Firearms

General Discussion on any Off Topic subject
post

Your stance:

ALL firearms should be legal and available to the public.
7
18%
All currently legal firearms should remain legal (screening as is).
4
11%
All currently legal firearms should remain legal with more strict screening.
20
53%
Ban ALL firearms.
3
8%
Ban semi-automatic handguns and rifles that have a removable magazine.
4
11%
Don't know / Don't care.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 38

Re: Firearms

Postby terrytate » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:45 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
Deja Entendu wrote:
I'm genuinely curious to see if someone here can provide an answer to this that doesn't basically boil down to "because I can and because they're cool."


Your username echos this discussion. It's been run into the ground and has been answered many times on this board, but honestly it's pointless. At no time will firearms with removable magazines not exist in America. As we have discussed, our culture is too intertwined with guns and the Second Amendment to ever do what Australia did and there are too many illegal and previously purchased guns in circulation to simply get rid of them. People want to bitch that the NRA is too powerful, but the NRA isn't some rouge, evil organization. The NRA is just a lobbying group representing a segment of the population. This segment is represented in government by the NRA, and will not succumb to "people taking their guns". This group is too large and financially powerful to be swayed or quelled.

Instead of asking pointless questions which people will just debate ad nauseam, not making any ground, we need to discuss what can be done.

We've spoken about things like extended background checks, wait periods, but none of these incidents would have been thwarted by these "gun control" measures. Between 3 and 11 percent of gun crimes are committed by legally obtained guns (depending on your source). Pulse, Sandy Hook, Vegas, etc. none of these would have been stopped by the aforementioned solutions. That leaves the vast majority of issues to be with illegally obtained guns. Making "x" illegal, extending background checks, etc etc etc falls into the gun enthusiast wheel house that, "This only punishes law abiding citizens". I want to re-iterate that I'm not against extended background checks, wait periods, and higher taxes on guns (price is a great barrier to entry), but I it's not going to change or solve our issue. I'm sure a poster will ask why I support these measures. I support them as common sense. If you are a law abiding citizen who wants to respectfully and legally obtain a gun, there's no reason to fear extended background checks or have to wait for "x" amount of time. I own a ton of guns and I have no issues with these proposals.

I want to stress what I've said before, perhaps in this very thread, that we need to allow civil action against gun manufacturers. They are one of the very few completely protected groups. This wouldn't retroactively solve the millions of illegal and legal guns on the market, but enough law suits from individuals or groups exposing negligence in safety, accountability, marketing, etc. could bring real changes that would prevent future gun issues. Money speaks and the government isn't allowing the market to adjust to these issues. Who knows, with enough lawsuits, gun manufacturers could implement biometrics to disallow illegal gun use in newer weapons or tracking on weapons. It's a tiny start, but this is something that the NRA, gun activist, or the 2A wouldn't be able to squash. Otherwise, again, nothing will happen. Outside of a few, I think most want to see some changes. I elaborated into this further previously, but again it's just my 2 cents.




For the sake of argument, what grounds would anyone have to sue a gun manufacturer? Aside from a faulty gun that misfires or explodes, how are they liable? It would be no different than suing Dodge because some slapnut run into a crowd in a Challenger.
User avatar
terrytate
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:49 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:18 am

terrytate wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
Your username echos this discussion. It's been run into the ground and has been answered many times on this board, but honestly it's pointless. At no time will firearms with removable magazines not exist in America. As we have discussed, our culture is too intertwined with guns and the Second Amendment to ever do what Australia did and there are too many illegal and previously purchased guns in circulation to simply get rid of them. People want to bitch that the NRA is too powerful, but the NRA isn't some rouge, evil organization. The NRA is just a lobbying group representing a segment of the population. This segment is represented in government by the NRA, and will not succumb to "people taking their guns". This group is too large and financially powerful to be swayed or quelled.

Instead of asking pointless questions which people will just debate ad nauseam, not making any ground, we need to discuss what can be done.

