago.
2. I agree with more efficient checks and proper logging of important information that could prevent unfit individual purchases. Better or more intrusive checks maybe-maybe not, but only if things that only need an accusation to bar you from exercising your right require more evidence than word of mouth. Domestic violence with obvious proof, sure. Crazy person who calls the cops and plays victim when you'd just try to defuse the situation or leave the situation and then get charged for nothing, bullshit even if its extremely rare.
3. Used in one major crime doesn't warrant banning. No they do not make it easier to kill, they make it easier to dispense ammo in a piss poor manner accuracy wise. Something you can replicate with your finger, a stick, or a piece of string. Shot placement is king. Bump fire stocks change the manner in which you shoulder, grip, and hold the weapon still. A normal full auto just has a different action and trigger mechanism but a sturdy grip and butt and thus holds better accuracy. You cant really lump bump fires in with full autos. Hell you can bump fire handguns but you wont hit shit and would be better off with a no choke or loose choked shotgun if you wanted that spread. Again all you need is a quick finger and either multiple loaded firearms or quick reloads and you'll do more damage in semi-auto as each shot would be far more accurate and you would waste less ammo and time reloading/per confirmed hit.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52883870]Be that as it may, it's not a legitimate excuse. If I told you that 10,000 people died every year from lead poisoning because the EPA doesn't do its job, you would probably be outraged and demand reform. I see no reason why that should not be the case here. Otherwise, we're just wasting money on useless bureaucracy.[/QUOTE]
And? I wasn't saying I was pro government incompetence.
[QUOTE=mcharest;52883870]Again, bumpfiring a weapon effectively without a convenient tool like a bumpstock demands a level of skill beyond your average mass shooter. Sure you can train yourself to do anything, but the idea is to put up barriers that will hinder the vast majority of shooters. And again, bumpstocks are nothing but a middle finger to federal gun laws. On principle alone, they should be illegal. As for feeling like we've accomplished something, I don't know what to say other than that if we're willing to consider spending billions on a useless border wall for the sake of our peace of mind, banning a chunk of plastic seems like a comparatively tame proposal.
The word I keep hearing in gun control debates is [I]could[/I]. In theory, someone [I]could[/I], with enough effort, find a way around every piece of gun legislation we could possibly conceive of. There's no magic-bullet law for guns (or anything else really) that would 100% eliminate all risk. Conversely, there are an infinite number of situations/exceptions/whatever that can be dreamed up to illustrate the futility of gun legislation. We've been conditioned to ignore the fact that these situations get statistically more and more difficult to achieve, and therefore less and less probable, if gun legislation is actually implemented. You can't eliminate all risk, but you can whittle it down.
Will a mandatory waiting period stop all gun suicides? No. But it will help. Will UBCs stop all gun sales to criminals? No. But they'll help. Will banning bumpstocks prevent every single mass shooting? No. But it'll help.[/QUOTE]
You cannot bump-fire a gun effectively. It's a crude gimmick.
It is easy to do. If you go out shooting once, you can get the basics down. I've taken my mother out shooting and I've shown her how bump-fire a gun for this exact same argument. and she was able to do it easily. A Fifty year old woman, whom hasn't shot in fifteen years, was able to get it down within a few attempts on a single trip out. But, what? Because one has been using in a mass shooting its a good idea to ban all of them and turn the people who have legally purchased them and do not use them for any sorts of criminal activities into criminals? They give the middle finger to the ATF because the ATF rulings are so absinthe and out of date.
Even if you do ban bumpstocks? What then? Oh. They're going to go out and purchase or make one of these, even though they can already do it. Because they're fully legal to buy and own just not install in your gun, because that suddenly makes it a machine-gun.
[t]http://www.hk94.com/images/brokernRLL.jpg[/t]
Congrats. You now have the ability to make your AR platform fully automatic. Oh, you don't know how to install them? Good thing its within the first few images of google search and youtube videos on it. You ban those? Oh wait, they're already banned. Despite the fact that fully automatic weapons are very rarely ever used in crimes because they are hard to conceal and unwieldy when fired in full auto.
