It's happening: Senator to propose bill regulating black powder in wake of Boston Massacre - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ksenior;40353117]Except it [I]would[/I] massively inconvenience a whole heap of people while achieving nothing because as I said, better alternatives are available.[/QUOTE] How would it inconvenience them, exactly? Businesses that employ black powder for their operations will still be able to obtain it at hardly any extra expense, and just as easily as they always have. Private collectors who have antique weapons that they like to fire now and then may want it, but if so, they can simply submit to the background check, get a clean certification, and then not have to worry about the restriction. It's not like it's going to send people who ALREADY OWN black powder to jail. The 'inconvenience' is a pretty lame excuse. And I daresay convenience is an acceptable sacrifice to make it more difficult for criminals and ideological zealots to obtain explosives.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40353078]My argument was that people wouldn't bother making it themselves. It's just not worth it.[/QUOTE] So they'd give up? If someone is intent on killing dozens of people, they'll find another way. You might as well ban everything that can be used in an explosive. I guess that includes carbon and oxygen too.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40353064]What's better for a slippery slope then? If the government taxes you, it's only a matter of time before 120% taxes become the norm.[/QUOTE] That analogy would only make sense if 90-100% of people were affected negatively by gun legislation. Almost everybody is taxed, whereas gun legislation only affects a general minority of people therefore a majority (or even equal minority) of public opinion should not be able to dictate the rights of the minority, however trivial that right may be. Especially if the outcome is only a very minor positive difference. There is no really good analogy for the anti-gun debate other than comparing guns to other weapons, it's a pretty unique set of circumstances.

Jesus he's just proposing people get a background check when they buy gunpowder, not banning it outright nor taking away your guns or ability to shoot said guns.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;40352720]If you don't stick up for your rights then you might as well just let the government take them away. Sure, black powder make be trivial, but what next? Do they go after the guns that shoot them? What about fireworks? It's a never ending battle.[/QUOTE] Nice slippery slope fallacy. FIRST ITS THE GUNS, THEN IT'S THE BOMBS, WHAT WILL THEY TRY TO TAKE NEXT!? Really mate, it's fucking blackpowder, you shouldn't be able to straight up buy blackpowder on a whim.

[QUOTE=ksenior;40352961]Blackpowder is used in reloading though[/QUOTE] Smokeless powder, actually. They are different.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40353133]If it's easier and more powerful, why the hell didn't they do that one instead?[/QUOTE] Because the bomber new the fine details of what was more powerful? The idiot probably walked into a gun store and said he needed gunpowder and that's what they sold him [QUOTE=archangel125;40353135]How would it inconvenience them, exactly? Businesses that employ black powder for their operations will still be able to obtain it at hardly any extra expense, and just as easily as they always have. Private collectors who have antique weapons that they like to fire now and then may want it, but if so, they can simply submit to the background check, get a clean certification, and then not have to worry about the restriction. It's not like it's going to send people who ALREADY OWN black powder to jail. The 'inconvenience' is a pretty lame excuse. And I daresay convenience is an acceptable sacrifice to make it more difficult for criminals and ideological zealots to obtain explosives.[/QUOTE] Blackpowder firearms are in no way limited to collectors. Many people have them. As I said, the hunting season opens several week earlier for muzzle loading and blackpowder firearms that it does for normal guns. So many many people won them for that reason. You continue to not address my argument that this doesn't restrict smokeless powder, a more powerful alternative [QUOTE=Kartoffel;40353157]Smokeless powder, actually. They are different.[/QUOTE] Both are used. You're not limited to one and blackpowder cartridges are very common

