A Sensible Approach to Reducing Gun Violence

[xj0hnx]

Both implemented at once, yes.

I do think that the AR15 requires responsibility. My proposal does that.

WOuld you give a newbie an AR15 as his first gun?

That because you are completely ignorant and seem to think that a bullet from a bolt action is mess dangerous that a bullet from a semi automatic, here's a protip, they aren't.

 

[micrometers]

That because you are completely ignorant and seem to think that a bullet from a bolt action is mess dangerous that a bullet from a semi automatic, here's a protip, they aren't.

But the rate of fire is far lower so a bolt-action rifle is less deadly to multiple targets.

Another misleading argument.

 

[Tom]

No, it doesn't effectively make anything. This is where the separation of the gun culture, and those that don't like guns becomes apparent. Those that understand firearms, how they work, and how they are best used know that bump firing is retard, it's a novelty, it is ineffective for anything other than wasting ammo, people that don't understand look at it and go "ZOMG tha AutoMaticz!!1!"



Holy self-contradictions.



Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree, the stupidity of this is just becoming too much.

So the guy in the video who apparently has an FFS, is he part of the gun culture ? Or someone who doesn't like guns ?

He seems not to agree with you, but I guess its because he's a retard and you aren't ?

 

[Moonbeam]

Nice, CK. Here is my response to a similar request:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triumph
Your reply was neither about yourself, nor the topic at hand. You've never actually discussed the topic of gun control, your only answer is "Conservatives are ruled by their primate instincts and are impervious to reasoning." That's really not an argument for or against a position.

M: Very true but it is a powerful and ineluctable argument for why it would be useless for me to state one. Unless I have somebody who can reason and understand simple logic, why put any out there? You want to do math and you can't count. That would be no problem if you were honest. We could start with counting, but you already think you can.

What I did say was that gun nuts should come to the table where this subject is under discussion or they will have no input whatsoever. In short, the left will do all the decision making if the right refuses, out of stupidity, to come to the table and be flexible. The reactions in this thread are indicative of serious brain defects. Nobody is going to pay serious attention to a bunch of lunatic fruit cakes. Folk are not going to stand by and watch their kids get slaughtered by assault weapons and all the bull shit arguments that try to deny that will be swept away. Try to bring some reasonableness to the table.
-----------------------------

The issue, as I see it, is that a long established right to bear arms in the US has resulted in a nation that suffers from a very large number of gun deaths. Guns availability equals gun choice as a means to harm. But people would only turn to other means to kill if guns were not available. But they would have to turn to means that might not be so easy so spontaneously easy to use, so deadly, that don't kill in quite the numbers, etc. but criminals have guns so I have to have one to protect myself and if the bad guy has one round I need to and if he has 30 I need 100 and so on till I can destroy the earth in one trigger pull. Only then will I have the ultimate deterrent, of course, in a vacuum.

I live among mad men, millions and millions of gun nuts, psychopaths, and criminals. There is nothing I can do about it. I have a shit pile of guns in my house, all put away I don't exactly know where, certainly not where I can find or use them quickly in an emergency. Why, because I don't care. I will die one day not that far away geologically speaking. I would rather just live among the crazies unprotected. I won't kill animals hunting, I don't target practice because there's no range close by, I just have no interest. Guns have no place in my life. They are a fetish, a psychological symbol that renders pleasant emotions. It's been years since I looked at one of my guns but I love them when I do for the engineering. But what I really long for is the ability to make stone tools by napping flint.

 

[xj0hnx]

So the guy in the video who apparently has an FFS, is he part of the gun culture ? Or someone who doesn't like guns ?

He seems not to agree with you, but I guess its because he's a retard and you aren't ?

You should probably watch it again, look at what it is, and how it works, then use your little mind to figure out the short comings, and apply them to this argument.

 

[xj0hnx]

But the rate of fire is far lower so a bolt-action rifle is less deadly to multiple targets.

Another misleading argument.

No, not really. I have a bolt action that chambers a round that would go through about five people.

 

[Genx87]

One of the first guns bought by James Holmes was a...AR15

the first guns bought by Cho were semi-auto handguns.

In my system, the first gun they could buy would be a bolt-action rifle.

That doesnt tell me why you wouldnt allow them an AR-15. So why?

 

[spidey07]

No, it doesn't effectively make anything. This is where the separation of the gun culture, and those that don't like guns becomes apparent. Those that understand firearms, how they work, and how they are best used know that bump firing is retard, it's a novelty, it is ineffective for anything other than wasting ammo, people that don't understand look at it and go "ZOMG tha AutoMaticz!!1!"



Holy self-contradictions. Actually, that's EXACTLY why machine guns were restricted ...exactly why.



Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree, the stupidity of this is just becoming too much.

I've been cruising other liberal hang outs and this is the new talking point - that in order to ban semi-auto they're going to try to convince folks that all semi-auto weapons are easily converted into full auto and it's perfectly legal to do so.

