Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Mass killings are not the problem statistically. They are the problem emotionally. Kids playing (American) football results in more deaths on average a year.
WTF Is Wrong With America And Gun Control?
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
- Status
kellya86
Herb gardener...
I try to stay out of this thread as it angers me..
But I'll chime in with my view....
What the fuck is wrong with America and gun control...???? Simple, you have no control....
No one is expecting you to ban all weapons, we know you need to honour your misguided right to bear arms, and your ancient irrelevant constitution...
But you don't need automatic rifles...
It's just fucking stupid.... they are for one thing only... killing humans...
Hunters are not using m16's... nor are target sports people or farmers....
Why sell them...????
It beggers belief....
You can never completely take away the risk of nut jobs going on killing sprees... but why make it so easy and efficient for them...
It really is quite simple... ban automatic weapons.....
Minimise the casualties...
If anyone would like to explain why you think you need automatic/ grenades/ ect....
I'm all ears... id love to know a valid reason for owning such things....
It's similar to my view on nukes...
What fucking brain dead civilisation builds anything that could destroy our only place to live....
We think we are intelligent and civilised..
We are far far from it I'm afraid @ataxian...
We are primitive beings still....
And that's my view....
But I'll chime in with my view....
What the fuck is wrong with America and gun control...???? Simple, you have no control....
No one is expecting you to ban all weapons, we know you need to honour your misguided right to bear arms, and your ancient irrelevant constitution...
But you don't need automatic rifles...
It's just fucking stupid.... they are for one thing only... killing humans...
Hunters are not using m16's... nor are target sports people or farmers....
Why sell them...????
It beggers belief....
You can never completely take away the risk of nut jobs going on killing sprees... but why make it so easy and efficient for them...
It really is quite simple... ban automatic weapons.....
Minimise the casualties...
If anyone would like to explain why you think you need automatic/ grenades/ ect....
I'm all ears... id love to know a valid reason for owning such things....
It's similar to my view on nukes...
What fucking brain dead civilisation builds anything that could destroy our only place to live....
We think we are intelligent and civilised..
We are far far from it I'm afraid @ataxian...
We are primitive beings still....
And that's my view....
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
They are, essentially, banned. There are some out there, but they are few, expensive and extensively regulated and don't seem the issue. In fact, on a quick look, I can find only one death in the U.S. from legal automatic weapons in the U.S. and that was a police officer who did a murder for hire. (Some places allege a couple more. But, literally, a couple more.)
While there are still TONS of things they aren't telling us about this shooting, including the specific weapons, I've not heard a reliable source saying they found automatic weapons. Most likely, they are semi-automatic weapons that were modified in some way. The modifications can be made in any machine shop or, with some skill or the right template, with a 3D printer.
ataxian
PALE BLUE DOT
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
A magazine is, basically, a box and a spring.
https://hackaday.com/2013/01/15/print-your-own-30-round-ar15-magazine/
https://www.wired.com/2013/02/printed-magazine/
https://gizmodo.com/5970483/theres-a-new-site-just-for-3d-printed-gun-designs
https://www.thingiverse.com/make:146283
http://www.printedfirearm.com/
https://free3d.com/3d-models/weapons
Andreaerdna
If God is the answer, then the question is wrong
That is not accurate:
People kill people, not gun nor bullet
Guns and bullets make the killing "easy" though, very easy (they were created for this very reason)
kellya86
Herb gardener...
One thing is for sure, and that is that the rest of the world does not have these mass shootings on the scale and frequency that America does....
This is not an impossible puzzle...
This isn't finding out the meaning of life, or curing the common cold...
This is simply fixed....
Just look around...
This is so frustrating.....
StormyPinkness
Rhymenocerous ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
I hear what your saying about different gun control laws in states, but I still think it's a massive stretch. 50 individual countries spread out over a whole continent compared to 50 states in 1 country doesn't seem like a fair or relevant comparison to me. Just my opinion.
Right, they get beat up instead of shot.
You too.
OF
Well-Known Member
That was not the point, and I think you knew that? If not, I can try to restate it.
That's not so, and I cited the stats on it a few posts up. Not only do we rank very low really (this will be the 14th worst case in recent times, IIRC, the only US event in the top 20?). More interesting to me is (I assume since they can't easily get semi autos) the rest of the world simply uses the same channels that we can't control (like drug trade) to import them (or buy from Holder under 'Fast and Furious). But they don't go with ARs (semi auto) instead go with AKs (full autos).