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40353134]wait wait wait. So you admit that no amount of legislation can stop a truly determined attack... Are you saying that all the bombings that have happened and have used any sort of explosive are not "truly determined"? You cannot deter people who are determined to kill other people. You either have to stop them before they do the act, either by invading their privacy, or you have to wait for them to commit the crime and do it the legal way. Any other way is just a feel-good bullshit tactic to make people think that "something has been done", while the only people being punished are the people who obey the law.[/QUOTE] Ah, but there is one very good reason, from a law enforcement/security perspective, to enforce such regulations. If people have to go out of their way to obtain these compounds, the purchases they make will be easier to trace. Individuals the government determines to be 'at risk' will no doubt be put under surveillance, legally, or otherwise. And if the surveillance results in them ending a terror plot before it is acted upon, who will complain? It's not something I necessarily condone, but it's definitely how the government will operate.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40353105]No amount of legislation can stop a truly determined attack. They could more easily make their own black powder than obtain it from ammunition. The idea with this law, as with all laws, is to serve as an effective deterrent, while inconveniencing law-abiding society at large as little as possible. [/QUOTE] Except many criminologists contend that deterrence is a largely ineffective means of stopping crime, and this would inconvenience people massively while accomplishing very little, if anything. [quote]Interesting theory. Pray tell, what is the more easily obtained, higher-yield explosive compound to black powder?[/quote] Well gaseous hydrogen is fairly easy to produce, tannerite is pretty easy to obtain, gasoline bombs are rather effective at injuring people, as are propane, fertilizer bombs are a rather popular one, and anyone with a highschool knowledge of chemistry can figure out how to make a basic bomb pretty easily with things you can buy at a hardware store.

[QUOTE=ksenior;40353159]Because the bomber new the fine details of what was more powerful? The idiot probably walked into a gun store and said he needed gunpowder and that's what they sold him Blackpowder firearms are in no way limited to collectors. Many people have them. As I said, the hunting season opens several week earlier for muzzle loading and blackpowder firearms that it does for normal guns. So many many people won them for that reason. You continue to not address my argument that this doesn't restrict smokeless powder, a more powerful alternative[/QUOTE] Smokeless powder is intended as a propellant, if I recall. That means it has a quick burn, but can only burn at a certain rate (and more evenly, because it's finer), that makes it less effective than black powder in the making of bombs. And, as I've repeated ad nauseum, black powder ammunition will still be sold.

I wonder who will win out in the end. And then I look at all gun legislation passed since the USA was founded, look at trends of gun ownership rates, views of them by the media and popular culture, politicians, and many other things. I have a pretty good idea of which sides going to win.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40352943]And someone edit the fucking OP to remove that retarded 4chan thread. The guy got literally EVERYTHING wrong. Reloading powder isn't the same as black powder. The bill doesn't restrict the sale of ammunition. And the title is sensationalist as shit. Way to blow this all out of proportion, seriously.[/QUOTE] he got the race, age, and time they caught the suspects right to be fair

[QUOTE=ksenior;40353159]Both are used. You're not limited to one and blackpowder cartridges are very common[/QUOTE] I haven't seen any, although it would probably be for those older model shotguns like trench guns and Winchester 1887s or what have you.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40353170]Except many criminologists contend that deterrence is a largely ineffective means of stopping crime, and this would inconvenience people massively while accomplishing very little, if anything. Well gaseous hydrogen is fairly easy to produce, tannerite is pretty easy to obtain, gasoline bombs are rather effective at injuring people, as are propane, fertilizer bombs are a rather popular one, and anyone with a highschool knowledge of chemistry can figure out how to make a basic bomb pretty easily with things you can buy at a hardware store.[/QUOTE] Okay, you make a good point. In that light, it seems that they're just limiting one particular means as a way to be seen to be taking action, knowing it won't slow down a would-be terrorist.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40353173]Smokeless powder is intended as a propellant, if I recall. That means it has a quick burn, but a steady burn, that makes it less effective than black powder in the making of bombs. And, as I've repeated ad nauseum, black powder ammunition will still be sold.[/QUOTE] Blackpowder is also intended as a propellant. That's what it's sold for. You have just demonstrated you have no understanding of this subject. So if ammo is still sold, how does that stop people from getting blackpowder? You buy it, and you pull the bullets. It's easy [QUOTE=Kartoffel;40353195]I haven't seen any, although it would probably be for those older model shotguns like trench guns and Winchester 1887s or what have you.[/QUOTE] If you're a reloader or have actually been into a gun store before then you must be blind. I live in Australia and see the damn stuff in every gun store for reloading

[QUOTE=archangel125;40353173]Smokeless powder is intended as a propellant, if I recall. That means it has a quick burn, but can only burn at a certain rate (and more evenly, because it's finer), that makes it less effective than black powder in the making of bombs. And, as I've repeated ad nauseum, black powder ammunition will still be sold.[/QUOTE] We actually set off some smokeless powder to test it out. It didn't go bang, it just went fizzle. I'd seriously doubt someone could make a bomb out of it. [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ksenior;40353200]Blackpowder is also intended as a propellant. That's what it's sold for. You have just demonstrated you have no understanding of this subject. So if ammo is still sold, how does that stop people from getting blackpowder? You buy it, and you pull the bullets. It's easy[/QUOTE] [del]From my understanding, black powder actually goes "boom".[/del] Nix that, it goes "foof".

