After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746112]For obviously dangerous things like guns you should need to spend a couple hours training with an instructor, like a drivers license [/QUOTE]
I think I am one of the few pro-gun people who's for this. A FOID like system with a (one time) instructor would allow for loosening of idiotic restrictions while making it increasingly difficult for criminals to get their hands on one.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746120]Well uh, what do you want...? I'm actually proposing solutions while you guys are playing the tired old "well a spork can be an effective killing weapon if you modify it!"[/QUOTE]
You are indeed proposing solutions, but I don't know how hours of training would prevent people like Paddock from spending many years building up their own personal arsenal to commit a crime nobody had any idea he was going to commit.
Other issues, sure. I wouldn't be opposed to some mandatory training in the end.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52746134]I think I am one of the few pro-gun people who's for this. A FOID like system with a (one time) instructor would allow for loosening of idiotic restrictions while making it increasingly difficult for criminals to get their hands on one.[/QUOTE]
It's irrelevant to this discussion because it not would have affected this shooter.
I'm not principally opposed to licensing/training/blah blah blah but in the US these things have a history of being abused to attack gun owners down the line. Such a licensing system would create a de facto registry which could easily be used to betray law abiding people who put their trust in it like what happened in NYC. That's the platform on which most gun owners oppose stuff like that. We literally cannot trust lawmakers, it's not a compromise if they demand more later.
So should we legalize all drugs or just not worry about them cuz you can get high off anything if you huff it hard enough? Like just because there are lots of dangerous stuff doesn't really change my mind on the need for making it at least harder for people to massacre innocents.
[QUOTE=booster;52746129]I am obviously talking about the overall lethality when the aim is to cause as much damage as possible as fast as possible.
In such a scenario, an accessory that increases the firerate would increase the lethality. More people would die as your gun can fire much faster.[/QUOTE]
Depends on accuracy and density of people. Rapid successive shots lowers the accuracy of the weapon quite a bit.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746142]So should we legalize all drugs or just not worry about them cuz you can get high off anything if you huff it hard enough? Like just because there are lots of dangerous stuff doesn't really change my mind on the need for making it at least harder for people to massacre innocents.[/QUOTE]
I mean, all it takes is one crazy guy to swerve his car onto the street in a bustling city to commit a "massacre". The point is that saying certain things are more dangerous than others and should be restricted is a very slippery slope and doesn't tackle the crux of the problem.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746142]So should we legalize all drugs or just not worry about them cuz you can get high off anything if you huff it hard enough? Like just because there are lots of dangerous stuff doesn't really change my mind on the need for making it at least harder for people to massacre innocents.[/QUOTE]
This is a bad slippery slope argument laced with sensationalism.
[QUOTE=booster;52746075]I have no problem with semi-automatic rifles at all and I don't think guns should be banned. I do have problems with the free access to modify them to increase killing potential.[/QUOTE]
I think we were all a little surprised by the bumpfire stocks. They are a novelty item. Your accuracy goes to near zero with them. People bought them for the amusement of ghetto full auto.
In practice this guy probably would have been more lethal without them. He had an elevated position, optics, a bipod, and decent rifles. Had he been focusing on shot placement, this could have been worse. Semi automatic fire would have taken longer to identify and wouldn't have triggered the hotel smoke alarm until much much later.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52746110]Fire rate doesn't increase the lethality. The lethality is based on the caliber and cartridge, not the gun or any accessories.[/QUOTE]
Why is "for fun" a valid reason to have anything designed specifically for lethality and having little to no use outside of lethality?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52746164]I mean, all it takes is one crazy guy to swerve his car onto the street in a bustling city to commit a "massacre". The point is that saying certain things are more dangerous than others and should be restricted is a very slippery slope and doesn't tackle the crux of the problem.[/QUOTE]
You guys are aware that arguing against something on the basis of it being a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy right? Its an argument that doesn't address the meat of the issue: whether it is effective to increase regulation on guns.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52746178]Why is "for fun" a valid reason to have anything designed specifically for lethality and having little to no use outside of lethality?[/QUOTE]
Why is it acceptable to punish a majority for something a very tiny minority do?
