• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
Firing into a crowd with a bump fire stock is like trying to grab marbles off a table while blindfolded. If you don't have optics it'll help, but this guy had glass on every one of those rifles. Taking his time and using those scopes would have made him significantly more deadly. So many of those people just laid down and covered their heads and would have been sitting ducks for a precision shooter. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;52746262]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.[/QUOTE] I would care a lot - not because I care about bump stocks but because arbitrary bans on accessories are stupid. This might actually be the first time a bump stock has ever been used in a violent crime and arguably it actually made him less dangerous, so why ban them? They're practically useless and I wouldn't care if they had never been invented but they [I]are[/I] fun. Acquiescing and allowing such bans enables future attacks on more useful things like bipods or optics on the same grounds used to ban the stock.
He used both if I recall. He had a rifle with a bump stock and then a rifle with bigger optics. Seems likely that after he dispersed the crowd with the bump stock he started sniping with the other one. In the video of the police body cam you can hear individual shots ring out. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;52746264] I would care a lot - not because I care about bump stocks but because arbitrary bans on accessories are stupid. This might actually be the first time a bump stock has ever been used in a violent crime and arguably it actually made him less dangerous, so why ban them? They're practically useless and I wouldn't care if they had never been invented but they [I]are[/I] fun. Acquiescing and allowing such bans enables future attacks on more useful things like bipods or optics on the same grounds used to ban the stock.[/QUOTE] I'm generally against bans but I would be indifferent to it since I have no plans or real desire to ever own one.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52746241]And there he is now, if I'm not mistaken.[/QUOTE] You are mistaken.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52746189]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] Sporting rifles aren't designed for murder, bump fire stocks aren't designed for murder, bayonets and longbows [i]are[/i] designed for murder but they're legal in your country. For the millionth time, design intent makes no difference to public harm. All that matters is public utility vs public risk.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52746290]You are mistaken.[/QUOTE] I could've sworn it was you who argued that it was impossible to massacre people with a bump-stock. Maybe it was someone else, but some nagging feeling in the back of my head thinks it was you. My mistake if I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52746306]I could've sworn it was you who argued that it was impossible to massacre people with a bump-stock. Maybe it was someone else, but some nagging feeling in the back of my head thinks it was you. My mistake if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] I have argued that a bump stock wouldn't help in a massacre but I don't think I've ever said it'd just be impossible. My reasoning is above and I still don't think the bump stocks had a significant effect on the Vegas shooting other than psychological. Do we actually know how many victims were shot as opposed to trampled? That number + an estimate of how many shots he fired would help answer this question.
[QUOTE=OvB;52746262]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.[/QUOTE] The precedent on the second amendment is really tricky. For example, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court argued that there was [I]nothing[/I] unconstitutional about restrictions on gun rights for the mentally disabled, or for certain types of "unusual" weapons. The defining term used by Justice Miller was that the second amendment protects types of weapons "in common use at the time." That used to be muskets, eventually revolvers, handguns, etc. Flamethrowers? Full-auto mounted machine guns? Already restricted. The argument now should be what constitutes "common use" - are bump stock modifications "common use" or should they be restricted? This is sort of the basis for the DNC's attempts to restrict certain types of modifications, because by and large those mods aren't "common use," and after DC v. Heller it's their only way to pass (dubiously) effective gun legislation without trampling on constitutionally-upheld individual gun ownership rights. DC v. Heller overturned a DC handgun ban and a requirement for handgun trigger locks, based on the existing legal precedent that individual gun rights were only restricted for "unusual" weapons - see tommyguns, mounted MGs, etc. It's up to Congress to define what counts as "common" weaponry. I'd argue that common weaponry should be stuff for hunting or self-defense - certain semi-auto rifles and handguns, but certainly not rifles modified to be full-auto. That's the hard decision, and the court implicitly left it up to the legislature to decide what constitutes "common."
[QUOTE=GunFox;52746236]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] Right, I'm just saying nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it explicitly say that the people need to have identical military power to the government. Of course that is up for interpretation, but that's the nature of the Bill of Rights.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52746336]Right, I'm just saying nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it explicitly say that the people need to have identical military power to the government. Of course that is up for interpretation, but that's the nature of the Bill of Rights.[/QUOTE] No, it just flat out states that the right shall not be infringed. It doesn't have to then specify the specific level of power allowed to civilians. It already stated that it shall not be infringed.
[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] At over 100 yards, yes. Machineguns in general are not terribly accurate. Things like the M249 and M240 compensate with volume. Even then they're more so used for suppression than actual point shooting. The psychological affect of them is typically more damaging, at least in regards to a fire fight.
