Bump stocks. Who will be

[Pneumonic]

You don't aim for "complete control" - but when you reduce 350 million + guns to even maybe 250 million guns, you commensurately reduce the chances of one of those guns being used to murder 50 innocent school children.

So, which guns do you propose are reduced?

They may not “exactly be worried about the illegality”, however the police will eventually catch up with them. Here in Australia, we regularly hear about “illegal guns found and destroyed” when warrants are executed, or criminals are apprehended and the like.

You have far more faith in the cops than I do. I have seen how effective making drugs illegal has been in the US.
I am not familiar with Australia but how many guns did they control? A million perhaps? There are 10x that number in AR-15's alone in the hands of god only knows who is in the US.

Guns exist and there is no going back. Pandora's box has long been opened.

That (the above) has got to be a better outcome than “leaving guns in the hands of said criminals because it is their constitutional damn right to have them”. Surely?

How often does one “save their family” by the ownership of a gun? Be honest here, come on. Certainly a damn sight less than those who lose their family because of a gun.

Perhaps it's the deterrent element you fail to see? Unarmed civilians are the easiest prey. Of this there is no doubt.

Also, the 2nd amendment doesn’t just give an American the right to bear arms; it tells the government they can't interfere with that right. And a great # of Americans wish to continue to be able to enjoy that benefit.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

I guess you might ask yourself if the police have any idea how to discriminate between an upstanding citizen and a criminal.
It seems in many cases that if they see someone armed they shoot first and ask questions later.

Texas police shoot man who disarmed possible church shooter

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...-shoot-man-who-disarmed-possible-12704202.php

BTW I found out that 6-7% of gun owners are NRA members, which means they are about 1.6% of our population. That is a lot of people, but pretty disproportionate in terms of how they drive things in Congress.

 

[amey01]

.

You haven't answered all my points. I guess some were too hard?

You still haven't answered how many people with a "gun for protection" actually successfully protect themselves with said gun. No carrying citizen stopped the shooter in Las Vegas, did they? And I'm sure there were many there. Anyway:

So, which guns do you propose are reduced?

As I said earlier, some of them. By reducing some of the guns within a society, you commensurately reduce the likelihood that these guns will be used (or obtained) by a criminal in a mass shooting.

Start with the military assault rifles, automatics, high powered hand guns, etc.

You have far more faith in the cops than I do. I have seen how effective making drugs illegal has been in the US.
I am not familiar with Australia but how many guns did they control? A million perhaps? There are 10x that number in AR-15's alone in the hands of god only knows who is in the US.

Australia's gun control measures have been proportional to its population. Unlike the USA's homicide rates. 26 times higher than other high-income countries!!

Guns exist and there is no going back. Pandora's box has long been opened.

Most other countries (and all other developed countries) would disagree with you.

Instead of basing your opinions on airy Facebook memes, actually look at the statistics.

Perhaps it's the deterrent element you fail to see? Unarmed civilians are the easiest prey. Of this there is no doubt.

When you have a mass shooting nearly every single day; and are having your citizens popped off at a rate nearly 30 times higher than any other G20 or developed country, I am failing to see the "deterrent".

To put it simply.......mate, it's not working!

Also, the 2nd amendment doesn’t just give an American the right to bear arms; it tells the government they can't interfere with that right. And a great # of Americans wish to continue to be able to enjoy that benefit.

That's great. But when it comes at the expense of your fellow citizens' safety, it's time to take a look at where it is all going wrong.

Let me ask you this very simple question?

Why should people, who've decided they have no personal need to defend themselves, then decide, for others, whether or not they should or shouldn't be allowed to self-protect?

As above, because it is interfering with the majority's (75%) safety!! Noone is saying "ban all guns". Enjoy your guns. But implement proper checks and licensing, ensure rigourous safe storage standards, and eliminate guns (like military assault rifles) which are capable of popping off 50 school children in 30 seconds. No civillian needs a gun like that.

 

[Pneumonic]

Good grief. You propose starting with banning military assault rifles and automatics from civilian hands. Ummmm, these guns are already banned!

