Guns

[PocketZeven]

If set up properly, sure.

I was a bit carefull with that, because you are the first person I ever met that is pro-gun and pro-universal healthcare. But that is a discussion for another thread.

But I agree universal healthcare setup correctly might pick up the ones falling through the cracks and possibly prevent some cases of mass shootings.

 

[stonesfan129]

I support little to no control. There is no point to passing more laws which will just be disregarded by people who already break the laws. The second amendment also says it is not supposed to be infringed.

 

[TetsuKobura]

I guess that going to school in the USA is a whole different world. The only place I can think of here where you have security doors, metal detectors, bag checks and armed officers is jail.

Most, if not all, sporting events in the US after 9/11 have metal detectors and bag checks, some have security doors, and some have armed officers. My old high school before it was renovated had a security door in the main entrance. For all I know, metal detectors might have been added. Regardless, I would rather live in a district where they did all they could to make them safer than live in the school district where Parkland happened.

 

[PocketZeven]

Most, if not all, sporting events in the US after 9/11 have metal detectors and bag checks, some have security doors, and some have armed officers. My old high school before it was renovated had a security door in the main entrance. For all I know, metal detectors might have been added. Regardless, I would rather live in a district where they did all they could to make them safer than live in the school district where Parkland happened.

I understand, but wouldnt it be better to build a community where none of those measures are neccesary at all at schools. Albeit improved mental healthcare, guncontrol etc. It is possible in every other western country in the world.

At most sporting events here, there are metal detectors and security doors as well. Security officers are however not allowed to be armed. These measures however have more to do with the threat of terrorism and hooligans then the risk of mass-shootings.

 

[Rage Racer]

So, Russia had its mass shooting, too.

A student with a shotgun and explosives kills 19 in his college in Kerch, Crimea.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lege-shooting-russian-officials-idUSKCN1MR1BB

It's not sure where'd he get the gun and what was the motive, but it seems like he was inspired by the Columbine massacre.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I heard he got the gun through a hunting license.

 

[Rage Racer]

Yes, it seems that he bought his pump-action shotgun legally, but not the pipe bombs of course.

I want to get a Saiga sometime, but after this, I'm afraid my family will get the wrong idea if they know about it...
Also, the government may tighten the gun laws after this.

Anyway... Thoughts and prayers to Kerch.

 

[Johnnypenso]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/25/kevin-parker-bill-would-require-social-media-searc/

A state lawmaker is proposing a change to New York’s gun laws to allow authorities to search social media for potential red flags before approving a handgun license.

State Senator Kevin Parker’s bill would mandate that applicants provide investigators with their Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter and Instagram passwords and access to their Google, Yahoo and Bing searches.

The Brooklyn Democrat wants investigators to look at the last three years of an applicant’s social media postings and a year of their search histories for “any good cause for the denial of a license,” such as racial slurs, threats of violence and terrorism-related posts.



Link to the proposed legislation. Note that the words/phrases include, "investigate posts or searches related to commonly known profane slurs or biased language". Other provisions including having to recertify every 5 years and consent to the same social media searches.

 

[PocketZeven]

A humorous look at that other country with high gun ownership’s (Switzerland) gun laws.

 

[McLaren]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/25/kevin-parker-bill-would-require-social-media-searc/

A state lawmaker is proposing a change to New York’s gun laws to allow authorities to search social media for potential red flags before approving a handgun license.

State Senator Kevin Parker’s bill would mandate that applicants provide investigators with their Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter and Instagram passwords and access to their Google, Yahoo and Bing searches.

The Brooklyn Democrat wants investigators to look at the last three years of an applicant’s social media postings and a year of their search histories for “any good cause for the denial of a license,” such as racial slurs, threats of violence and terrorism-related posts.



Link to the proposed legislation. Note that the words/phrases include, "investigate posts or searches related to commonly known profane slurs or biased language". Other provisions including having to recertify every 5 years and consent to the same social media searches.

This feels dangerous on its own, guns involved or not. The govt. can already track what you're doing online & ISPs make note that they can turn over information of what you're doing on their service, so willingly giving them your password to your social media and search inquiries seems like an excuse for them to not only find "good cause to deny a license", but potentially see if there's anything else you've been up to or do that they can use. Might as well give them passwords to your bank accounts so they can see if you're paying your taxes correctly, too.