We've spoken about things like extended background checks, wait periods, but none of these incidents would have been thwarted by these "gun control" measures. Between 3 and 11 percent of gun crimes are committed by legally obtained guns (depending on your source). Pulse, Sandy Hook, Vegas, etc. none of these would have been stopped by the aforementioned solutions. That leaves the vast majority of issues to be with illegally obtained guns. Making "x" illegal, extending background checks, etc etc etc falls into the gun enthusiast wheel house that, "This only punishes law abiding citizens". I want to re-iterate that I'm not against extended background checks, wait periods, and higher taxes on guns (price is a great barrier to entry), but I it's not going to change or solve our issue. I'm sure a poster will ask why I support these measures. I support them as common sense. If you are a law abiding citizen who wants to respectfully and legally obtain a gun, there's no reason to fear extended background checks or have to wait for "x" amount of time. I own a ton of guns and I have no issues with these proposals.

I want to stress what I've said before, perhaps in this very thread, that we need to allow civil action against gun manufacturers. They are one of the very few completely protected groups. This wouldn't retroactively solve the millions of illegal and legal guns on the market, but enough law suits from individuals or groups exposing negligence in safety, accountability, marketing, etc. could bring real changes that would prevent future gun issues. Money speaks and the government isn't allowing the market to adjust to these issues. Who knows, with enough lawsuits, gun manufacturers could implement biometrics to disallow illegal gun use in newer weapons or tracking on weapons. It's a tiny start, but this is something that the NRA, gun activist, or the 2A wouldn't be able to squash. Otherwise, again, nothing will happen. Outside of a few, I think most want to see some changes. I elaborated into this further previously, but again it's just my 2 cents.




For the sake of argument, what grounds would anyone have to sue a gun manufacturer? Aside from a faulty gun that misfires or explodes, how are they liable? It would be no different than suing Dodge because some slapnut run into a crowd in a Challenger.



Cars aren't advertised as deadly weapons. Car manufacturers have been sued for people getting into accidents in them and them not being safe enough to protect them and others, even in cases where the driver was impaired. Law suits against guns would mostly target how the advertise and promote their products, but in the keeping in line with car companies, people would be able to sue gun companies for not having safeguards to prevent accidental discharges, stolen weapons used to kill, and other gun related incidents.

The initial reason for this was the amount of people suing gun companies prior to 2005, when this was passed. Many of these lawsuits were deemed frivolous and it was created to prevent the gun companies from going under from the sheer volume of lawsuits, but it also prevented them from investing any R&D/money to prevent stolen guns, wrongful deaths, and safety issues.

I generally disagree with most, if not all, instances where the government steps in the business sector. Whether the intentions are to protect the business or the consumer, it normally punishes the consumer by disrupting the market, but this is for another thread.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Buc2 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:17 pm

How about this...

If you’re found guilty of using a gun in the commission of a crime, be it robbery, murder or whatever, automatic death sentence. If the verdict stands through one appeal which must be completed within, say, 11 weeks, the sentence is carried out one week later. No ifs, ands or buts. I can almost guarantee you, except for some one off by some psycho, gun crime would plummet.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7613
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:29 pm

Buc2 wrote:How about this...

If you’re found guilty of using a gun in the commission of a crime, be it robbery, murder or whatever, automatic death sentence. If the verdict stands through one appeal which must be completed within, say, 11 weeks, the sentence is carried out one week later. No ifs, ands or buts. I can almost guarantee you, except for some one off by some psycho, gun crime would plummet.


Retribution is not a proven deterrent.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Buc2 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:43 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Buc2 wrote:How about this...

If you’re found guilty of using a gun in the commission of a crime, be it robbery, murder or whatever, automatic death sentence. If the verdict stands through one appeal which must be completed within, say, 11 weeks, the sentence is carried out one week later. No ifs, ands or buts. I can almost guarantee you, except for some one off by some psycho, gun crime would plummet.


Retribution is not a proven deterrent.


You're right. So let's try proving it.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7613
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Firearms

Postby NYBF » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:50 pm

Buc2 wrote:How about this...

If you’re found guilty of using a gun in the commission of a crime, be it robbery, murder or whatever, automatic death sentence. If the verdict stands through one appeal which must be completed within, say, 11 weeks, the sentence is carried out one week later. No ifs, ands or buts. I can almost guarantee you, except for some one off by some psycho, gun crime would plummet.


You'd be willing to give up Amendment 8 to exploit Amendment 2?

