|
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. |
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 04 2017 00:35 Velr wrote:
@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".
i wasn't the one being pedantic about whether it's a machinegun or an automatic. your post is awful and adds nothing new to the discussion
|
So he definitely used bump fire stocks. Some pics are available now. So some of these weapons were probably 100% legal.
|
That is a little rich coming from a guy who doesn’t live in the US and isn’t aware that it is possible to buy a completely functional modern tank in Texas. That’s right, a fucking tank.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 04 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 00:16 ahswtini wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
no, but since you're so insistent that the current laws are toothless and insufficient, you should at least have an idea of how to improve them? can't we have a discussion here about what you would consider reasonable responsible gun laws?
|
On October 04 2017 00:43 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 00:35 Velr wrote:
@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". i wasn't the one being pedantic about whether it's a machinegun or an automatic. your post is awful and adds nothing new to the discussion
And there it is, the dude who wasted no time in claiming that there is literally nothing we can do about firearm proliferation in the US is now calling valid criticisms of his terrible attempts at slippery sloping "awful." Nah, awful is talking out of your ass about US gun laws without any interaction with enforcement problems, recent rollbacks of common sense rules, and a glaring lack of federal oversight with regards to private sales among individuals. You're regurgitating NRA talking points almost verbatim lol.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 04 2017 00:46 Plansix wrote:
That is a little rich coming from a guy who doesn’t live in the US and isn’t aware that it is possible to buy a completely functional modern tank in Texas. That’s right, a fucking tank.
1. where have i demonstrated that i wasn't aware of that?
2. how is that relevant to this thread?
|
He told you a few Posts ago...
ffs:"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. "
You then called him out for being an extremist anti gun advocate on the basis of, i don't know, the giant strawman you built in your head?.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 04 2017 00:50 Velr wrote:
He told you a few Posts ago...
ffs:"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. "
You then called him out for being an extremist anti gun advocate on the basis of, i don't know, your imagination and the giant strawman you built in your head?.
yes. and when i challenged him, he responded with
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.
can you actually read the thread in chronological order? he stated what he wanted to change about the law. i pushed for more clarity and challenged him in parts. he retorted that he wasn't responsible for drafting the law. i just pointed out that he clearly still has ideas about what he wants to see changed. then you come in and try to take my post out of context
|
So you actually want him to write out like an actual proposal for a real law or what?
He allready told you what you were asking in the post he wrote and i copied twice for you.
You just got too much foam before you mouth to realise it.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 04 2017 00:56 Velr wrote:
So you actually want him to write out like an actual proposal or what?
He allready told you what you were asking...
no you fool. i want him to just give me more details on what he thinks would be reasonable. that's how a public debate about this would work, is it not?
i'm done responding to you. plansix is actually civil and willing to engage in a discussion. you just take posts out of context and namecall (eg. gunnuts, foaming at the mouth) from your entrenched position, without adding anything to the discussion,
User was warned for this post
|
On October 04 2017 00:48 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2017 00:16 ahswtini wrote: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:
[quote]
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. no, but since you're so insistent that the current laws are toothless and insufficient, you should at least have an idea of how to improve them? can't we have a discussion here about what you would consider reasonable responsible gun laws?
I am not of the opinion, it is the reality of the situation. The laws do not police the thing they were designed to police, automatic weapons. 30 years of new fire arms, loop holes and exception has eroded any impact these laws would have on new fire arms. And we know this because of the Vegas shooting. Those weapons were automatic and will likely prove to be completely legal to own. And will not be covered by the “heavy regulation” you keep citing.
|
In public debate you start of with "your just a crazy anti gun extremist that wants to take away my toys" and think anyone would answer you with more than broad strokes?
Good luck...