Think about that, not only are the disarmed citizens subjected to more mass shootings that we out of control gun happy fools, but basically EVERY ONE OF THEIR ATTACKS USES MACHINE GUNS, unlike here. BTW, for those taking notes, the shooter had no full autos. He had a bunch of normal semi autos equipped with 'bump stocks' a kluge that allows the gun to recoil off your trigger finger so you can pull it forward for another fast shot. Completely legal under ATF rulings under OBAMA in fact. I expect that to change quickly as those always ready to 'dance in the blood' are already demanding such.
As i said there, there's a great Regan quote about how it's 'not what they don't know but what they know that isn't so'. The rest of the world definitely has mass shootings, bigger ones, using more dangerous weapons and more often. Dem's da facts.
OF
Last edited:
howie105
Well-Known Member
We are not Europe, Cambodia or Afghanistan so trying to adopt a model that don't address the unique American culture is probably not going to work.
This is not an impossible puzzle...
This isn't finding out the meaning of life, or curing the common cold...
This is simply fixed....I was following you till the last line and then you lost me. Sorry, but I am stoner old fuck, especially at this particular moment.
How one choses to react to reality is up to them. If you are frustrated I understand we all suffer from it from time to time. On the other hand if frustration follows you around then I would suggest you look for an alternative approach.
I do want you to know that I respect your position and your willingness to discuss it like an adult, however even if we disagree that is good too if we can learn from each other. Thanks
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
When I wrote of this previously, I was careful to note we don't have the facts as yet. While I believe the most likely explanation are bump-stocks or other modifications to make the rifles automatic, we have not been told that officially. Nor have we seen pictures of all of the often changing number of firearms found. I'd like to add that I heard an interview with Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkansas, who said the fire in the videos he saw sounded like a belt-fed machine gun. Since the senator is anti-gun control, tends to be careful and plain-spoken in his speech and is trained in airborne school, ranger school and air-assault school in his career along with two combat tours, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, I think it would be prudent to at least consider the possibility there was a true automatic weapon used in the shooting.
StormyPinkness
Rhymenocerous ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
I'll ignore what your implying about my response and just say the point I got out of this was though there's less gun violence they are more likely to be physical assaulted:
I don't really understand the last sentence/question though so maybe that's where I got confused about what you were saying about hands and feet.
OF
Well-Known Member
Actually we do know. At least two AR type rifles were equipped with them. Perhaps something like 16 or 18 (sources differ) total in the 50 or so guns from 3 locations. He like them? But no real machine guns, nor illegally converted semi autos. IIRC the only real machine gun ever used in a major crime in modern times (since GCA '68 restricted/eliminated them) was a cop (LA?) a lot of years back. Total rifle deaths are a few hundredths of a percent. For the most part folks get killed with the same sorts of guns cops carry (go figure.....), something like 2/3? And 'military like' semis are a fraction of that. Your chances of being killed by someone talking on a Samsung brand (to pick one at random) that should have been paying more attention to driving are surely much higher. Much.
So, yes we know. And does it surprise you to know that gun grabbers are already demanding we ban them? Some clown demands Trump do so today. Or so the morning news says, for those of you wage slaves who otherwise could be soaking all this good stuff in.
Regards to all.
Of course, but the point I was making is how it goofs up statistics. You can't tie the tool to the act, attractive as that is sometimes I guess. Brits have more assaults per capita, especially sever injury from a long tradition of 'getting the boot in' (where we might call 'kicking a man when he's down and decline) but yet have the same number of hands and feet as other groups. Chicago has low per capita gun ownership relative to a lot of places but has a gun homicide rate nobody can be proud of.
Still, we'll look for low hanging fruit for more microphone time and ability to claim 'doing something'. In fact, it's already in process before we bury the dead and examine the pieces. Such is life?
BTW, I just read the bad guy also checked out other venues........
OF
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Actually, we don't know. The only semi-official statement I've seen had an ATF agent reported variously as saying 12 of the rifles had bump fire stock on the rifles recovered from the room or simply 12 devices called bump fire stocks found in the room. (Note the difference between on the rifle and simply in the room.)
Does that mean ALL the other firearms did not have any semi to automatic modifications? Does that mean ALL the other firearms were semi-automatic or single shot only?
Until we see a list of all the weapons recovered from the room where the shooting took place, we don't know. (With all the dancing going on with the precisely-worded official statements, I'm not sure we'd know then.)
