|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 03 2017 20:17 _fool wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 19:49 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 12:44 SlammerIV wrote:On October 03 2017 12:40 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 12:02 SlammerIV wrote:On October 03 2017 11:54 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Their words only condemn them if they aren't listened to by fucktards. All of those dregs of humanity are in some way created / encouraged by each other in some kind of silly circle jerk which is the "harm". That is still besides the point, how can it EVER be O.K. for a the government to imprison someone or shoot them if the resist for expressing an opinion differing from the majority group think? Is this a parody? I take it you feel this is an acceptable role of government, deciding what opinions are allowed? I disagree. Are you a real person? Like how is this a question? Technically it wasn't a question. A few shootings back (quite some, actually) a guy explained that guns are part of US culture, and as non-US citizens it's not our place to tell the US that they should get rid of guns even though we see huge disadvantages of having them. I think he made a fair point. So I'm mainly interested in how US citizens view this matter. Is it something that can be discussed publicly? Can you be vocal about your point of view regarding guns? Is there a taboo on being critical about gun ownership?
As an America who does not think all guns should be illegal, I am not so fragile that I need people from other countries to keep their opinions to themselves. If someone’s point of view is so precious to them that they can’t even read the opinions of non-Americans, maybe that is a sign that they shouldn’t engage with the debate.
We do a very poor job regulating guns in the US. It is very easy for a single person to set their mind to killing 30-50 people and following through with that plan.
|
On October 03 2017 21:16 yB.TeH wrote:
if someone wants to kill people, he doesn't really care if he gets a gun legally or not
It actually matters because he'll have much higher difficulty gaining access to automatic weapons that allowed him to kill as many as he did.
|
On October 03 2017 21:16 yB.TeH wrote:
if someone wants to kill people, he doesn't really care if he gets a gun legally or not
This is an argument against laws, not against gun laws. See if someone wants to murder someone, he doesn't really care if he does it legally or not either.
Consider whether that's really what you want to argue.
|
On October 03 2017 21:16 yB.TeH wrote:
if someone wants to kill people, he doesn't really care if he gets a gun legally or not
I understand that argument and it isn't entirely wrong. But it completely ignores that the will to do things declines the larger the barriers to do so are and I assume that getting multiple automatic weapons is quite a lot of work as well as risky in most western countries.
There's also the chance that the buyer catches the attention of cops actually monitoring those circles, who might just confiscate those illegally bought weapons.
Can we stop a smart, carefully planning psychopath who takes years to prepare a mass shooting? No way.
But I'd argue that the number of people like that is close to zero.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote:
How can opinions be divided?
If no guns = people don't get shot
If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that.
for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter.
|
Lol, someone who knows what they're doing can modify a semi-auto into full auto in less than a half hour (and that doesn't even include bump firing). For the umpteenth time, stop tossing out your opinion like it's fact, your haste to correct everyone even when we don't have the full picture speaks volumes.
|
On October 03 2017 23:05 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote:
How can opinions be divided?
If no guns = people don't get shot
If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that. for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter.
Claiming that something is heavily regulated implies that you can’t easily obtain it. In the case of these automatic weapons, it is easy to obtain weapons that can be turned into automatic weapons with a couple steps. This process is illegal, but risk of being arrested for doing so is negligible. As long as they do not fire the weapon in front of law enforcement at the firing range and no one reports them. They are heavily regulated on paper, not in practice.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 03 2017 23:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 23:05 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote:
How can opinions be divided?
If no guns = people don't get shot
If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that. for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter. Claiming that something is heavily regulated implies that you can’t easily obtain it. In the case of these automatic weapons, it is easy to obtain weapons that can be turned into automatic weapons with a couple steps. This process is illegal, but risk of being arrested for doing so is negligible. As long as they do not fire the weapon in front of law enforcement at the firing range and no one reports them. They are heavily regulated on paper, not in practice.
my post was in response to an ignoramus who used the classic "why do you need an automatic weapon for home defence".
|
On October 03 2017 23:16 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 23:15 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:05 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote:
How can opinions be divided?