How do you expect me to take you serious when you don't even know this most basic fact bout American gun law?

 

[twich54]

Good grief. You propose starting with banning military assault rifles and automatics from civilian hands. Ummmm, these guns are already banned!

It's quite obvious what Adam meant, 'AR-15 style' of weaponry

 

[amey01]

Good grief. You propose starting with banning military assault rifles and automatics from civilian hands. Ummmm, these guns are already banned!

How do you expect me to take you serious when you don't even know this most basic fact bout American gun law?

Good grief! You said yourself that there are 10 million AR-15s in the USA. That is an assault rifle.

I said "start with".

Seriously - don't just pick words that you see as too hard to respond to. Respond to to the whole post.

You have enough of automatics and military assault rifles on your streets to have a worthwhile amnesty and buy-back.

And anyone can go and buy a bump stock (the title of this thread) - turning virtually anything into an automatic! And I have read recently that "Dick's Sporting"?? has only just (voluntarily) decided to stop selling assault rifles.

Geez, not really sure what you're on about.

Alternatively, you can just keep on going the way you are, and we can light stupid candles and give our "thoughts and prayers" when another 50 school children are gunned down in six months time.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Pneumonic]

Good grief! You said yourself that there are 10 million AR-15s in the USA. That is an assault rifle. .

An AR-15 is no more an "assault" rifle than is a Ruger Mini-14, the most popular ranch/farm rifle in America. Same ammo, same capacity, same function ... one trigger pull = one bang. Do you recommend the Ruger, and tens of millions of other similar semi-automatic rifles, be banned as well? Good luck with that!

The problem with many anti-gun lobbyists is ... they don't have a clue about guns and, so therefore, cannot properly debate about controlling them in any realistic way other than say .... ban them.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

other than say .... ban them.

Sounds great! Anything else leaves way too much gray area. Nip it in the bud and get rid of them all.

 

[Pneumonic]

Sounds great! Anything else leaves way too much gray area. Nip it in the bud and get rid of them all.

Another proposition that is based on some Utopian world that isn’t based in reality.

 

[twich54]

An AR-15 is no more an "assault" rifle than is a Ruger Mini-14, the most popular ranch/farm rifle in America. Same ammo, same capacity, same function ... one trigger pull = one bang. Do you recommend the Ruger, and tens of millions of other similar semi-automatic rifles, be banned as well? Good luck with that!

The problem with many anti-gun lobbyists is ... they don't have a clue about guns and, so therefore, cannot properly debate about controlling them in any realistic way other than say .... ban them.

pneumonia , your point is taken and I agree a large segment of the 'anti-gun' has no clue but the AR-15 style of weapons are for all intent and purpose an assault weapon. Allow me to give a few facts (again) ........while there are various sporting / shooting disciplines that involve the AR-15 they were in fact all brought out 'after' the gun existed. So in this case the chicken came first, understood ? The gun was in fact designed as a military / killing weapon.

Sounds great! Anything else leaves way too much gray area. Nip it in the bud and get rid of them all.

Do you speak of the assault style weapons or all guns in general ?

 

[RCHeliGuy]

Do you speak of the assault style weapons or all guns in general ?

What part of what I said wasn't obvious?

No gray area, get rid of them ALL!

I've been trained by the military to shoot a hand gun, assault riffle, machine gun and field strip them etc.. I like to think I have a clue about guns. I was also an archery instructor and ran a range. I saw a bunch of crazed kids with gun lust while I was in the service. I was glad that we turned everything into the armory and were only given ammunition for short periods.

I don't see any value in allowing people to purchase guns and think they should all be banned and confiscated!

 

[Pneumonic]

pneumonia , your point is taken and I agree a large segment of the 'anti-gun' has no clue but the AR-15 style of weapons are for all intent and purpose an assault weapon. Allow me to give a few facts (again) ........while there are various sporting / shooting disciplines that involve the AR-15 they were in fact all brought out 'after' the gun existed. So in this case the chicken came first, understood ? The gun was in fact designed as a military / killing weapon.