You're also going to force 19 states to adopt the death penalty?
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 363 times

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:58 pm

I'm open to a conversation. There are 6 individuals who are on the extreme "away with guns" side and 7 who believe everyone should have a gun. Most people are in the middle. These individuals seems like they are willing to talk and I would bet they fall on both sides of the aisle.

So if my idea is not ok with you, what do you suggest?

We already have a vote for kill them all.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Firearms

Postby mightyleemoon » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:23 pm

Buc2 wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
Retribution is not a proven deterrent.


You're right. So let's try proving it.


Only 1 day to collect that data.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Firearms

Postby mightyleemoon » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:32 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:I'm open to a conversation. There are 6 individuals who are on the extreme "away with guns" side and 7 who believe everyone should have a gun. Most people are in the middle. These individuals seems like they are willing to talk and I would bet they fall on both sides of the aisle.

So if my idea is not ok with you, what do you suggest?

We already have a vote for kill them all.


A while ago (Cubs reference invalidated!) I put this on facebook...and I think something similar here.

I've decided to run for office. My platform is gun control. This is my proposal...

All law abiding citizens will have the right to purchase firearms. I don't even care what kind of firearm. We've got handguns...shotguns...uzis...rocket Launchers. You can have anything your little shooting heart desires so long as you've not broken the law. But, if you break any law that is tagged as "violent"? Seriously...if you so much as even look cross-eyed at a kitten? Weapon ban. For life.

Now, here's what we do with people who break our new law. All sentencing is mandatory and without ability for parole.

If you're caught with a gun and you're on the ban list? 20 years. Up the river. To the big house. If you have the gun while committing a crime....you don't even have to fire it...just have it on your person while jaywalking...30 years. It's a long time...but...don't worry...we Cubs fans will probably still be waiting for a Championship by then. You can join us waiting when you get out. Fire that gun in a crime? 50 years. If that shot lands on another living soul? Life. Forget it. Nice knowing you.

Also, if you're caught selling firearms on the black market? 30 years. Make sure to pack a lunch and enjoy your stay at Chateau Fuckoff!

(We'll figure out how to deal with people who have their weapons stolen later. But, probably harsh. Be a responsible gun owner and lock. That. ****. Up.)

And...how do we make room for all of these new folks who will likely land in prison? Stop locking up people for decades when they are caught with weed. Put the druggies in county or let them sit next to Otis in the local jail. Let's reserve our prison cells for people who are an actual threat to the rest of us.

Vote for me...and not only will we get this in place...everyone will also get free cookies on National Cookie Day. Now that's Change you can eat.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Firearms

Postby The Outsider » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:34 pm

Buc2 wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
Retribution is not a proven deterrent.


You're right. So let's try proving it.



I'm sure no society has ever tried that one before.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2514
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:41 pm

In response to MLM.

As I was reading it I thought to myself, we are going to have to end the war on drugs to fit all these people in prison...and there it is...lol.

My issue with your stance is that most of these people are committing crimes that they would be in jail for 30+ years or the death penalty and it is not a deterrent. Most of these people either end up getting caught anyway or people are still looking for them to punish them with laws already on the books. The only difference I see is longer time served, but for the murders...or even "terrorist"/mass murderers, longer prison time or death is either expected or ignored.

Like all proposals, they are steps and deciding where and how to take that step is important.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Buc2 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:47 pm

I know my solution isn't feasible. I'm not a complete idiot. Just a half-idiot. It was nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek solution.

Real dialog is needed between the powers that be (politicians). We as citizens have to demand that from our pols or it will remain status quo. I like what Gary Johnson had to say. He wasn't throwing out solutions or even possible solutions. He just wants to get a real dialog going so we can, first, find some common ground (gee...that sounds familiar) and then hammer out some real solutions that have a real chance to work. This is a no brainer. The current laws are obviously not enough. I have no issue with law abiding, legal gun owners. I have no issue with non-gun owners that want to see better controls on gun ownership. But there will have to be some give and take from both sides or nothing will change and incidents like Vegas will continue and [gasp!] maybe even get worse.

As for the poll on this thread, I voted with the majority: All currently legal firearms should remain legal with more strict screening.