 

[PocketZeven]

This feels dangerous on its own, guns involved or not. The govt. can already track what you're doing online & ISPs make note that they can turn over information of what you're doing on their service, so willingly giving them your password to your social media and search inquiries seems like an excuse for them to not only find "good cause to deny a license", but potentially see if there's anything else you've been up to or do that they can use. Might as well give them passwords to your bank accounts so they can see if you're paying your taxes correctly, too.

Not to mention it is based on the premise that all crazies use social media, which isnt neccesarily so.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Bump stocks illegal. The clarification of what is considered a "machine gun" is a very slippery slope. More of a technicality not based on internal working parts. Personally, I think they are stupid but doesn't really change the fact that a brand new regulation is now a reality and brought during an administration that is not supposed to be for this type of thing. Like politicians before who duped their supporters, you've been had.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

 

[PocketZeven]

Bump stocks illegal. The clarification of what is considered a "machine gun" is a very slippery slope. More of a technicality not based on internal working parts. Personally, I think they are stupid but doesn't really change the fact that a brand new regulation is now a reality and brought during an administration that is not supposed to be for this type of thing. Like politicians before who duped their supporters, you've been had.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

This is more common sense then anything else. The whole idea of bump stocks was to circumvent the hurdles of owning automatic rifles.

Edit: I incorrectly stated automatic rifles were illegal. Upon second search, I stated this wrong and this has been subsequently corrected.

 

[Swagger897]

It's a loophole for people who don't go through the proper licensing to own automatic rifles legally and let them experience the "sensation" of an automatic rifle.

However, there's nothing stopping Joe Schmo from continuing to use it other than some words.

 

[Blood Eagle]

This is more common sense then anything else. The whole idea of bump stocks was to circumvent the hurdles of owning automatic rifles.

Edit: I incorrectly stated automatic rifles were illegal. Upon second search, I stated this wrong and this has been subsequently corrected.

I think bump stocks are stupid but what we have here is the mighty pen creating felons. The carification itself is garbage.

 

[Danoff]

I think bump stocks are stupid but what we have here is the mighty pen creating felons. The carification itself is garbage.

Bump stocks are literally a device that was created to find a way around gun classification in order to give citizens the ability to have a gun that would otherwise be illegal (for them, lacking the necessary paperwork) to own. It's a physical manifestation of a loophole. So... I don't know that making sure that the law better reflects intent based on what people are doing is "garbage".

The people who bought bump stocks also knew darn well that they were doing something that if not technically illegal, was definitely against the intent of the law. And that sort of thing, whether it's tax loopholes or something else, usually gets shut down. Especially when there's a giant record-setting horrible event that points out how important it is to shut down that loophole.

I don't feel bad for bump stock owners (although I don't like the way this is being done for other reasons). They knew what they were doing.


Edit:

I just realized that it's just poor press calling it a "ban". Bump stocks are just being classified in with automatic weapons... which I think is probably spot on based on the purpose of that classification. So I have no issues with how it's being done.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Bump stocks are literally a device that was created to find a way around gun classification in order to give citizens the ability to have a gun that would otherwise be illegal to own. It's a physical manifestation of a loophole. So... I don't know that making sure that the law better reflects intent based on what people are doing is "garbage".

Bump stocks do not change the rate of fire from semi automatic to full auto. The trigger still has to be pushed backward via a finger or something else so the clarification is essentially saying that the momentum of the gun moving back and forth means machine gun because the act of you moving finger muscles to actually squeeze a trigger only happened once and the rest is a chain reaction. It's technically correct but the rate of fire was not altered from what the gun was capable of from the factory. You do not need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle. Is bump firing without a bump stock illegal? Need clarification on that too. I am no fan of bump stocks and knew this would likely happen. It's just weird given that it happened under the current administration considering the 'murica crowd who are staunch believers in his. So now comes the funny part when his supporters go, "well, bump stocks were stupid anyways so it's ok".