You cannot deter or hinder people who have already decided that they are going to murder people on their way out. The only way to stop it, is to stop it before it happens. You ban bumpstocks? Well shit. They still have a gun. You ban guns? Well shit. They have a truck. You make everyone ride a bus? Well shit, they blew it up with a home-made bomb. Ban explosives? Oh wait, those are already banned from private ownership. But they might just use a machete instead.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack[/URL]
35 people dead, and 143 injured from a group terrorist attack with knifes.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack[/URL]
12 people dead, OVER FOUR THOUSAND INJURED from a gas attack.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Glendale_train_crash[/url]
Derailed a train because he wanted to kill himself.
11 dead, over 150 injured.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsumoto_sarin_attack[/URL]
From the same cult above.
8 dead, over five hundred injured.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Greyhound_bus_attack[/URL]
Stole a bus with a knife.
6 dead, over 30 injured.
I'll also mention 9/11. I don't think I need to go into the amount of deaths and damage that caused.
We beefed up security in airports and everything.
No weapons, no soda cans, no deodorant. Yet people are [URL="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/11/adam-savage-tsa-saw-my-junk-missed-12-razor-blades/"]managing to bring foot long blades onto planes.[/URL]
People seem to have this idea that stopping gun violence will stop violence. It won't. It'll be channeled into other forms of violence.
Its almost as if we should be looking for the root causes of people joining terrorist groups, or cults or becoming suicidal rather than the means to an end.
I feel like the left ought to learn more about guns before they try banning these different modifications or different kinds of guns. One because by understanding it better they can better legislate, and two, well. Because they always always [I]always[/I] say some dumbass shit.
Well y'know he's got this military style assault rifle heavy machine gun and every shell he puts in the gun is another person dead, all whisper quiet if he has a silencer
not that I'm a gun expert but I'm also not trying to pass legislation banning shit, embarrassing myself by showing I don't know anything about except what I saw in movies
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52893466]I feel like the left ought to learn more about guns before they try banning these different modifications or different kinds of guns. One because by understanding it better they can better legislate, and two, well. Because they always always [I]always[/I] say some dumbass shit.
[B]Well y'know he's got this military style assault rifle heavy machine gun and every shell he puts in the gun is another person dead, all whisper quiet if he has a silencer[/B]
not that I'm a gun expert but I'm also not trying to pass legislation banning shit, embarrassing myself by showing I don't know anything about except what I saw in movies[/QUOTE]
It's not an embarrassment to them if it sets the groundwork for them to say, "oh, geez, we banned all these big scary guns but this breaking news tip just told us that it's actually handguns that kill the most, we have to do something!!!!"
[QUOTE=mcharest;52883657]You want to cut down on gun deaths without giving up your second amendment rights? Put your money where your mouth is and support a mandatory one-day waiting period with free suicide prevention literature. It's not an undue burden to ask buyers to hold off for a day, it shifts the national focus off of mass shootings and back to suicide prevention where it should be, and it will work. ([URL="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/11/1619896114"]This study[/URL] found that a one-day waiting period reduced suicides by 17% - nearly one in five suicides prevented. Not bad for a single piece of legislation.[/QUOTE]
Unless I'm really reading that study wrong, it found a decrease in gun related suicide, but found a very slight increase in overall suicide. ([URL]http://www.pnas.org/content/114/46/12162/T4.expansion.html[/URL])
It also doesn't seem to look at how trends changed, only how the absolute number changed. So, for example, if the states that instituted waiting periods were already on an downward trend when compared to other states, then they would show a negative correlation with waiting periods, even if it wasn't caused by waiting periods.
[editline]17th November 2017[/editline]
Some of the other tables are also contradictory, with one model showing an increase and another model showing a decrease. Their data also shows that instituting background checks increased gun violence.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.