If no guns = people don't get shot
If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that. for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter. Claiming that something is heavily regulated implies that you can’t easily obtain it. In the case of these automatic weapons, it is easy to obtain weapons that can be turned into automatic weapons with a couple steps. This process is illegal, but risk of being arrested for doing so is negligible. As long as they do not fire the weapon in front of law enforcement at the firing range and no one reports them. They are heavily regulated on paper, not in practice. my post was in response to an ignoramus who used the classic "why do you need an automatic weapon for home defence".
And you continue to regurgitate the false statement that automatic weapons on heavily regulated in the US. When the reality is that law is 30 years old, toothless and completely ineffective at keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of those who want them. Come back to reality and you won’t have this problem.
|
If you want to see an argument for increased gun control I suggest Jim jefferies stand up specials "Bare" and "Freedumb", both available to watch on Netflix. yes its in the context of a comedy show but I think some really good points are in there.
|
Honestly why not just say that you enjoy owning and shooting guns and that you are willing to accept the price that comes with that. Alcohol is also unnecessary and gets a lot of people killed including innocents due to drunk driving for example, yet most people think it's fair price to pay for all the fun that it provides.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 03 2017 23:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 23:16 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:15 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:05 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote:
How can opinions be divided?
If no guns = people don't get shot
If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that. for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter. Claiming that something is heavily regulated implies that you can’t easily obtain it. In the case of these automatic weapons, it is easy to obtain weapons that can be turned into automatic weapons with a couple steps. This process is illegal, but risk of being arrested for doing so is negligible. As long as they do not fire the weapon in front of law enforcement at the firing range and no one reports them. They are heavily regulated on paper, not in practice. my post was in response to an ignoramus who used the classic "why do you need an automatic weapon for home defence". And you continue to regurgitate the false statement that automatic weapons on heavily regulated in the US. When the reality is that law is 30 years old, toothless and completely ineffective at keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of those who want them. Come back to reality and you won’t have this problem.
how is that a false statement? there is a ban on newly manufactured machineguns since 1986. machineguns before that are expensive both to buy and to transfer through legal channels. how is that not heavily regulated? this has nothing even to do with how supposedly easy they are to obtain. are you really trying to say that anyone who wants a machinegun can get one? you're the one who needs to come back to reality.
|
On October 03 2017 23:37 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 23:22 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:16 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:15 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:05 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote:
How can opinions be divided?
If no guns = people don't get shot
If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that. for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter. Claiming that something is heavily regulated implies that you can’t easily obtain it. In the case of these automatic weapons, it is easy to obtain weapons that can be turned into automatic weapons with a couple steps. This process is illegal, but risk of being arrested for doing so is negligible. As long as they do not fire the weapon in front of law enforcement at the firing range and no one reports them. They are heavily regulated on paper, not in practice. my post was in response to an ignoramus who used the classic "why do you need an automatic weapon for home defence". And you continue to regurgitate the false statement that automatic weapons on heavily regulated in the US. When the reality is that law is 30 years old, toothless and completely ineffective at keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of those who want them. Come back to reality and you won’t have this problem. how is that a false statement? there is a ban on newly manufactured machineguns since 1986. machineguns before that are expensive both to buy and to transfer through legal channels. how is that not heavily regulated? this has nothing even to do with how supposedly easy they are to obtain. are you really trying to say that anyone who wants a machinegun can get one? you're the one who needs to come back to reality.
Now you have changed your tune to machine guns, not automatic weapons. All machine guns are automatic, but not all automatic weapons are machine guns. It is easy to buy a semiautomatic military style rifle and modify it to be automatic. And since peer to peer sales of non-automatic weapons are completely unregulated, it is easy to pass these automatic weapons between buyers.