 

[PocketZeven]

Bump stocks do not change the rate of fire from semi automatic to full auto. The trigger still has to be pushed backward via a finger or something else so the clarification is essentially saying that the momentum of the gun moving back and forth means machine gun because the act of you moving finger muscles to actually squeeze a trigger only happened once and the rest is a chain reaction. It's technically correct but the rate of fire was not altered from what the gun was capable of from the factory. You do not need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle. Is bump firing without a bump stock illegal? Need clarification on that too. I am no fan of bump stocks and knew this would likely happen. It's just weird given that it happened under the current administration considering the 'murica crowd who are staunch believers in his. So now comes the funny part when his supporters go, "well, bump stocks were stupid anyways so it's ok".

I disagree:

 

[Danoff]

Bump stocks do not change the rate of fire from semi automatic to full auto. The trigger still has to be pushed backward via a finger or something else so the clarification is essentially saying that the momentum of the gun moving back and forth means machine gun because the act of you moving finger muscles to actually squeeze a trigger only happened once and the rest is a chain reaction. It's technically correct but the rate of fire was not altered from what the gun was capable of from the factory. You do not need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle. Is bump firing without a bump stock illegal? Need clarification on that too. I am no fan of bump stocks and knew this would likely happen. It's just weird given that it happened under the current administration considering the 'murica crowd who are staunch believers in his. So now comes the funny part when his supporters go, "well, bump stocks were stupid anyways so it's ok".

The rate of fire isn't used to determine automatic vs. semi-automatic. It's the number of shots per trigger pull. The bump stock is a mechanism designed to give you free trigger pulls without actually having to squeeze it yourself, it's a circumvention of a loophole, which is why the device is being classified as automatic. Bump firing in general is not what's being reclassified, just the device that enables bump firing.

I think the real reason this won't get that much pushback is because it makes total sense. Device designed to give you effectively automatic fire is classified in with automatic fire weapons. Ok... seems appropriate. Everyone knew bump stocks were nonsense, even the people that bought them.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I disagree:

Give me cliff notes on this video because I am at work and don't have speakers on my work computer. But more importantly if you want me to watch a 6:45 video of some dude explaining about how bump stocks and semi automatic firearms work, believe me I already know. I'm also not going to be swayed of my opinion about something I already thought was stupid from a dude on a youtube video. The bottom line is I think the clarification is convenient and a step towards making anything semi automatic illegal based on slippery arguments that eventually lead to bad faith compromise.

 

[PocketZeven]

Give me cliff notes on this video because I am at work and don't have speakers on my work computer. But more importantly if you want me to watch a 6:45 video of some dude explaining about how bump stocks and semi automatic firearms work, believe me I already know. I'm also not going to be swayed of my opinion about something I already thought was stupid from a dude on a youtube video. The bottom line is I think the clarification is convenient and a step towards making anything semi automatic illegal based on slippery arguments that eventually lead to bad faith compromise.

I disagreed with your statement that the rate of fire remains unchanged with a bump stock. You don’t need sound. Watch from 4:12 and you will notice the increased rate of fire.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I disagreed with your statement that the rate of fire remains unchanged with a bump stock. You don’t need sound. Watch from 4:12 and you will notice the increased rate of fire.

What I said was that the gun was capable of that rate of fire from the factory without modification. I also said you don't need a bump stock to bump fire a semi automatic rifle.

 

[Danoff]

What I said was that the gun was capable of that rate of fire from the factory without modification. I also said you don't need a bump stock to bump fire a semi automatic rifle.

I don't see what that has to do with bump fire stocks. What he's doing is a speed fire technique (which has consequences for control and accuracy compared to a bump stock), by not holding the handle. It's not a device which is causing multiple shots from... effectively... a single trigger pull. It's not an automatic weapon. You don't need to make that association.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I don't see what that has to do with bump fire stocks. What he's doing is a speed fire technique (which has consequences for control and accuracy compared to a bump stock), by not holding the handle. It's not a device which is causing multiple shots from... effectively... a single trigger pull. It's not an automatic weapon. You don't need to make that association.