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On October 04 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 00:48 ahswtini wrote:On October 04 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2017 00:16 ahswtini wrote: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:
[quote]
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. no, but since you're so insistent that the current laws are toothless and insufficient, you should at least have an idea of how to improve them? can't we have a discussion here about what you would consider reasonable responsible gun laws? I am not of the opinion, it is the reality of the situation. The laws do not police the thing they were designed to police, automatic weapons. 30 years of new fire arms, loop holes and exception has eroded any impact these laws would have on new fire arms. And we know this because of the Vegas shooting. Those weapons were automatic and will likely prove to be completely legal to own. And will not be covered by the “heavy regulation” you keep citing.
from photos of the hotel room, it looks like a bumpfire stock was used. those are currently legal, or at least a legal grey area. do you think those should be banned too? your earlier assertion was that it is easy to make a semi-auto gun fully automatic. that's why i got the impression that from your perspective, the only true solution is to outlaw all semi-auto rifles.
|
On October 04 2017 01:04 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2017 00:48 ahswtini wrote:On October 04 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2017 00:16 ahswtini wrote: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:
[quote]
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. no, but since you're so insistent that the current laws are toothless and insufficient, you should at least have an idea of how to improve them? can't we have a discussion here about what you would consider reasonable responsible gun laws? I am not of the opinion, it is the reality of the situation. The laws do not police the thing they were designed to police, automatic weapons. 30 years of new fire arms, loop holes and exception has eroded any impact these laws would have on new fire arms. And we know this because of the Vegas shooting. Those weapons were automatic and will likely prove to be completely legal to own. And will not be covered by the “heavy regulation” you keep citing. from photos of the hotel room, it looks like a bumpfire stock was used. those are currently legal, or at least a legal grey area. do you think those should be banned too? your earlier assertion was that it is easy to make a semi-auto gun fully automatic. that's why i got the impression that from your perspective, the only true solution is to outlaw all semi-auto rifles.
There is a set design that makes semiautomatic rifle most dangerous when they are fully automatic. These are the traditional military style rifles, like the AR-15, designed to easy reloading and high volume clips. In contrast, my families long rife with that is only capable of holding 5 rounds would never be that dangerous if you could dump all 5 rounds quickly. Both rifles are semi-automatic, but one is clearly more dangerous than the other.
So just regulate one more than the other. If someone wants an AR-15, get a license and track the ownership of the gun. Peer to peer sales of the gun should be reported to the federal government too. This is the facebook era, its not like people can't figure out who has guns now. Just accept that these guns are also going to be used in mass shootings and make some effort to prevent that from happening. Like any effort at all.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
What about devices like bumpfire stocks that simulate automatic fire. I accept that devices clearly designed to circumvent the machinegun ban should be outlawed
|
It should be straight up illegal to modify a weapon to create the effect of automatic fire by any method.
|
On October 04 2017 01:47 ahswtini wrote:
What about devices like bumpfire stocks that simulate automatic fire. I accept that devices clearly designed to circumvent the machinegun ban should be outlawed
Just want to mention bumpfire stocks make it easier/more accurate and are not required to bumpfire a gun. Bumpfiring is a physics/technique thing.
|
On October 04 2017 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 01:47 ahswtini wrote:
What about devices like bumpfire stocks that simulate automatic fire. I accept that devices clearly designed to circumvent the machinegun ban should be outlawed Just want to mention bumpfire stocks make it easier/more accurate and are not required to bumpfire a gun. Bumpfiring is a physics/technique thing.
From what I understand without a bumpfire stock you have to hold it at your waist to actually use, which is extremely inaccurate.
|
So total gun noob that is me, I decided to google "bump firing". Following some links, I ended up on this gun site, from which I will quote a snippet:
Almost Automatic: Is a Bump Fire Stock Is For You?
The Arms Guide | 02.08.2017
Have you heard of bump fire? If you own an AR- 15 or AK-47, odds are, you have. Fortunately for those of us interested in a non-NFA alternative to a fun switch, there are two companies that have made a stock to make this easier: Slide Fire Solutions and Fostech. Both make a stock to aid in bump firing, so what’s the difference? That’s just what I’ll be exploring in this article.
Both Slide Fire and Fostech stocks perform as advertised: the stocks have a reciprocating component that makes steady, controllable bump firing easier. Where they chiefly differ is in their materials and aesthetics.
To me, it is unbelievable that there are sites that rate guns/extensions by their fun factor and aestethics.
|
Well, rating them by how fast you can mow down a herd of cows, how much more a deer weights after your clip is empty or a concert audience has become a pool of blood would be bad taste i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