Heavily regulated implies the law is effective. It isn’t. It is 30 years old and doesn’t cover the overwhelming majority of weapons that are sold today, many that can be modified. Automatic weapons are regulated on paper, not in reality.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 03 2017 23:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 23:37 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:22 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:16 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:15 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:05 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote:
How can opinions be divided?
If no guns = people don't get shot
If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that. for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter. Claiming that something is heavily regulated implies that you can’t easily obtain it. In the case of these automatic weapons, it is easy to obtain weapons that can be turned into automatic weapons with a couple steps. This process is illegal, but risk of being arrested for doing so is negligible. As long as they do not fire the weapon in front of law enforcement at the firing range and no one reports them. They are heavily regulated on paper, not in practice. my post was in response to an ignoramus who used the classic "why do you need an automatic weapon for home defence". And you continue to regurgitate the false statement that automatic weapons on heavily regulated in the US. When the reality is that law is 30 years old, toothless and completely ineffective at keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of those who want them. Come back to reality and you won’t have this problem. how is that a false statement? there is a ban on newly manufactured machineguns since 1986. machineguns before that are expensive both to buy and to transfer through legal channels. how is that not heavily regulated? this has nothing even to do with how supposedly easy they are to obtain. are you really trying to say that anyone who wants a machinegun can get one? you're the one who needs to come back to reality. Now you have changed your tune to machine guns, not automatic weapons. All machine guns are automatic, but not all automatic weapons are machine guns.
i've not changed my tune at all. machineguns and automatic weapons are interchangeable terms. especially in this context.
but tell me, what sort of law would you introduce that would heavily regulate automatic weapons and would be effective?
|
I would add that raising the difficulty to commit said atrocity does indeed automatically screen out a large degree of the perps because your average person is actually average and therefore will either be unable to complete the task or get themselves flagged up or caught trying to do so.
Thinking about it more, I would own a gun if I was in the states and probably learn to shoot it well and likely apply for concealed carry in states that allow it. Part of it is knowing everyone else probably has one and the probability of someone intending you harm will very likely have one.
|
On October 03 2017 23:52 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 23:47 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:37 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:22 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:16 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:15 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:05 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote:
How can opinions be divided?
If no guns = people don't get shot
If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that. for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter. Claiming that something is heavily regulated implies that you can’t easily obtain it. In the case of these automatic weapons, it is easy to obtain weapons that can be turned into automatic weapons with a couple steps. This process is illegal, but risk of being arrested for doing so is negligible. As long as they do not fire the weapon in front of law enforcement at the firing range and no one reports them. They are heavily regulated on paper, not in practice. my post was in response to an ignoramus who used the classic "why do you need an automatic weapon for home defence". And you continue to regurgitate the false statement that automatic weapons on heavily regulated in the US. When the reality is that law is 30 years old, toothless and completely ineffective at keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of those who want them. Come back to reality and you won’t have this problem. how is that a false statement? there is a ban on newly manufactured machineguns since 1986. machineguns before that are expensive both to buy and to transfer through legal channels. how is that not heavily regulated? this has nothing even to do with how supposedly easy they are to obtain. are you really trying to say that anyone who wants a machinegun can get one? you're the one who needs to come back to reality. Now you have changed your tune to machine guns, not automatic weapons. All machine guns are automatic, but not all automatic weapons are machine guns. i've not changed my tune at all. machineguns and automatic weapons are interchangeable terms. especially in this context. but tell me, what sort of law would you introduce that would heavily regulate automatic weapons and would be effective?
In what reality is an automatic M4 or AR-15 the same as a 50 caliber machine gun? Who do you think you are talking to here? You know I grew up around guns. Come on.
Back ground checks. Tracking of peer to peer sales of weapons like the AR-15 and its variants. Tracking of ammunition sales and if someone is stocking up on 10-15 rifles in a short period of time. Literally anything more that the completely lack luster reporting that is required now.