Everything shot at automatic rate has consequences on control and accuracy so not really the point. The momentum of the gun was doing the work. Look, I understand the clarification and what it means just think it's misleading and basically can apply to all shoulder fired semi autos. It gives people who already don't understand how semi autos work a false sense of what a bump stock actually did. We've already been through and still have people pushing for regulations based purely on aesthetics. To me that's dipping toes in the water and a big indicator of an outright ban if enough support it. I couldn't care less about bump stocks and the idiots who bought them but I stand by anyone's right to do whatever they desire with their own property. Guns or otherwise. If this regulation makes people feel better, that's great. All law is essentially a suggestion.

 

[Swagger897]

Not everyone can use said technique either, and at any rate, you're still missing the point.

From the gospel themselves:

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

The first step to regulating their use is to ban their sales, and then determine the proper ways to re-introduce them. If bumpstocks want to legally return to markets where consumers, who have to have the proper paperwork for automatic rifles for example, want to purchase them again, cool.

 

[Tornado]

It gives people who already don't understand how semi autos work a false sense of what a bump stock actually did. We've already been through and still have people pushing for regulations based purely on aesthetics.

But this isn't banning things that look scary like pistol grips or barrel shrouds like the Assault Weapons Ban or the SAFE act did so people would feel better about themselves. This is reclassifying something that makes a semi-automatic rifle function pretty similar to a heavily regulated automatic one as an automatic weapon; which the people who laughed at how they were getting one up on the dumb government should have seen coming even before some loon used a gun equipped with one to more effectively shoot up a casino.

 

[Blood Eagle]

But this isn't banning things that look scary like pistol grips or barrel shrouds like the Assault Weapons Ban or the SAFE act did so people would feel better about themselves. This is reclassifying something that makes a semi-automatic rifle function pretty much the same as an automatic one as an automatic weapon; which the people who laughed at how they were getting one up on the dumb government should have seen coming even before some loon used a gun equipped with one to more effectively shoot up a casino.

Yeah the AWB probably saved zero lives. Another thing about that ban was the grandfather clause. So is there a grandfather clause on a bump stock? Nope. Turn it in, destroy it or be a criminal. The mighty pen making felons.... Oh, did I already say that?

 

[Danoff]

So is there a grandfather clause on a bump stock? Nope. Turn it in, destroy it or be a criminal. The mighty pen making felons.... Oh, did I already say that?

I think that's a bit flippant. You're not retroactively a felon for having owned a bump stock. You're a felon if you decide to continue to own one and you don't have or quickly obtain the necessary Federal Firearms License.

Why do we need a grandfather clause for something that was an engineered middle finger at firearm classification?

 

[Blood Eagle]

I think that's a bit flippant. You're not retroactively a felon for having owned a bump stock. You're a felon if you decide to continue to own one and you don't have or quickly obtain the necessary Federal Firearms License.

Why do we need a grandfather clause for something that was an engineered middle finger at firearm classification?

Maybe they should offer a buyback. Taking legally purchased items away from citizens without compensation is against your Libertarian philosophies isn't it? Nobody is getting NFA approval in 90 days. I understand it's highly unlikely but imagine joe blow who bought a bump stock a couple years ago who doesn't follow the news, social media, keep up with ATF regulations etc committing federal firearm felonies unbeknownst to him? Lots of what if I understand sounds pretty far fetched but nonetheless possible.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe they should offer a buyback. Taking legally purchased items away from citizens without compensation is against your Libertarian philosophies isn't it? Nobody is getting NFA approval in 90 days. I understand it's highly unlikely but imagine joe blow who bought a bump stock a couple years ago who doesn't follow the news, social media, keep up with ATF regulations etc committing federal firearm felonies unbeknownst to him? Lots of what if I understand sounds pretty far fetched but nonetheless possible.

Why does there need to be a buyback? You can sell you bump stock right now to someone with a license to own it. Or perhaps you can export it to a country that allows it (exporting of munitions is its own hassle though). It's not illegal to own, you just have to have an FFL.

I get where you're coming from here, and if the bump stock weren't so obviously nonsense to begin with, I'd be on your side. But if you bought one, you knew (or should have known) you were playing with fire.

You have to be pretty informed to have known that bump stocks existed.