I'd like to add that no fully auto weapons should be legal for private ownership. Same goes with all parts/mechanisms that are made for the sole purpose of modifying a weapon to become fully automatic.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7613
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Firearms

Postby terrytate » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:29 pm

Buc2 wrote:How about this...

If you’re found guilty of using a gun in the commission of a crime, be it robbery, murder or whatever, automatic death sentence. If the verdict stands through one appeal which must be completed within, say, 11 weeks, the sentence is carried out one week later. No ifs, ands or buts. I can almost guarantee you, except for some one off by some psycho, gun crime would plummet.



I have a better idea. How about we just put a huge assed wall around New York City, then throw all of the gun criminals in there.

Genius.
User avatar
terrytate
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:49 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:31 pm

terrytate wrote:
Buc2 wrote:How about this...

If you’re found guilty of using a gun in the commission of a crime, be it robbery, murder or whatever, automatic death sentence. If the verdict stands through one appeal which must be completed within, say, 11 weeks, the sentence is carried out one week later. No ifs, ands or buts. I can almost guarantee you, except for some one off by some psycho, gun crime would plummet.



I have a better idea. How about we just put a huge assed wall around New York City, then throw all of the gun criminals in there.

Genius.

Call me Snake.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8616
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Moozician » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:46 pm

I guarantee you this: "Bump stock" sales outfitting an AR-15 are gonna triple.
User avatar
Moozician
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: Wintah Gahden
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Jason Bourne » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:05 pm

Moozician wrote:I guarantee you this: "Bump stock" sales outfitting an AR-15 are gonna triple.


Yep , and 50 rd clips as well
Jason Bourne
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:47 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Firearms

Postby NYBF » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:56 pm

Jason Bourne wrote:
Moozician wrote:I guarantee you this: "Bump stock" sales outfitting an AR-15 are gonna triple.


Yep , and 50 rd clips as well


Put all the buyers on a list. Monitor all their actions, spy on them, etc.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 363 times

Re: Firearms

Postby The Outsider » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:07 pm

I actually want to buy a few bump stocks now, because they would be great for massacring herds of wild hogs.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2514
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Deja Entendu » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:48 pm

HamBone wrote:
Deja Entendu wrote:
I'm genuinely curious to see if someone here can provide an answer to this that doesn't basically boil down to "because I can and because they're cool."


Just curious...what other rights do American Citizens need to justify...before exercising that right?


Like I asked, would allowing firearms with a low round capacity not satisfy the right to bear arms along with the standard citizens practical need for a firearm?

Should fully auto assault rifles, handguns, and shotguns; Gatling guns; rocket launchers; weaponized drones; etc... all be legal simply because the 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms? Or perhaps there should be restrictions for the sake of the greater good of society. Risk v. reward. Compromise.

Despite the play on my username (I laughed, usc ... for those confused, it means "already heard"... also an album title), my question was legitimate. I'm curious if the people that are so opposed to giving up certain types of weapons (not all) actually have a practical reason for them. Because to date (and not just on this board) I have not heard one; but I digress.

I do not think all guns should be abolished, but something has to change. I don't know what that answer is, and I haven't really seen any great suggestions... particularly from the people chosen to lead this country.

A thought I just had was what if the ownership of these types of firearms aren't banned, but commercial sale of any newly manufactured ones meeting the criteria is prohibited. Whatever is out there is out there. Offer a massive highly incentivized no questions asked buy back program to help clear some from the streets; create mandatory registration requirements that have stringent tracking requirements for any sale or transfer of firearms AND ammunition. Stiffen pentalties for violators. Along with the new penalties and tracking, the rarity will also drive up the price exponentially.

I'm sure that's not an original thought and is full of holes, but it was just typed in a stream of consciousness.
Deja Entendu
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:59 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:15 pm

You will hear people will say semi-automatic weapons are mostly used for hunting, but not that many people are out hunting wild boar.