Like healthcare, other nations have cracked this nut. There are nations that allow ownership of high power, magazine feed rifles and do not have the problem with gun violence we do.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 04 2017 00:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 23:52 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:47 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:37 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:22 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:16 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:15 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:05 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote:
How can opinions be divided?
If no guns = people don't get shot
If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that. for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter. Claiming that something is heavily regulated implies that you can’t easily obtain it. In the case of these automatic weapons, it is easy to obtain weapons that can be turned into automatic weapons with a couple steps. This process is illegal, but risk of being arrested for doing so is negligible. As long as they do not fire the weapon in front of law enforcement at the firing range and no one reports them. They are heavily regulated on paper, not in practice. my post was in response to an ignoramus who used the classic "why do you need an automatic weapon for home defence". And you continue to regurgitate the false statement that automatic weapons on heavily regulated in the US. When the reality is that law is 30 years old, toothless and completely ineffective at keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of those who want them. Come back to reality and you won’t have this problem. how is that a false statement? there is a ban on newly manufactured machineguns since 1986. machineguns before that are expensive both to buy and to transfer through legal channels. how is that not heavily regulated? this has nothing even to do with how supposedly easy they are to obtain. are you really trying to say that anyone who wants a machinegun can get one? you're the one who needs to come back to reality. Now you have changed your tune to machine guns, not automatic weapons. All machine guns are automatic, but not all automatic weapons are machine guns. i've not changed my tune at all. machineguns and automatic weapons are interchangeable terms. especially in this context. but tell me, what sort of law would you introduce that would heavily regulate automatic weapons and would be effective? In what reality is an automatic M4 or AR-15 the same as a 50 caliber machine gun? Who do you think you are talking to here? You know I grew up around guns. Come on. Back ground checks. Tracking of peer to peer sales of weapons like the AR-15 and its variants. Tracking of ammunition sales and if someone is stocking up on 10-15 rifles in a short period of time. Literally anything more that the completely lack luster reporting that is required now. Like healthcare, other nations have cracked this nut. There are nations that allow ownership of high power, magazine feed rifles and do not have the problem with gun violence we do.
so why does FOPA explicitly use the term 'machinegun'? do you think the law excludes submachineguns, assault rifles and automatic handguns?
background checks already exist for purchases from gun stores. ok, u want to track private sales of weapons. how does that fix the issue of passing automatic weapons between buyers (which is already illegal) that you mentioned in your previous post? if ur concern is that ppl are conducting illegal private transactions of automatic weapons, what makes you think tracking private sales will do anything? ok, so you track how many rifles someone bought in a short period of time. what's the number where it starts to get suspicious? can't they just not buy so many guns? after all, based on past mass shootings, there's no way you need 10-15 rifles to cause a lot of damage.
maybe you should just cut the pretence that you're some kind of moderate who just wants to find some "common sense" solution and who doesn't want to ban ALL the guns, just the really dangerous ones.
|
On October 03 2017 23:35 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
Honestly why not just say that you enjoy owning and shooting guns and that you are willing to accept the price that comes with that. Alcohol is also unnecessary and gets a lot of people killed including innocents due to drunk driving for example, yet most people think it's fair price to pay for all the fun that it provides.
This is pretty much where I'm at. Of course I don't oppose sensible and effective gun control measures though.
Interesting to note that being drunk in public is a crime, or rather merely appearing drunk in public is a crime (in many states , though not NV coincidentally). It also happens to be a crime you're guilty of until proven innocent.
