Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Look I don't know Buddy Ball's exact set up other than his statement that he stores them in every room in his house. I hope they are all locked up in a safe place and the gun owner I am closest with (my cousin who is a cop) keeps his service pistol locked in a gun safe and I hope everyone does that. Either way I am just talking from a statistical point of view that your risk of injury and death goes up with a gun in your home.
Laws are not just for preventing conduct but for stating what conduct we as a society say shouldn't be permissible. Under your logic we shouldn't have any laws since it won't stop anyone from doing what they want.
They are. The reason is that technically, as automatic fire has been defined, the gun is not firing automatically. It is being mechanically fired. Automatic fire has previously not been defined as a rate of fire, but as a function of whether the gas pressures within the firing chamber of the weapon eject the spent round, load another, and engage the firing pin. Bump fire stocks remove that last element from internal to external. It takes mechanical advantage of the recoil to the stock, and then back to the trigger. A difference that doesn't matter, particularly, if you are being sprayed with fire.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Thanks. Yes I think there will be pushback on any banning, even something like the bump/slide stocks. I used to be in that camp but now am good with that concession. I have other buddies who are still against it. No doubt there will be a fight for any concessions, largely because on this side there is a perception that there is no "Compromise"... only giving. And once one thing is given, the other side won't be satisfied... just demanding the next thing. So why concede to giving.
By your own argument, you do think so.
If you are planning to commit murder you are not a law abiding citizen. He committed crimes well before this.
Did he? As far as I can tell he has no record. What types of crimes result in access to this mythical network you envision giving all criminals access to weaponry that law abiding citizens don't have access to?
Ugh. It's disheartening to know that an experienced shooter could achieve that level of damage without the modification but the argument is always "what would have prevented this" Now, this guy doesn't appear to be a trained shooter, that we know of right now, so while he still could have done a lot of carnage without the modification, it seems like a no-brainer to me to make the modification illegal. At least to limit the capabilities.
It is illegal to plan a murder. Just because he was not caught doing so does not mean he was not committing crimes.
Monitored sure, but, there isn't very much they can do about it because by definition is assures anonymity.
I wish we could get a law that says magazines can't be larger than 10. I think that could help on these huge scale mass shooting type events buy only over a period of time. Of course criminals will be able to get them but that shouldn't be a reason not to have a law. I would be willing to drop banning semi-automatic AR-15 rifles if you could have a good limit on magazine size.
All 7 of those things can be done anywhere. It doesn't differentiate between your mythical network that you see in the movies. You claimed there wasn't such a network, there is.
Why does it still exist and why does it thrive? You can pick any one of those 7 things and I can explain how it can be beat. But, none of this has anything to do with your original claim. You've now moved on to the mythical network, that does exist, has some challenges from law enforcement. Duh.
My brother has taken the opportunity to show me several times why a ban on magazines wouldn't work. He can drop and change a clip in about 10 milliseconds. (not sure how fast it really is, faster than I can push a button on a stop watch)
It has nothing to do with it? Really?
I know I read somewhere that the % of people that commit suicide that are on anti depression meds is rather high as well. I wonder if there is some sort of correlation. Maybe these drugs are doing more harm than good?
Because we don't *really* give a ####. "Nothing you can do." Just send our happiest condolences in advance for the next one.
VPN ensures privacy. It's TOR that provides anonymity. And installing a VPN is as simple as downloading an app on your phone. Much easier than walking into a store and passing a back ground check.
Why would anyone need a 30 pack of beer?
We would probably know if research into this stuff was fundef, but somehow that keeps not happening
Well, we can't have multiple wives anymore. I guess they are just protecting us from ourselves.
Ok appreciate the input. I am not a gun owner so not knowledgeable but would also like to know what reasonable limitations can be put on that might work.
Me neither. But, I think the obvious ones are banning assault rifles, stiffer background checks, and closing loopholes. All of which have a history of great push back and failure.
Won't "stop", of course not, setting an unrealistic goal like that is just a weak argument tactic. Stricter laws could absolutely decrease the chances of this happening though.
Do people really value human life less now then they did a decade or two ago? There were always nutjobs out there and always will be. Now a days these nutjobs have access to an arsenal of weapons that they shouldn't. I'm not saying melt every gun but come on no one needs an automatic weapon and they should be banned. I own a 20 gauge (from my hunting days 20 years ago) and a 22 pistol so I'm not anti gun.
I have been shooting and hunting for about 30 years now. I own several guns. I would find it extraordinarily difficult to point any of them at another person and fire. Even in an extreme self-defense situation, I think it would be a very difficult thing to do. I suspect the vast majority of people feel similar (ie it would not be easy to do (if they could do it at all)).
There have always been a lot of guns in this country and they have always been pretty easy to get. If we distributed assault rifles and cases of ammo door-to-door for free, the overwhelming majority of people still would not go on a killing spree. It takes a certain individual/mindset to do it. So while we can (and should) take all facets into consideration, we need to focus more on why people do these things than what they use, IMO. I understand why the attention immediately goes to the guns (and it is important to talk about them and ask if we can make changes for the better (I believe we can)) but we always seem to spend an inappropriate amount of time/effort arguing about guns and not nearly enough on what makes individuals not only want to kill other people but actually go through with it. What has happened/is happening to make people in this country place less value on human life? What is really going on that more individuals seem to be arriving at the conclusion taking out multiple other people (and then themselves) is the way to go?
If we could melt-down every gun today, (tomorrow) individuals would still want to kill others and find a way to do so. We need to work on why that is because we certainly cant eliminate everything someone would use to kill another person.