OF
Well-Known Member
At the news conference the Sheriff said 'there were no full autos' and that the two rifles believed to have been used for the rapid fire had bump fire stocks.
I take that to mean there were no full autos used (or even there). No illegal modifications at the hotel or either house. None. Just bump stocks. You can be sure if it there were illegal guns there it would have been leaked big time by now I think.
They also said he had an escape plan, they have evidence, but don't want to say what or how yet. The guy seems to be a real closet case, nobody really knows him well. He's believed to have been working on this "for decades" under the radar. He had plenty of time to plan and as time goes on more and more cases of his renting rooms overlooking big concerts come out (the cops are searching hotel video). BTW the hotel 'comp'd' him the rooms (gave them to him free). He wasn't a 'whale' (truly high stakes, $1,000 ante poker types) but was known to gamble $10,000 or more a day. And stay for days or weeks playing video poker with a sharp eye on the odds (like dump small pairs to favor flushes) which can 'pan out' over time. A Pro. The casinos track such folks using cards linked to freebies like $1000 sushi dinners. Although it seems the card was in the girlfriends name?????
Fun times, these.
OF
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Quotes are funny things. They indicate exact words. I've seen the Oct. 4 and 2 press conferences by the sheriff and don't recall that or near statement. If I google search the quote with reasonable limitations (like adding "las vegas" and "sheriff") I don't get a good response. What news conference did the sheriff make that statement?
kellya86
Herb gardener...
howie105
Well-Known Member
From you perspective there is no difference, from a legal and functional perspective it does. Legally I would direct you to the ATF rules governing auto versus semi auto weapons. As to utility compare the number of semi auto versus full auto weapons in military use around the world. I am not disrespecting your feelings, I am however trying to point to a situation that may lead to a different perspective.
OF
Well-Known Member
I saw it yesterday, I assume it was 'given' yesterday as well. Clear question, clear answer ('no') along with the bump stock story. Hard to say why you can't find this on Google. I used 'full auto used in LV shooting' and found a couple easy ones:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/03/what-gun-used-las-vegas-shooting/726743001/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/automatic-weapons-regulation/541803/
http://missoulian.com/news/local/la...cle_dffa818e-6812-599b-9239-4ae39febc761.html
Nice photo of one on the last one, in case you don't know what it is. One final 'data point':
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-la...-found-in-shooter-s-1506974803-htmlstory.html
Since the LA Times says "Investigators found fully automatic guns among multiple weapons in Stephen Paddock's 32nd-floor Las Vegas hotel room, according to the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff." you can 'take it to the bank in Denver' it isn't so. Two bastions of truth and honesty, Schiff and the LA Times on the same page and dead wrong.......where have we seen this sort of news lately?
I'm convinced there were no real full autos there, and that some will continue to lie (or just not care?) to further an agenda. Sadly too many will be 'sucked into' their BS and Fake News.
BTW I just read that the cops didn't really find him, they were on the 29th floor going room to room. The bad guy set off the smoke alarms. The hotel send a plain old everyday security guard around to clear out the floors above the cops (where they thought the shooter was) when the bad guy shot at him through the door and tipped the heat off to where he really was. You'd think they could count windows up to the two blown out ones to know the right floor to start on, at least I would have. Lots of things to do better next time I guess.
OF
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Along with what @howie105 wrote it is not just splitting hairs. There really isn't any good definition of what an "assault rifle" is. When they tried to do so in a previous statute, all they could come up with was basic balderdash which was essentially "it looks scary". Since the law had no beneficial effect, it was not retained.
Also, such a ban was before Heller where the Supreme Court made an interpretation on the civil right under the second amendment by saying:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Since "assault rifles" (however we are going to define them) are in common use today, to make them illegal will require overturning Supreme Court precedent. (Which was not in effect when the useless law was passed.)
Edit:
I'm not going to make my mind up until I see an exact listing. If I were to consider why we are not seeing or hearing of such a list yet, I would (Without any knowledge or basis and with complete speculation putting on my tinfoil hat while making a wild-assed guess.) think the reason is because something they found required further investigation. If there was an illegal automatic weapon found, where did he get it?
Last edited:
Likes2vape
Well-Known Member
Automatic weapons are banned and have been banned for a long time. Grenades are not legal either. Who cares if we shoot a m16 or a 30/06 both can kill if used by a fucking madman. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people if not with guns than with vehicles, knives, machetes, etc.
StormyPinkness
Rhymenocerous ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
- Status