[QUOTE=GunFox;52746359]No, it just flat out states that the right shall not be infringed. It doesn't have to then specify the specific level of power allowed to civilians. It already stated that it shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE] Yes, I know. I am using the wording of the 2nd amendment to disprove his claim that taken literally, citizens have the right to buy nuclear weapons. It's technically true but the current interpretation of it makes it false, for the same reasons you can't make bombs.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52746241]"Well regulated" in the language of the time meant disciplined and organized, not that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should own a gun.[/QUOTE] This has been proven false so many times that you would have to be willfully ignorant to still say this.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746200]It's an analogy for a reason[/QUOTE] Weed, cocaine, MDMA etc etc are designed to get people high, if people die over them it's either misuse, biology, or they're badly produced. I'm not blaming people who OD or saying it's their fault I'm just saying it's like how flawed the car analogy is. Cars drive you places and can be used to kill people. Drugs get you high and can kill people. Guns are meant to kill people and are also treated like toys in America. All the bloody analogies people are using do not apply to guns. This isn't hard people.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52746336]Right, I'm just saying nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it explicitly say that the people need to have identical military power to the government. Of course that is up for interpretation, but that's the nature of the Bill of Rights.[/QUOTE] No - welcome to the Constitution, where nothing is really all that explicit. The courts have [I]already[/I] ruled that some restrictions on weaponry are constitutional. You can't buy a predator missile or a hydrogen bomb, and you have no right to do so. Instead, individual gun ownership is protected due to historic social and legal precedent on owning weaponry for self-defense and other purposes. The DC. v. Heller decision, which was the first major interpretive look at the second amendment, was pretty reasonable in how it described individual gun rights. The case in question involved a DC law banning handgun ownership in the home - the courts overruled that, based on essentially unanimous legal precedent that weaponry could be owned for self-defense of person and property. But they didn't say "no gun-free zones." They said citizens have a right to own a firearm [I]for defense of their home[/I]. They explicitly left room for licensing systems. They explicitly left room for firearm restrictions for felons and the mentally ill. They explicitly left room for laws regulating the "conditions and qualifications" of commercial firearms sales. They explicitly left room for restrictions on "unusual" weaponry. Anyone who claims that the Second Amendment offers [I]totally unrestricted[/I] individual firearm ownership rights is wrong. The court's precedent offers loads of room for restriction - nobody in the world should believe that a common citizen should have a second amendment right to own a hydrogen bomb, or a Jeep-mounted belt-fed machine gun, or any other kind of weaponry that is unusual and uncommon. There is no provision that the people need to have "identical military power" - the court argues explicitly [I]against[/I] that.
[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. Materials that are vital in explosive usage should require a business license/permit and auditing of their usage.[/QUOTE] You do realize that if you're an adult (18+) you don't need training with an instructor to get a license in most states, right?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52746391]Yes, I know. I am using the wording of the 2nd amendment to disprove his claim that taken literally, citizens have the right to buy nuclear weapons. It's technically true but the current interpretation of it makes it false, for the same reasons you can't make bombs.[/QUOTE] Your interpretation of the amendment is very, very incorrect. Read up on [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller"]DC v. Heller[/URL] if you want to know the reasoning behind the court's interpretation of individual gun ownership rights based on the Second Amendment. You're arguing from a place of ignorance right now. The court has interpreted the second amendment in a pretty specific way - and [I]nowhere[/I] do they interpret it as an absolute right to own military-tier weaponry. Not even dissenting opinions make that argument, because it's [I]blatantly[/I] not the intent of the amendment.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52746418]Your interpretation of the amendment is very, very incorrect. Read up on [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller"]DC v. Heller[/URL] if you want to know the reasoning behind the court's interpretation of individual gun ownership rights based on the Second Amendment. You're arguing from a place of ignorance right now. The court has interpreted the second amendment in a pretty specific way - and [I]nowhere[/I] do they interpret it as an absolute right to own military-tier weaponry. Not even dissenting opinions make that argument, because it's [I]blatantly[/I] not the intent of the amendment.[/QUOTE] To be frank you can own military grade weaponry. The hard part is more so who'd actually sell it to you. I could buy an Abrams tank, with a live gun, if I wanted to. I'd have to register the cannon as a destructive device under the NFA, and each round would have to be registered as well, but I could do it. The hard part, like I said, would be finding someone willing to sell those things.