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;40353204]From my understanding, black powder actually goes "boom".[/QUOTE] It doesn't. It needs to be inside something to make a "boom". It just makes a flash, a lot of smoke, and some noise.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40353153] Really mate, it's fucking blackpowder, you shouldn't be able to straight up buy blackpowder on a whim.[/QUOTE] Well I'm convinced. No, seriously why shouldn't I be able to? It has legal uses, just because it can be used illegally isn't a good enough reason to me. Plenty of other things can be used to make an explosive device. Should they all be regulated as well? What would you do about meat? Simple process to turn fat into an explosive. Or how about drain cleaners? Doesn't even need processed, it's good to go as is.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;40353204]We actually set off some smokeless powder to test it out. It didn't go bang, it just went fizzle. I'd seriously doubt someone could make a bomb out of it.[/quote] You put it in a sealed container, like a pressure cooker [quote]From my understanding, black powder actually goes "boom".[/QUOTE] No, it needs to be contained like smokeless

i wonder if you also believe sandy hook didn't happen and the holocaust was a lie

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icsbtkYpfBw[/media]

[QUOTE=ksenior;40353200]Blackpowder is also intended as a propellant. That's what it's sold for. You have just demonstrated you have no understanding of this subject. So if ammo is still sold, how does that stop people from getting blackpowder? You buy it, and you pull the bullets. It's easy[/QUOTE] The difference between black powder and smokeless powder is that black powder can be used more effectively in bombs than smokeless powder, which is too fine and burns too slowly to provide a great deal of explosive force. Statements like this one: [quote]You have just demonstrated you have no understanding of this subject.[/quote] are quite unnecessary, and tell me you're getting angry. Why does this conversation agitate you?

[QUOTE=ksenior;40353224]No, it needs to be contained like smokeless[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40353222]It doesn't. It needs to be inside something to make a "boom". It just makes a flash, a lot of smoke, and some noise.[/QUOTE] Hold your horses guys, I corrected it after watching a demonstration. It goes "foof".

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;40353204]We actually set off some smokeless powder to test it out. It didn't go bang, it just went fizzle. I'd seriously doubt someone could make a bomb out of it. [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] [del]From my understanding, black powder actually goes "boom".[/del] Nix that, it goes "foof".[/QUOTE] Black powder is intended as a propellant, however it's a very volatile one, hence why it has been used for explosives, and it's not very efficient, hence why it's been replaced with more efficient smokeless powders. Also, while ksenior my have been a little more [i]"blunt"[/i] about it, literally every gun store should have black powder stores somewhere. More commonly, you'll find it in sticks or pellets than loose nowadays, indented for use in modern muzzleloading rifles.

Doesn't it seem like a flaw in regulation that Firearms and explosive devices require background checks yet commercially buy-able explosives themselves don't?

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;40353231][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icsbtkYpfBw[/media][/QUOTE] Powders come in different grades. If you burned blackpowder next to fast burning handgun podwer they would burn at similar rates [QUOTE=archangel125;40353234]The difference between black powder and smokeless powder is that black powder can be used more effectively in bombs than smokeless powder, which is too fine and burns too slowly to provide a great deal of explosive force.[/quote] Citation thanks [quote] Statements like this one: are quite unnecessary, and tell me you're getting angry. Why does this conversation agitate you?[/QUOTE] Idiots who think they are knowledgeable in a subject but aren't annoy me

Oh, and ksenior? Watch that video on the top of this page, and you'll see my point.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;40353247]Doesn't it seem like a flaw in regulation that Firearms and explosive devices require background checks yet commercially buy-able explosives themselves don't?[/QUOTE] That's because powder is not explosive by itself, it is merely a propellant.

[QUOTE=ksenior;40353253] Idiots who think they are knowledgeable in a subject but aren't annoy me[/QUOTE] Quite.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;40353260]That's because powder is not explosive by itself, it is merely a propellant.[/QUOTE] But they are used in the creation of explosive devices or ammunition. Just seems like an oversight to me