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746180]You guys are aware that arguing against something on the basis of it being a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy right? Its an argument that doesn't address the meat of the issue: whether it is effective to increase regulation on guns.[/QUOTE]
"You used a technical fallacy, that means I'm right" [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy]is also a fallacy[/url]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52746183]Why is it acceptable to punish a majority for something a very tiny minority do?[/QUOTE]
Is not being able to own things designed specifically for murder without a given reason a punishment? Basically no other countries allow you to and we're doing just fine.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52746184]"You used a technical fallacy, that means I'm right" [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy]is also a fallacy[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah but that's like...the core of your guys's arguments, a logical fallacy. Just because it's a slippery slope literally means nothing, and neither is it clearly true that regulations on guns would lead to the eventual destruction of them all.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746180]You guys are aware that arguing against something on the basis of it being a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy right? Its an argument that doesn't address the meat of the issue: whether it is effective to increase regulation on guns.[/QUOTE]
So then argue about gun regulation, and don't use drug analogies because drugs are a completely different problem in the U.S.
I don't think anything will help the USA right now in terms of regulations, it would take years for them to have a real effect. This is simply due to the massive # of guns surrounding us and the obviously massive black market for them as well. Until guns are rarer than they are now we will always have gun violence.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746190]Yeah but that's like...the core of your guys's arguments, a logical fallacy. Just because it's a slippery slope literally means nothing, and neither is it clearly true that regulations on guns would lead to the eventual destruction of them all.[/QUOTE]
It is clearly true. NYC introduced an innocent looking registry and got gun owners to back it with the guarantee that it wouldn't be used against them. They later enacted a new law that enabled them to use the registry that gun owners voted for in good faith to track down newly-banned guns and threaten the owners.
Look where the UK and Aus went, then consider our political situation is 10 times worse.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52746193]So then argue about gun regulation, and don't use drug analogies because drugs are a completely different problem in the U.S.[/QUOTE]
It's an analogy for a reason
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746200]It's an analogy for a reason[/QUOTE]
It's a bad analogy and you formed a bad, irrelevant argument on it.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52746198]It is clearly true. NYC introduced an innocent looking registry and got gun owners to back it with the guarantee that it wouldn't be used against them. They later enacted a new law that enabled them to use the registry that gun owners voted for in good faith to track down newly-banned guns and threaten the owners.[/QUOTE]
Well then I guess we just need a really good law, huh? I understand the fear, but if the law is written well it could easily deal with the problem of future encroachment
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746200]It's an analogy for a reason[/QUOTE]
Yeah and it's a shit analogy. The drug problem in the U.S. is a side effect of the War on Drugs. When we enacted prohibition, we had a gigantic alcohol smuggling industry. I don't see how severe gun regulation will be any different.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746207]Well then I guess we just need a really good law, huh? I understand the fear, but if the law is written well it could easily deal with the problem of future encroachment[/QUOTE]
The best-written, most all-encompassing law on the books is still encroached upon. What do you think [B]"shall not be infringed"[/B] means?
Laws are weak and lawmakers do not respect them.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52746210]The best-written, most all-encompassing law on the books is still encroached upon. What do you think [B]"shall not be infringed"[/B] means?
Laws are weak and lawmakers do not respect them.[/QUOTE]
Let's be honest with ourselves, the 2nd amendment cannot be taken literally. If we did it would mean that citizens have the RIGHT to purchase nuclear arms, etc etc. They cannot, however, change the state of gun-law in America to such a state that the supreme court may find it to be infringing upon the amendment.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746216]Let's be honest with ourselves, the 2nd amendment cannot be taken literally. If we did it would mean that citizens have the RIGHT to purchase nuclear arms, etc etc.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's what a "well regulated Militia" implies, but okay.
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;52746192][url]https://youtu.be/3gWrthH2OK4?t=2m20s[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnqsQhk2yX0[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk6kDKXAbOI[/url]
are you seriously telling me that your accuracy goes to "near zero" if you do what these guys do - put it on a bipod?[/QUOTE]
You've got one guy who can't even make it a few rounds without a malfunction and another guy who is firing two round bursts. As soon as any of them lay into it, you can watch their accuracy plummet.
