• America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns.
    167 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48576773]It's the reason I try to stay out of most threads this forum is solid on, because it seems like nothing will ever change the opinion of people on Facepunch.[/QUOTE] I have no idea why you're complaining, for the most part opinion is overwhelmingly in your favor on this forum. As for bumpfiring, I've never shot a gun with a bumpfire stock but is it hard? I studied the mechanics a bit and it seems that it takes a bit of skill to master. [editline]30th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48576899]It states that the item converted a semiautomatic into a machinegun. If you had used a piece of metal instead of a string then the same rules would apply. The legislation covers machine guns, which defines a machine gun as being a gun that fires more than one bullet when the trigger is pressed.[/QUOTE] The way around this is that they basically ban "trigger activators" that increase the rate of fire. So where a dual 10/22 gatling mount would be considered two semiautomatics in another state, in California the turncrank that trips the triggers counts as a trigger activator and is therefore not allowed. Which means we can't have these fun little DIY contraptions: [IMG]http://www.slickguns.com/sites/default/files/gatlinggun2.jpg[/IMG] bumpfire stocks count as a trigger activator.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48576899]It states that the item converted a semiautomatic into a machinegun. If you had used a piece of metal instead of a string then the same rules would apply. The legislation covers machine guns, which defines a machine gun as being a gun that fires more than one bullet when the trigger is pressed.[/QUOTE] The fourth paragraph specifically refers to the shoestring as a machine gun. "because this item [...] FTB determined that it was a machine gun" The wording is pretty clear - the shoe string itself is a machine gun. The combination is also a machine gun. I know it's bizarre. I know it doesn't make sense. I know you think that's not what they meant. But I'm telling you that's the way it is. It's a machine gun per ATF ruling.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576859]No, the letter states that the shoestring itself is a machine gun. Full auto trigger groups for AR-15 type rifles are also considered "machine guns" among other F/A parts - that is, the parts themselves, not the assembled weapon. Additionally, open bolt guns are considered machine guns whether they're full auto or not. But the M1 in that example is [I]not[/I] fully automatic, it's bump firing.[/QUOTE] It states that the shoestring meets the ATF definition of a machinegun if it is a (emphasis not even mine for once) "[b]part designed and intended, solely and exclusively ... for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun[/b]". So it is a machinegun if it is intended to be used to cause a weapon to fire more than once per trigger pull, and isn't if it isn't. saying "The ATF classifies a shoestring as a machinegun" is stupid because it misses serious context.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48576941]It states that the shoestring meets the ATF definition of a machinegun if it is a (emphasis not even mine for once) "[b]part designed and intended, solely and exclusively ... for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun[/b]". So it is a machinegun if it is intended to be used to cause a weapon to fire more than once per trigger pull, and isn't if it isn't. saying "The ATF classifies a shoestring as a machinegun" is stupid because it misses serious context.[/QUOTE] But literally any shoestring could be construed as intended to cause a weapon to fire more than once. All you have to do is tie a loop in the end. The metal ring in the example was added so it would be 922(r) compliant so he could register it. It's such a bizarre and petty thing. My point is that this agency has the authority to declare a shoestring a machine gun and arrest you for it if you refuse to pay them money, and they decide themselves what constitutes an abuse of their own power, and here comes this guy telling me that all gun owners have to do is tell them to stop?