It's easy for those outside the US (though not limited there) to be unfamiliar with the difference between the laws we have and the ways we enforce them. I'll just say we don't enforce them equitably.
|
On October 04 2017 00:16 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 00:05 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:52 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:47 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:37 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:22 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:16 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 23:15 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 23:05 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 21:16 sCuMBaG wrote:
[quote]
exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that.
for the umpteenth time, fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and restricted in the USA. this shooter either spent a lot of money and effort to legally obtain a machinegun, or he bought a semi-auto that he converted to full auto (which is not easy to do). from the news reports about the gun shop that sold him the guns, it sounds like he did the latter. Claiming that something is heavily regulated implies that you can’t easily obtain it. In the case of these automatic weapons, it is easy to obtain weapons that can be turned into automatic weapons with a couple steps. This process is illegal, but risk of being arrested for doing so is negligible. As long as they do not fire the weapon in front of law enforcement at the firing range and no one reports them. They are heavily regulated on paper, not in practice. my post was in response to an ignoramus who used the classic "why do you need an automatic weapon for home defence". And you continue to regurgitate the false statement that automatic weapons on heavily regulated in the US. When the reality is that law is 30 years old, toothless and completely ineffective at keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of those who want them. Come back to reality and you won’t have this problem. how is that a false statement? there is a ban on newly manufactured machineguns since 1986. machineguns before that are expensive both to buy and to transfer through legal channels. how is that not heavily regulated? this has nothing even to do with how supposedly easy they are to obtain. are you really trying to say that anyone who wants a machinegun can get one? you're the one who needs to come back to reality. Now you have changed your tune to machine guns, not automatic weapons. All machine guns are automatic, but not all automatic weapons are machine guns. i've not changed my tune at all. machineguns and automatic weapons are interchangeable terms. especially in this context. but tell me, what sort of law would you introduce that would heavily regulate automatic weapons and would be effective? In what reality is an automatic M4 or AR-15 the same as a 50 caliber machine gun? Who do you think you are talking to here? You know I grew up around guns. Come on. Back ground checks. Tracking of peer to peer sales of weapons like the AR-15 and its variants. Tracking of ammunition sales and if someone is stocking up on 10-15 rifles in a short period of time. Literally anything more that the completely lack luster reporting that is required now. Like healthcare, other nations have cracked this nut. There are nations that allow ownership of high power, magazine feed rifles and do not have the problem with gun violence we do. so why does FOPA explicitly use the term 'machinegun'? do you think the law excludes submachineguns, assault rifles and automatic handguns? background checks already exist for purchases from gun stores. ok, u want to track private sales of weapons. how does that fix the issue of passing automatic weapons between buyers (which is already illegal) that you mentioned in your previous post? if ur concern is that ppl are conducting illegal private transactions of automatic weapons, what makes you think tracking private sales will do anything? ok, so you track how many rifles someone bought in a short period of time. what's the number where it starts to get suspicious? can't they just not buy so many guns? after all, based on past mass shootings, there's no way you need 10-15 rifles to cause a lot of damage. maybe you should just cut the pretence that you're some kind of moderate who just wants to find some "common sense" solution and who doesn't want to ban ALL the guns, just the really dangerous ones.
I don’t want to ban all guns. I have no problem with responsible gun owners. I have a problem with irresponsible laws, which is what we have in the US. It is a 8 billion dollar industry with one of the largest lobbies in the country.
As for all your questions, I didn’t realize I was responsible for drafting the law in this thread. Obviously there would be a public debate on what is reasonable, like with all laws.
|
@ahswtini
He just spelled out what he wants (or would deem to be ok):
"Back ground checks. Tracking of peer to peer sales of weapons like the AR-15 and its variants. Tracking of ammunition sales and if someone is stocking up on 10-15 rifles in a short period of time. Literally anything more that the completely lack luster reporting that is required now. "
And your Response is:
"maybe you should just cut the pretence that you're some kind of moderate who just wants to find some "common sense" solution and who doesn't want to ban ALL the guns, just the really dangerous ones."
What you don't get is that non gunnuts don't give a flying fuck if its a machine gun, a semi-automatic or a bazooka. It doesn't matter, no one gives a shit aside from gunnuts. Every time you try to drag this argument down that road and ist plain boring. Probably because you have no actual argument?
Btw: That you aren't allowed to be drunk or drink outside in most(?) US-States is kinda hilarious when you call yourself "the land of the free".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