Most people use them for protection. They are meant to take the lives of others. When you propose taking these away, re-iterating my earlier point, you are taking them away from law abiding citizens. This, in the opinion of gun owners tilts the odds to criminals, but realistically these aren't used to protect ones home or stop an assault at the local c-store. They are mostly purchased and intended for a few reasons depending on the owner; to stand up to a tyrannical government, foreign invasion, or the most popular in modern times...an apocalyptic scenario. This is what many gun owners talk about when purchasing AR15s, AK47s, Saigas, or any weapon that can expel rounds quickly with a large capacity. To most, if the worst ever did happen, the individuals who owns such an arsenal and knew how to use it would be the most likely to survive. No amount of money in a buy back program or government mandate will pry these guns from them...just like the criminals out there aren't going to turn theirs in. The government knows how many of these are out there, but doesn't have much accountability as to who has them and where. Honestly there are a lot of police forces that simply wouldn't enforce any sort of mandatory registration or gun grab.

To your point of stopping future sales, that's unreasonable as well. We live in a country that has made the NRA the most powerful lobbying group there is. They will protect the gun manufacturers from going under. It's how they got the civil protections I spoke about in the first place, but it makes me wagon wheel back to my original point in forcing the gun manufacturers to engineer safer, more difficult to steal weapons.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Buc2 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:37 am

terrytate wrote:
Buc2 wrote:How about this...

If you’re found guilty of using a gun in the commission of a crime, be it robbery, murder or whatever, automatic death sentence. If the verdict stands through one appeal which must be completed within, say, 11 weeks, the sentence is carried out one week later. No ifs, ands or buts. I can almost guarantee you, except for some one off by some psycho, gun crime would plummet.



I have a better idea. How about we just put a huge assed wall around New York City, then throw all of the gun criminals in there.

Genius.

See! This is the kind of, out-of-the-box, thinking that I'm talking about. :D

Snake Plissken indeed!
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7613
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:07 pm

The NRA is suggesting the ATF review bump stocks and potentially add additional regulation to them and similar devices
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:15 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:The NRA is suggesting the ATF review bump stocks and potentially add additional regulation to them and similar devices


It makes sense, if silencers and full automatic weapons are registered, regulated, and heavily taxed, you would think a device like the bump stock would be.

Everyone company that makes or sells them is completely sold out. As big into guns as I am, I had never heard of it prior to this.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Selmon Rules » Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:44 pm

Deja Entendu wrote:
HamBone wrote:
Just curious...what other rights do American Citizens need to justify...before exercising that right?


Like I asked, would allowing firearms with a low round capacity not satisfy the right to bear arms along with the standard citizens practical need for a firearm?

Should fully auto assault rifles, handguns, and shotguns; Gatling guns; rocket launchers; weaponized drones; etc... all be legal simply because the 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms? Or perhaps there should be restrictions for the sake of the greater good of society. Risk v. reward. Compromise.

Despite the play on my username (I laughed, usc ... for those confused, it means "already heard"... also an album title), my question was legitimate. I'm curious if the people that are so opposed to giving up certain types of weapons (not all) actually have a practical reason for them. Because to date (and not just on this board) I have not heard one; but I digress.

I do not think all guns should be abolished, but something has to change. I don't know what that answer is, and I haven't really seen any great suggestions... particularly from the people chosen to lead this country.

A thought I just had was what if the ownership of these types of firearms aren't banned, but commercial sale of any newly manufactured ones meeting the criteria is prohibited. Whatever is out there is out there. Offer a massive highly incentivized no questions asked buy back program to help clear some from the streets; create mandatory registration requirements that have stringent tracking requirements for any sale or transfer of firearms AND ammunition. Stiffen pentalties for violators. Along with the new penalties and tracking, the rarity will also drive up the price exponentially.

I'm sure that's not an original thought and is full of holes, but it was just typed in a stream of consciousness.

I own guns and have always owned guns. I use them to hunt, or more accurately used to use them to hunt, and as far as I remember, you are limited in the number of shells your shotgun is permitted to hold (3 iirc) and I've never needed more than two shots to dispatch anything I have ever shot at with a rifle.

If the fish and wildlife can limit the number of shells that can loaded into the gun, why can't the government do the same with magazine capacity whether it is a removable clip or simply a magazine integral to the gun itself??

I realize some people want to target shoot or just shoot for the fun of it but why would anyone need 20-200 rounds loaded into any weapon?? There is no reason for anyone to need or own a 200 round drum magazine in my opinion so why can't we start with eliminating those from manufacture and eventually work on lowering the number of them, and any other large capacity magazine, from circulation??