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48576941]It states that the shoestring meets the ATF definition of a machinegun if it is a (emphasis not even mine for once) "[b]part designed and intended, solely and exclusively ... for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun[/b]". So it is a machinegun if it is intended to be used to cause a weapon to fire more than once per trigger pull, and isn't if it isn't. saying "The ATF classifies a shoestring as a machinegun" is stupid because it misses serious context.[/QUOTE] But that's the thing. It doesn't actually convert it into a machine gun. It's just a tool that you can use to cheaply increase your rate of fire, but it doesn't actually change the mechanics of the gun.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576931]The fourth paragraph specifically refers to the shoestring as a machine gun. "because this item [...] FTB determined that it was a machine gun" The wording is pretty clear - the shoe string itself is a machine gun. The combination is also a machine gun. I know it's bizarre. I know it doesn't make sense. I know you think that's not what they meant. But I'm telling you that's the way it is. It's a machine gun per ATF ruling.[/QUOTE] The ATF rules that the whole assembly is a machinegun. If the shoestring was left by itself nobody would give two shits. Stop trying to say that the ATF classified a shoestring as a machinegun because it obviously doesn't. The point is that the gun has been modified to shoot more than one bullet per trigger squeeze. That means it is a machine gun under the legislation. [QUOTE=BFG9000;48576970]But that's the thing. It doesn't actually convert it into a machine gun. It's just a tool that you can use to cheaply increase your rate of fire, but it doesn't actually change the mechanics of the gun.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if its a shoestring or not, because it literally does exactly what the legislation says. The gun keeps on firing until you take off the finger.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48574966]Not really, DCs murder rate went DOWN after they instituted gun ownership regulations in line with Maryland's own rules People also point out Chicago but fail to realise that Illinois has super lax gun laws so anyone could just drive 30 minutes load up, go back to the city, DC happens to be inside a state with its own reasonable laws[/QUOTE] Illinois gun laws are not super lax compared to other states, what are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48576975]The ATF rules that the whole assembly is a machinegun. If the shoestring was left by itself nobody would give two shits. Stop trying to say that the ATF classified a shoestring as a machinegun because it obviously doesn't. The point is that the gun has been modified to shoot more than one bullet per trigger squeeze. That means it is a machine gun under the legislation.[/QUOTE] The trigger is squeezed per round fired. The shoe string applies mechanical advantage and allows the moving bolt to pull the trigger using the shoe string. The mechanism of the gun is not altered in any way by this. It is [I]not[/I] a machine gun, not even according to the legal definition, but the ATF said it was and nobody can tell them otherwise.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576990]The trigger is squeezed per round fired. The shoe string applies mechanical advantage and allows the moving bolt to pull the trigger using the shoe string. The mechanism of the gun is not altered in any way by this. It is [I]not[/I] a machine gun, not even according to the legal definition, but the ATF said it was and nobody can tell them otherwise.[/QUOTE] Would have made more sense to say that the string becomes the trigger, since that's what you're pulling to fire the gun. And since pulling the string (trigger) once fires multiple bullets the gun it's attached to becomes a machine gun.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;48577061]Would have made more sense to say that the string becomes the trigger, since that's what you're pulling to fire the gun. And since pulling the string (trigger) once fires multiple bullets the gun it's attached to becomes a machine gun.[/QUOTE] That's all well and good (but not really correct anyway) but this boils down to what's the big deal? Why is it even possible to go to jail for tying a shoestring to a gun?
Because it's dangerous as hell?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48577095]That's all well and good (but not really correct anyway) but this boils down to what's the big deal? Why is it even possible to go to jail for tying a shoestring to a gun?[/QUOTE] Same reason you'll go to jail for dropping a specific tiny little piece of metal into an AR-15. Right or wrong the law restricts machine guns, and if you're going to restrict machine guns you also need to restrict all methods of making guns function like machine guns otherwise the law is useless. If you think the law is wrong you should be fighting to get the law changed, not trying to rules lawyer around it.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48577095]That's all well and good (but not really correct anyway) but this boils down to what's the big deal? Why is it even possible to go to jail for tying a shoestring to a gun?[/QUOTE] If you were just tying it to the hand guard or stock or whatever do you really think you'd go to jail (top tip: the answer is "not really"). The ATF ruling only appears to care about that particular application of a shoestring, using it to modify a weapon to make it pseudo-automatic. That is the only case that particular ruling would lead to you getting into legal trouble. I really don't know how you can't see that.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48576975]The ATF rules that the whole assembly is a machinegun. If the shoestring was left by itself nobody would give two shits. Stop trying to say that the ATF classified a shoestring as a machinegun because it obviously doesn't. The point is that the gun has been modified to shoot more than one bullet per trigger squeeze. That means it is a machine gun under the legislation. It doesn't matter if its a shoestring or not, because it literally does exactly what the legislation says. The gun keeps on firing until you take off the finger.[/QUOTE] I'd like to point out that this is a machinegun according to the ATF [IMG]http://www.pdhsc.com/autos.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48577095]That's all well and good (but not really correct anyway) but this boils down to what's the big deal? Why is it even possible to go to jail for tying a shoestring to a gun?[/QUOTE] Because that shoestring is not cosmetic; its changing how the weapon operates.
The good old lightening link. Most expensive piece of stamped steel to exist, by weight.
A lot of gun argument threads as of late.
Every so often a study like this comes out and in the end, all I think is "so what?" Nothing is going to change. This study won't suddenly make the US aware of a gun issue it may have. This won't spontaneously cause a surge in anti-gun legislation. And even if it somehow does, such legislation has usually been useless and pointless - even if not a feel-good measure, the sheer number of firearms in the US makes full implementation of such laws impossible. Americans die because of gun homicides - so fucking what? What do you want us to do? There is literally nothing that can be or will be changed.