The AR-15 is a standard rifle that aesthetically been altered to look like a mean and menacing M-16. But looking mean and menacing doesn't legally make it an assault weapon, no more than this Ruger below is an assault weapon. Do you consider the Ruger to be an assault weapon as well?

 

[twich54]

What part of what I said wasn't obvious?

No gray area, get rid of them ALL!

I've been trained by the military to shoot a hand gun, assault riffle, machine gun and field strip them etc.. I like to think I have a clue about guns. I was also an archery instructor and ran a range. I saw a bunch of crazed kids with gun lust while I was in the service. I was glad that we turned everything into the armory and were only given ammunition for short periods.

I don't see any value in allowing people to purchase guns and think they should all be banned and confiscated!

Wow kid, little touchy tonite are we !!

 

[Pneumonic]

I don't see any value in allowing people to purchase guns and think they should all be banned and confiscated!

My guess is that if you lived in the south side of Chicago you'd find value in having a weapon available and handy if needed.

 

[twich54]

The AR-15 is a standard rifle that aesthetically been altered to look like a mean and menacing M-16. But looking mean and menacing doesn't legally make it an assault weapon, no more than this Ruger below is an assault weapon. Do you consider the Ruger to be an assault weapon as well?

what is your definition of a 'standard rifle' ?

as for the Ruger, it 'could' easily be construed as an assault weapon, myself probably not, but regardless I know where you're going with this and yes it could easily be classified as such in a ban by the Gov't.

 

[amey01]

An AR-15 is no more an "assault" rifle than is a Ruger Mini-14, the most popular ranch/farm rifle in America. Same ammo, same capacity, same function ... one trigger pull = one bang. Do you recommend the Ruger, and tens of millions of other similar semi-automatic rifles, be banned as well? Good luck with that!

The problem with many anti-gun lobbyists is ... they don't have a clue about guns and, so therefore, cannot properly debate about controlling them in any realistic way other than say .... ban them.

1. I've never espoused "banning them"
2. What do you think AR stands for?
3. If the a rile called Assault Rifle is not an assault rifle, I don't know what is.

For clarification (from one of the AR-15's designers)

The AR-15 assault rifle was engineered to create "maximum wound effect." Tiny projectiles – needle-nosed and weighing less than four grams – travel nearly three times the speed of sound. As the bullet strikes the body, the payload of kinetic energy rips open a cavity inside

mmmmmmm - just what citizens of a modern, civilised society need to walk around carrying.

 

[amey01]

Another proposition that is based on some Utopian world that isn’t based in reality.

Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1997.
The USA had 346 mass shootings last year alone (2017)

What part of that "utopian reality" do you not seem to grasp?

How is this single statistic "not based in reality"? It seems pretty reasonable to me.

Your argument is getting more and more absurd by the post.

PS - I used Australia for example - but only because I am Australian. I could no doubt pick any developed country for similar emphasis [except the USA of course]

 

[twich54]

2. What do you think AR stands for?
3. If the a rile called Assault Rifle is not an assault rifle, I don't know what is

Adam, not trying to pick on you but you're incorrect, 'AR' does not stand for that, rather that of the original design / manufacturer (Armalite) of the weapon.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

 

[Brad225]

What part of what I said wasn't obvious?

No gray area, get rid of them ALL!

I've been trained by the military to shoot a hand gun, assault riffle, machine gun and field strip them etc.. I like to think I have a clue about guns. I was also an archery instructor and ran a range. I saw a bunch of crazed kids with gun lust while I was in the service. I was glad that we turned everything into the armory and were only given ammunition for short periods.

I don't see any value in allowing people to purchase guns and think they should all be banned and confiscated!

Welcome to Mark's World of Socialism/Communism/Liberalism.

Because you don't believe in cable differences or guns no one should have them. That is the ultimate liberal's approach to an issue.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

Just because people feel Entitled to have guns without doing any work doesn't mean they should have them.

The intent was always that armed people would form well regulated militias, but that hasn't happened and still people demand to have their guns anyway. Seems like a huge lack of follow through.

As stated before the 2nd Amendment has no place in modern society and should be done away with.