Pipe dream?? Probably.... Too many people will scream "slippery slope" to anything limiting anything related to firearms
Sig currently being held hostage by Photobucket, will return next fall
User avatar
Selmon Rules
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Buccs99 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:50 pm

My stance is this and my opinions alone. Agree or Disagree, thats fine. I'll respect you either way.


-I believe the laws we have in place now are fine. You could bring stronger laws about, psychiatric testing, more strenuous background checks, but you will have a hard to with that because you have personal rights and even psychiatric testing is moot now considering this guy had ZERO issues, no jail or violations, felonies, was financially successful, etc. I mean, im all for changes for strict laws but it would be tough to get some of them across. then again, im not a lawmaker. i may be missing something there.


- I would advise anyone who is strictly against guns to actually go to a gun range. shoot, get to understand the different types and styles, MEET a lot of those that like guns. realize, these are for the most part very knowledgeable and respectable people. Shooting is a lot of fun. knowing the ballistics and engineering of pistols and rifles and such. It's like anything else in life. proper training and knowledge and respect for them will make you realize the owner is more dangerous than the weapon itself.



- Ban them and someone will get their hands on them for these atrocities or find other forms. the vehicle mow downs in Europe are a good example of that. bombings. other horrible acts. which ties back to the laws. it's so damn tough to make more laws, you almost have a leave them alone or ban everything ultimatum. Which in that case, the latter has no chance.
User avatar
Buccs99
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:04 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Firearms

Postby NYBF » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:03 pm

Buccs99 wrote:- Ban them and someone will get their hands on them for these atrocities or find other forms. the vehicle mow downs in Europe are a good example of that. bombings. other horrible acts. which ties back to the laws. it's so damn tough to make more laws, you almost have a leave them alone or ban everything ultimatum. Which in that case, the latter has no chance.


Yeah, Australia is basically red from the blood spilled there on a daily basis.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 363 times

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:05 pm

NYBF wrote:
Buccs99 wrote:- Ban them and someone will get their hands on them for these atrocities or find other forms. the vehicle mow downs in Europe are a good example of that. bombings. other horrible acts. which ties back to the laws. it's so damn tough to make more laws, you almost have a leave them alone or ban everything ultimatum. Which in that case, the latter has no chance.


Yeah, Australia is basically red from the blood spilled there on a daily basis.


How is Australia relevant?

Our gun culture is nothing like theirs, our population is far greater and more diverse, it's a ridiculous comparison.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Firearms

Postby Buccs99 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:06 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:The NRA is suggesting the ATF review bump stocks and potentially add additional regulation to them and similar devices


It makes sense, if silencers and full automatic weapons are registered, regulated, and heavily taxed, you would think a device like the bump stock would be.

Everyone company that makes or sells them is completely sold out. As big into guns as I am, I had never heard of it prior to this.



bump stocks, cranks, etc. have been around a while. it's a very cheap and easy way to re-enact a fully automatic rifle. To me, it's a way of using a loophole around the ban. I think it should be regulated.

far as silencers go, it's a safety component. for it to be taxed so heavily the way it is, is kinda crazy. it's easier to buy a gun than a safety feature for it ? makes no sense. clueless people making decisions based off things they do not know about.
User avatar
Buccs99
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:04 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Firearms

Postby NYBF » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:08 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
NYBF wrote:
Yeah, Australia is basically red from the blood spilled there on a daily basis.


How is Australia relevant?

Our gun culture is nothing like theirs, our population is far greater and more diverse, it's a ridiculous comparison.


He said if you ban them, they will "find other forms." He then went on to cite "the vehicle mow downs in Europe are a good example of that." If Europe is relevant, so is Australia.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 363 times

Re: Firearms

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:10 pm

NYBF wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
How is Australia relevant?

Our gun culture is nothing like theirs, our population is far greater and more diverse, it's a ridiculous comparison.


He said if you ban them, they will "find other forms." He then went on to cite "the vehicle mow downs in Europe are a good example of that." If Europe is relevant, so is Australia.


No, but you are better....

I expect more.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: IchabodCrane84, Wooden Indian and 5 guests