I wouldn't say nothing can be changed. I would say that the solution probably doesn't lie in restricting guns one way or another.
[QUOTE=cdr248;48574645]What about the other graph specifically geared towards homicides.[/QUOTE] They will ignore it because it is contrary to their opinion. Guns help violent homicides and in that regard the United States has a far higher homicide rate than almost every other developed country and even some undeveloped countries. I'm sorry, I've tried to dance around the issue of firearms but I am sick of people defending this shit. We have actual evidence that banning firearms reduces the amount of homicides and yet the Facepunch gun club refuses to accept that fact.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48577964]They will ignore it because it is contrary to their opinion. Guns help violent homicides and in that regard the United States has a far higher homicide rate than almost every other developed country and even some undeveloped countries. I'm sorry, I've tried to dance around the issue of firearms but I am sick of people defending this shit. We have actual evidence that banning firearms reduces the amount of homicides and yet the Facepunch gun club refuses to accept that fact.[/QUOTE] Chainsaws help chainsaw murders, axes help axe murders, knives help knife murders. What do these three types of violent homicide have in common? The weapon didn't cause them to commit it. Confiscating lawfully owned and used property from over 100,000,000 Americans because it's a type of item used by a different type of person to commit a crime is not the correct response to the problem. There is no evidence that banning firearms reduces the amount of homicides. The homicide rate in Australia was decreasing prior to the ban and continued to decrease at the same rate. Homicide continues in the UK. There are still firearm homicides there, too, just not committed with guns that were caught by the ban. Guns are [B]not[/B] the [B]reason[/B] that homicides are committed. Attack the [B]reason[/B], do not focus on the tool used to commit the crime.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48577964]We have actual evidence that banning firearms reduces the amount of homicides and yet the Facepunch gun club refuses to accept that fact.[/QUOTE] How are you going to ban guns in a country with 300 million guns? Do tell this genius plan to instantly remove all firearms.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48578269]How are you going to ban guns in a country with 300 million guns? Do tell this genius plan to instantly remove all firearms.[/QUOTE] Why instantly?
[QUOTE=Kylel999;48574595]I [I]bet[/I] you some dense mother fucker out there is gonna argue "Well if they didn't have a gun they might not kill themselves"[/QUOTE] Yes actually, studies have shown that because guns are a quick and easy method of suicide, they also correlate with higher rates of not only attempted suicide but rates of successful suicides too; remove them and force people to consider more difficult and personal and time-consuming methods that require them to rethink their decisions, you will decrease the rates of both attempted suicide and successful suicide. It's easier and faster to shoot and kill yourself with a gun than it is to slowly strangle yourself or slit your veins open and bleed to death. Most people who attempt suicide also don't go on to kill themselves later either (fun psychology fact for you; the statistic is nine in ten). There's been at least twelve studies by proper institutions that've covered this territory before, [url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/]including Harvard's School of Public Health[/url]. The only "dense motherfucker" here is you, and the others out there like you who have this retarded defeatist (and fatalistic) attitude of "if a person wants to kill themselves/somebody else badly enough, they will and it can't be prevented by gun control". That's horseshit, and everyone knows it; decreasing access to guns would solve a ton of problems here, because easier access to guns means they're used more often, and it also means they're used more successfully to kill (guns are great at their job, hence why we rely on them as much as we do as our main choice of weaponry compared to, say, swords, machetes, battle axes, hammers, knives, clubs, etc.).
[QUOTE=Govna;48578610]Yes actually, studies have shown that because guns are a quick and easy method of suicide, they also correlate with higher rates of not only attempted suicide but rates of successful suicides too; remove them and force people to consider more difficult and personal and time-consuming methods that require them to rethink their decisions, you will decrease the rates of both attempted suicide and successful suicide. It's easier and faster to shoot and kill yourself with a gun than it is to slowly strangle yourself or slit your veins open and bleed to death. Most people who attempt suicide also don't go on to kill themselves later either (fun psychology fact for you; the statistic is nine in ten). There's been at least twelve studies by proper institutions that've covered this territory before, [URL="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/"]including Harvard's School of Public Health[/URL]. The only "dense motherfucker" here is you, and the others out there like you who have this retarded defeatist (and fatalistic) attitude of "if a person wants to kill themselves/somebody else badly enough, they will and it can't be prevented by gun control". That's horseshit, and everyone knows it; decreasing access to guns would solve a ton of problems here, because easier access to guns means they're used more often, and it also means they're used more successfully to kill (guns are great at their job, hence why we rely on them as much as we do as our main choice of weaponry compared to, say, swords, machetes, battle axes, hammers, knives, clubs, etc.).[/QUOTE] My home state of Maryland had an AWB introduced in 2013, and in order to buy handguns you have to take a course. Since the introduction of these laws, Baltimore has had 222 murders in 2015 alone, and from July 13 to Aug 25 BPD Officers have seized 314 guns, the same time last year 218 guns were seized. How about instead of banning guns, because it is obvious that shit isn't working, we actually try to combat shit that actually causes crime, like poverty and lack of education.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48578401]Why instantly?[/QUOTE] Because anything less will make a lot of people very upset, while they still have guns.