I don't care if they get banned, as they are a novelty item in the first place.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746216]Let's be honest with ourselves, the 2nd amendment cannot be taken literally. If we did it would mean that citizens have the RIGHT to purchase nuclear arms, etc etc. They cannot, however, change the state of gun-law in America to such a state that the supreme court may find it to be infringing upon the amendment.[/QUOTE]
Don't misinterpret this as me saying we shouldn't have any gun regulations. The wording of 2A is crystal clear in its intent, but obviously some restrictions are needed. My point is lawmakers can selectively change, ignore, and interpret laws to mean whatever they want. The second issue ever detailed in our nation's legal web states plainly "there will be no restrictions on guns" and nobody gives a damn about it. If 2A isn't good enough, nothing else will be.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52746221]I don't think that's what a "well regulated Militia" implies, but okay.[/QUOTE]
A well regulated militia was being cited as the reason the people need firearms. The second amendment is saying " because a militia is a necessary evil for a functional country, we won't stop the people from getting firearms to counter them"
The militia is mentioned in the Constitution several times as being an arm of the government. Why would the government need a law telling itself not to disarm itself? That is why it specifically states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. People, not militia.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52745994]They werent entirely wrong, its fairly hard to move and keep up the motions required to continue to bumpfire. Not impossible mind you, but fairly difficult[/QUOTE]
He literally claimed it was 100% impossible to do, is the thing.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52746099]What does that entail? Where do you draw the line here? Simply installing a more comfortable grip or scope "increases killing potential". Firing into a crowd from above might be the [I]only[/I] situation a bump fire stock could meaningfully augment a weapon's killing potential; in any other situation they're finicky, hard to control, and unreliable. They're a fun way to burn up lots of cheap ammo, nothing else.[/QUOTE]
And there he is now, if I'm not mistaken.
[editline]4th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=catbarf;52746038]Sure. Other nations tend to be more willing to put their skin in the game when you look like you have some ability to stand on your own feet. Not trying to imply we won the revolution with muskets alone, but they certainly contributed.
Okay, first off, those 'pistols' are not really what you probably think of as pistols. The most common .223 pistols are basically just short AR-15s with no stock that meet the legal definition of 'pistol' while being otherwise rifles. And as far as public safety is concerned, those .223 pistols are virtually identical to .223 rifles.
Second, they tested military FMJ, not frangible ammunition, and they tested at a right angle to the surface. .223 is a high-velocity cartridge, and that makes it extremely susceptible to deformation if it doesn't hit perfectly. Buckshot, on the other hand, is like little slow-moving cannonballs that just keep going until something hard intercepts them. And you can buy rifle ammo specifically suited to avoid penetrating walls which is still effective at its intended purpose. Pistol and shotgun ammunition tends to represent a trade-off between reliable lethality and risk of collateral.
[b]More importantly, in a defensive situation the controllability of a rifle means fewer rounds fired and more rounds on-target and not going through the walls to begin with. Rifles, especially intermediate-caliber ones like ARs, are much easier for people of weaker physical stature (women, the elderly) to manage under recoil than shotguns or handguns. If someone has to shoot to protect their family, I'd much rather it be with a weapon that they can use effectively and not one that represents an undue risk to neighbors or bystanders.[/b]
Actually, none of the above. Handguns are typically more expensive than sporting shotguns, there aren't as many, and they're more heavily restricted both on a federal level and in virtually all states. The reason handguns are preferred is due to their concealability and portability, both of which make them popular with criminals who are not apt to open carry illegally-possessed weapons.
That's why [i]if anything[/i] I'd be more receptive to a ban on handguns than one on 'assault weapons'. Handguns are the weapon of choice of gang members and home invaders. Rifles like AR-15s are the weapon of choice of homeowners and sportsmen. It's just their representation in statistically minor but high-profile mass shooting events that skews the public perception considerably.[/QUOTE]
In regards to the bolded, that's all well and good, but the majority of those arguing about ARs for home defense don't exactly have spaghetti arms.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52746146]Depends on accuracy and density of people. Rapid successive shots lowers the accuracy of the weapon quite a bit.[/QUOTE]
When you're [I]firing into a crowd of people[/I], individual round accuracy isn't important. He wasn't going after a single target, he was going for mass casualties.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52746221]I don't think that's what a "well regulated Militia" implies, but okay.[/QUOTE]
"Well regulated" in the language of the time meant disciplined and organized, not that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should own a gun.
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;52746240]You have to be kidding me. Look at this, then:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYt6UYLD83k[/url]
It very clearly shows a very concentrated cone of fire. The malfunctions happen because the hammer follows the BCG home.[/QUOTE]
They are pretty good with that thing. Video is still filled with weapon malfunctions. Rate of fire varies dramatically, which is going to affect recoil at range severely.
Semi auto remains the more dangerous choice against targets that you aren't trying to suppress.
Since debate about guns goes nowhere, how would people feel about a ban on modifications that increase your rate of fire? I wouldn't care if selling and possessing bump stocks was made illegal.
Though I don't agree with bans on magazine capacity, unless it's something excessive like anything over 50 rounds. A standard mag shouldn't be illegal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.