So if they can get certain types of action banned, then they can go after all semi-auto. They're showing their cards, let them keep doing so.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, it doesn't effectively make anything.

I'll try this again.

Machine gun:

1. Pick up gun.
2. Move your finger once.
3. Lots of bullets fire out.

AR-15 with bump firing stock:

1. Pick up gun.
2. Move your finger once.
3. Lots of bullets fire out.

The exact mechanism by which you get from #2 to #3 is the technical loophole behind how they get away with selling these. But the net effect of the two guns is the same.

The purpose of the NFA is to restrict guns where you move your finger once and lots of bullets fire out.

Those that understand firearms, how they work, and how they are best used know that bump firing is retard, it's a novelty, it is ineffective for anything other than wasting ammo, people that don't understand look at it and go "ZOMG tha AutoMaticz!!1!"

The fact that doing something may be ineffective or wasteful has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal.

Your own video showed that the device worked and he recommended it as being very similar in operation to an NFA firearm.

Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree, the stupidity of this is just becoming too much.

Agree to disagree about what, exactly?

You provided a video that proves my point. I guess that's why you're getting frustrated and resorting to name-calling?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I've been cruising other liberal hang outs and this is the new talking point - that in order to ban semi-auto they're going to try to convince folks that all semi-auto weapons are easily converted into full auto and it's perfectly legal to do so.

So if they can get certain types of action banned, then they can go after all semi-auto. They're showing their cards, let them keep doing so.

Good gravy.

I just told you that people are using the availability of these items as a way to go after semi-autos. That's one of the reasons they should be banned -- they blur the line between semi-auto and full auto.

The more people use these, the more likely it is we'll face another "assault weapons ban".

 

[Lithium381]

All in all, a great list of things to tackle . .. . I wasn't expecting such a list from you but it's rational and looks to solve the problems, not the agendas... good job.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'll try this again.

Machine gun:

1. Pick up gun.
2. Move your finger once.
3. Lots of bullets fire out.

AR-15 with bump firing stock:

1. Pick up gun.
2. Move your finger once.
3. Lots of bullets fire out.

Except that's not how it works. With that stupid bump fire stock, you have to pull the firearm forward, it uses the buffer and recoil to move the rifle forward against your finger again to fire another round.

There is a reason no one has gone after this, because the action of the firearm is not being changed.

The purpose of the NFA is to restrict guns where you move your finger once and lots of bullets fire out.

You clearly do not understand the mechanism at work here, and I am not going to waste anymore time on this stupidity.

 

[spidey07]

I'll try this again.

Machine gun:

1. Pick up gun.
2. Move your finger once.
3. Lots of bullets fire out.

AR-15 with bump firing stock:

1. Pick up gun.
2. Move your finger once.
3. Lots of bullets fire out.

The exact mechanism by which you get from #2 to #3 is the technical loophole behind how they get away with selling these. But the net effect of the two guns is the same.

The purpose of the NFA is to restrict guns where you move your finger once and lots of bullets fire out.



The fact that doing something may be ineffective or wasteful has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal.

Your own video showed that the device worked and he recommended it as being very similar in operation to an NFA firearm.



Agree to disagree about what, exactly?

You provided a video that proves my point. I guess that's why you're getting frustrated and resorting to name-calling?

Except that isn't how bump firing works nor the slide fire stock. It is VERY clear you have ZERO knowledge of this subject and yet your first instinct is "grab and ban anything the looks scary!"

OMG! It sprays boolits everywhere!

 

[Tom]

You should probably watch it again, look at what it is, and how it works, then use your little mind to figure out the short comings, and apply them to this argument.

Just to be clear we are talking about the same video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBAyOAiUIM

This guy knows more than I do, maybe you know more than him. Let me know where he's wrong, if you want ?

But if bump firing is worthless, then wouldn't banning an "add-on" like what he uses in the video be preferable to banning "assault weapons" ?

In any case I don't think there's gonna be a ban of anything, nationally, with the slight possibility of magazines over some number of rounds.

but if there was a real chance of an awb, wouldn't banning useless add-ons be better ?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Except that's not how it works. With that stupid bump fire stock, you have to pull the firearm forward, it uses the buffer and recoil to move the rifle forward against your finger again to fire another round.

You're not responding to my argument. You're ignoring it.

My argument is that even if it is technically legal because of using a different mechanism -- which it obviously does -- the net effect is that it behaves in a way very similar to a machine gun. And if we're going to have special rules for machine guns, we should have the same rules for devices that turn semi-autos into guns that act like machine guns.

You clearly do not understand the mechanism at work here, and I am not going to waste anymore time on this stupidity.

The mechanism is not the point -- it's a loophole. If there's any "stupidity" on display here, it would be on the part of the person who told me to watch a video that shows a legal non-NFA firearm acting exactly like a machine gun, and then calls me names when I point that out.