This thread is a pretty prime example of why gun laws are a shitshow in the US. There's astonishingly brainless and uninformed arguments from both sides of the table. The bottom line is that we've already [I]tried[/I] to regulate gun sales in the US. The problem is that it was borne of scared and entitled citizens watching Fox News telling them GUNS ARE BAD BE AFRAID and working them into a frenzy - not from educated people realizing there's a problem with the present state of firearm regulation in the US. That problem was exacerbated by regulation reform laws being implemented by people having absolutely [B]zero[/B] understanding of firearms, how they work, and how they exchange hands, resulting in laws that are completely broken. This is made even worse by - and this comes from someone who thinks most arguments about police authorities abusing their power stem from fetal alcohol syndrome and a little too much rap music - a branch of the US Government blatantly abusing their power granted by these broken laws without doing their due diligence in investigation. The laws need to be completely rewritten. From the ground up, firearms regulations need to be scrapped and reformed by someone who knows how guns work, how they travel, and how they're built. You don't punish someone for putting a shoestring on their M1 - you make that shoestring the difference between a felony for 10 years in a prison and a felony for 25 to life in the commission of a violent gun crime. You don't make "assault weapons" illegal - you make using them in a crime a guaranteed life sentence. You don't punish people who wish to use their firearms in a legal recreational, occupational, or defensive purpose - you punish those that use them illegally. Severely. But guess what? You're never going to see them rewritten. They're never going to change until the media does another piece on how guns are bad and your state's representatives freak out and start passing all sorts of halfassed regulations because it'll improve their ratings. They don't give two fucks if it'll actually keep the public safer. And when someone actually decides it's time to properly rewrite the laws, they're going to get shut down - every single misguided gun lobby in the nation is going to jump on them and make them out to be the next Stalin. In the meantime, I carry a firearm to protect myself at work, and I'm limited to ten round magazines because I'm a civilian. I work in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in my city trying to keep the peace, and [I]my right to defend my own life has been hogtied and hobbled by people who have zero understanding of guns and think they're scaaaaary and baaaaaad and you should just ban guns outright![/I] Just remember that when you inspire the creation and passing of these kind of vapidly brainless legislation, you legitimately endanger people like me.
I don't understand why the US doesn't just introduce gun licenses. You need a license to drive a car I don't see why you shouldn't have them for firearms. It's common sense honestly. Also, I mean I can understand the argument of using them for protection and hunting, but honestly people don't need assault rifles for protection or hunting deer. The thing is in America people are always saying that you can't change the second amendment like it is some sacred thing, even though you can change it as an amendment is literally a change or modification to legislation, as well as the it being 200 years old and was created for an entirely different world than exists today. I honestly feel this entire thing is similar to Japan killing tonnes of whales and dolphins every year and claiming it is for scientific research or tradition. While it may not be a gun problem, allowing any random hick off the street to own a firearm isn't helping. Its the same with lawsuits, pretty much anyone can sue for any reason in America. In Australia if you tried to sue for half of the lawsuits I hear about in America you would get laughed at told to piss off by the court.
Who do you think is hunting with an assault rifle exactly? [editline]31st August 2015[/editline] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Ld50wND.jpg[/img] This is not an assault rifle, maybe there's been a mix-up here. [img]http://i.imgur.com/EBc38ZN.jpg[/img] It's no more an assault rifle than this is a Shelby AC Cobra.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48579467]Who do you think is hunting with an assault rifle exactly? [editline]31st August 2015[/editline] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Ld50wND.jpg[/img] This is not an assault rifle, maybe there's been a mix-up here.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying that there is no need to own an assault rifle unless you live in a war zone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.