Update: NRA and GOP are conceeding now, they are going to get Bump Stocks Banned.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52746507]Update: NRA and GOP are conceeding now, they are going to get Bump Stocks Banned.[/QUOTE] Conceding to whom? In what arena? By what mechanism? Why are you always making these borderline gibberish posts without sources?????
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52746507]Update: NRA and GOP are conceeding now, they are going to get Bump Stocks Banned.[/QUOTE] Source?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52746403]Guns are meant to kill people[/QUOTE] Repeatedly asserting your ignorance doesn't turn it into fact. Even if we grant this assertion in the case of guns that are meant to kill, you have yet to give us [I]any[/I] reason why design intent matters to begin with in evaluating public risk. Do you mean to suggest that the packaging a product is sold in, or what thoughts are going through the brain of the designer, metaphysically make their product more or less dangerous to the public? Sell an air rifle with a picture of a bullseye and it's okay, sell an air rifle with a sticker saying 'suitable for self-defense' and uh oh, now it's dangerous? How does this work, exactly?
[QUOTE=OvB;52746262]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.[/QUOTE] I'd care. I've always wanted to own a machine gun, but the only feasible way to get one is to win the lottery. Accessories like that are a much more economic alternative. Mostly my own personal bias though. Also I'm pretty sure legislators would somehow fuck it up and make the act of bumpfiring without a stock count as "manufacturing a machine gun". Similar to the stupidity of saying that shouldering a "handgun" with an arm brace = manufacturing a short barreled rifle. :v:
[QUOTE=catbarf;52746693]Repeatedly asserting your ignorance doesn't turn it into fact. Even if we grant this assertion in the case of guns that are meant to kill, you have yet to give us [I]any[/I] reason why design intent matters to begin with in evaluating public risk. Do you mean to suggest that the packaging a product is sold in, or what thoughts are going through the brain of the designer, metaphysically make their product more or less dangerous to the public? Sell an air rifle with a picture of a bullseye and it's okay, sell an air rifle with a sticker saying 'suitable for self-defense' and uh oh, now it's dangerous? How does this work, exactly?[/QUOTE] they are also incredibly good at killing people, and not much else
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746704]they are also incredibly good at killing people, and not much else[/QUOTE] So they're not good for hunting, pest control, or target shooting? Just killing people, right?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52746724]So they're not good for hunting, pest control, or target shooting? Just killing people, right?[/QUOTE] Oh, so you'd be okay with banning all guns but target shooters, or hunting rifles? Why didn't you say that before?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746704]they are also incredibly good at killing people, and not much else[/QUOTE] How sheltered are you? My parents were quite against guns for a while, but we still had them due to living on a ranch while raising animals because shit can happen. Not every threat is a human, and not everyone who owns firearms uses them to kill humans. The original intent of firearm designs are irrelevant. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746734]Oh, so you'd be okay with banning all guns but target shooters, or hunting rifles? Why didn't you say that before?[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ... Are you going to make a counterpoint, or just make snarky comments the whole time?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746734]Oh, so you'd be okay with banning all guns but target shooters, or hunting rifles? Why didn't you say that before?[/QUOTE] What constitutes a target shooter or hunting rifle? Fundamentally what exactly separates them from a normal gun to you?
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52746743]How sheltered are you? My parents were quite against guns for a while, but we still had them due to living on a ranch while raising animals because shit can happen. Not every threat is a human, and not everyone who owns firearms uses them to kill humans. The original intent of firearm designs are irrelevant. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] Jesus Christ...[/QUOTE] Alright, I'll expand that to killing in general, in which case refer to above post [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;52746752]What constitutes a target shooter or hunting rifle? Fundamentally what exactly separates them from a normal gun to you?[/QUOTE] That would be up to lawmakers to decide the technicalities, but probably limited rounds, and probably not fully or perhaps even semi automatic [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52746743]How sheltered are you? [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] Jesus Christ... Are you going to make a counterpoint, or just make snarky comments the whole time?[/QUOTE] I'm completely capable of both, my comment there has a point of you feel like responding to the argument
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746754]Alright, I'll expand that to killing in general, in which case refer to above post [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] That would be up to lawmakers to decide the technicalities, but probably limited rounds, and probably not fully or perhaps even semi automatic [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] I'm completely capable of both, my comment there has a point of you feel like responding to the argument[/QUOTE] What if the sport dictates I need to shoot at a lot of targets quickly
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52746768]What if the sport dictates I need to shoot at a lot of targets quickly[/QUOTE] Well then you should practice? Rules of a sport are decided by people, as long as everyone has the same rules and tools there's nothing wrong with it. If someone decides there should be a sport using tanks, it wouldn't mean it's time to make those available for sale
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.