 

[WackyDan]

The thread title has the word "sensible" in it. That means it was not directed at people like you.



My point is that either we have special laws for weapons capable of fully automatic firing, or we don't. A device that allows a semi-auto to operate in a way that is in effect fully auto is a loophole that should be closed. Either that, or get rid of the restrictions on full auto entirely.

Watch this, and then tell me how that is functionally different from full auto?

Wow... Video truth! Have you fired a fully automatic weapon? Have you fired a semi-auto with one of those bump attachments? I have. The video makes it look flawless... It is not. A bump trigger attachment is a novelty and is the last thing anyone that knows anything about firearms would want to rely on at all. The fact is, the weapon is still functionally semi-auto, is not designed for that at all. You and I may be splitting hairs, but the difference is I have experience on my side. I've been to the range countless times, shooting on state land and so forth... I have yet to see someone show up with a bump fire attachment. They are not common at all.

 

[jackstar7]

Wow... Video truth! Have you fired a fully automatic weapon? Have you fired a semi-auto with one of those bump attachments? I have. The video makes it look flawless... It is not. A bump trigger attachment is a novelty and is the last thing anyone that knows anything about firearms would want to rely on at all. The fact is, the weapon is still functionally semi-auto, is not designed for that at all. You and I may be splitting hairs, but the difference is I have experience on my side. I've been to the range countless times, shooting on state land and so forth... I have yet to see someone show up with a bump fire attachment. They are not common at all.

Is its commonality the issue? Why? I thought it was the functionality that was at issue.

It certainly sounds like responsible gun owners wouldn't waste time with such a mod. Are responsible gun owners why we have laws, or isn't it the irresponsible/criminal element that we make laws for? So what is lost by moving to try and eliminate this mod from general availability?

 

[xj0hnx]

Another thing I'd point out is that the whole bump firing stupidity has absolutely nothing to do with "A Sensible Approach to Reducing Gun Violence"

 

[WackyDan]

It is still only firing one shot per pull of the trigger. It is completely irrelevant as bump firing isn't used in criminal activity. To base any kind of law on it is just beyond stupid.

Watch this one if you want to understand what you saw in the one you posted ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBAyOAiUIM

Again... and again. I've used bump fire attachments in the form of Hell Fire spring triggers and slide stocks. You have to hold the weapon just right, and they are finicky. Even in that video, if you ever used one you will see where he wasn't getting the desired result on when he wanted the firearm to fire and for how long. On range they are fun, and if your focus is a target 45 feet away as his was you can get accuracy... But 1. You go through ammo faster than you need to, and if you actually wanted to use one of these for illicit use/crime you better hope you have one stationary target to engage... Not multiple nor moving. My points above in response to the OP stand.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

You're not responding to my argument. You're ignoring it.

My argument is that even if it is technically legal because of using a different mechanism -- which it obviously does -- the net effect is that it behaves in a way very similar to a machine gun. And if we're going to have special rules for machine guns, we should have the same rules for devices that turn semi-autos into guns that act like machine guns.



The mechanism is not the point -- it's a loophole. If there's any "stupidity" on display here, it would be on the part of the person who told me to watch a video that shows a legal non-NFA firearm acting exactly like a machine gun, and then calls me names when I point that out.

A shoestring or rubberband does the same thing:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Another thing I'd point out is that the whole bump firing stupidity has absolutely nothing to do with "A Sensible Approach to Reducing Gun Violence"

You're entitled to your opinion on that.

But I laid out 24 points. I never imagined that one would garner so much attention.

The irony is that I included that item on the list partially because I dislike loopholes, but also because I do not want to see an assault weapons ban, and I've grown tired of people responding to my opposition to such by conflating semi-autos and autos. Devices like those blur a line I'd prefer unblurred.

ETA: The shoestring silliness, if that's real, just underscores the need for more sensible differentiation here between auto and semi-auto.

 

[WackyDan]

Also, obviously, if you're trying to mow down a crowd of people, you don't really need a lot of accuracy anyway.

I beg to differ. I could mow down far more people than you with a semi automatic with sustained controlled fire with less reload intervals than I could with one of those piece of shit bump stocks/contraptions.

 

[jpeyton]

I just told you that people are using the availability of these items as a way to go after semi-autos.

People are standing on any grave they can to go after semi-autos. Banning items on cosmetic grounds to appease them is a sign of weakness.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I beg to differ. I could mow down far more people than you with a semi automatic with sustained controlled fire with less reload intervals than I could with one of those piece of shit bump stocks/contraptions.

Probably true, but addresses a point I never made.

 

[jpeyton]

Both implemented at once, yes.

Why not simply implement the legislation that would have prevented Holmes and Cho from acquiring any firearm, instead of implementing your half-ass legislation that would have given them bolt-action rifles? Or are you now a proponent of legislative waste?