Bump stocks for guns

[Colt]

People fail to realize how many guns there are in the US. If you could somehow make guns disappear and I mean completely disappear, I believe that the world would be a better, safer place. The reality is that you can’t make that happen, criminals will always get guns just like drug addicts will always get drugs. As long as bad people with bad intentions can get guns good people need guns to protect themselves and their families.

As for the bumpstock question, I see no issue with bumpstocks being classified under the type 3 classification. In fact add bump stocks to that classification and remove suppressors from it in the interest of hearing protection.

 

[Icedream]

Holy shit it's a reason clone

 

[just me]

Reason that is in touch with reality.

 

[Icedream]

That was a bit harsh, but yeah, this guy seems to get it

 

[markpierre]

It'd be interesting to have a study on the relationship of school shooters, and antidepressant use.
There probably is one. That would be a secret.

 

[Icedream]

I could sum up this whole thread in two words

 

[just me]

ten pages

 

[Icedream]

Humans suck

 

[just me]

study this
The guy should have been stopped long ago, but people were too busy doing studies and talking on their cell phones while taking selfies.

 

[just me]

Don't classify us all with idiots.

 

[Icedream]

Oh, I didn't. it's confirmed, though.

 

[invisible]

Don't classify us all with idiots.

I don't know what anyone hopes to achieve by dismissing any other person as idiots. It has nothing to do with the validity of some or other perspective on something, whether or not someone is an idiot. There's nothing meaningfully argumentative about name calling.

 

[invisible]

I must say I like ATF. The Class III weapons are regulated by them Federally. I totally disagree about semi-auto weapons. I was shooting a semi-automatic weapon when I was six with my Father in the woods hunting quail and such. Take your semi-auto weapon control elsewhere than with me. I think it foolish. I can place all the rounds from a revolver in the black and reload as fast as changing a magazine. Many people will agree with that. I'd rather take a .223 in the leg than a .44 Magnum any day.

If you cannot regulate everyone, don't try to regulate the honest law-abiding populace; and you cannot regulate everyone. Therefore, I will have what the law and the criminals have. Period. They will never, ever regulate everyone.

Yes, they did give him a proper burial. However, it was not televised. You are correct. Think of the repercussions of news media and a ground burial somewhere. They kept it out of the public's eye. My sentiments exactly.

Yes... you can regulate everyone. That's what a law does. It regulates everyone, that is its nature and purpose and function as law. That doesn't mean that everyone will want to comply with the law, or that they will not seek to do their own thing that is inconsistent with the law. But that doesn't change the fact that they are subject to regulation by the law. By contrast, in the absence of some particular law to regulate some particular thing or other, there is no regulation of that thing.

 

[invisible]

People fail to realize how many guns there are in the US. If you could somehow make guns disappear and I mean completely disappear, I believe that the world would be a better, safer place. The reality is that you can’t make that happen, criminals will always get guns just like drug addicts will always get drugs. As long as bad people with bad intentions can get guns good people need guns to protect themselves and their families.

The idea that people outside the US don't understand how many guns there are inside the US is a complete and total assumption. We are as capable of reading and comprehending statistics about gun quantities per capita as any of you in the US are. Anyway, people outside the US don't need to understand how many guns there are in order to understand that the more guns that are allowed, the more guns there will continue to become available per capita. The numbers are allowed to grow, the weapon technology becomes more sophisticated due to the market rewards of weapon development, the problem becomes exponentially more unmanageable as time goes on.

What you're saying is a very black and white perspective on this. It's true that crimes will always be committed. That shouldn't stop us from trying to minimise the number of crimes that are committed.

The attitude you describe is a culturally pervasive attitude in the US. Conforming to this attitude is a decision. As long as there will be a cultural mass agreement that change from this state of affairs in favour of some other organising principle is impossible, then change will remain impossible. It takes a mass social agreement to cause change in some set of beliefs with such cultural dominance. In other countries, the cultural tipping point for strict regulation came before far fewer shootings than have taken place in the US. I'm not sure whether that's ever going to be possible for the US, but that doesn't mean that there is anything fundamentally wrong or impractical about the idea of this sort of change.

I'm in agreement with incremental change for the US. It's just that year after year and slayings and slayings later, nothing at all really seems to be happening. There is so much investment in the ideology, so much ridicule and dismissal of those lobbying for change. Any change at all in regulation will be meaningful at this point so hopefully it will come about.

 

[sprinkles]

Fully automatic weapons have been strictly regulated in the US since 1934, but yet look at this

 

[invisible]

Fully automatic weapons have been strictly regulated in the US since 1934, but yet look at this

This regulation may be described as strict in some or other sense but it's clear that ownership of and access to these weapons is still possible. The regulation wouldn't be described as strict in the country where I live.

 

[sprinkles]

This regulation may be described as strict in some or other sense but it's clear that ownership of and access to these weapons is still possible. The regulation wouldn't be described as strict in the country where I live.

Regulated is different from banned IMO.

Regardless though, it is what it is.

 

[sprinkles]

Also people on both sides of the issue see the opposition as not only fundamentally wrong, but also a force to be opposed. The more one side escalates their narrative, the more the other side fights against it. They dig in and shore up their positions, which pushes their principle further away from the opposing principle and the gap widens. Oppositions try harder to get across this gap which is seen as more escalation so both sides dig in harder and erode the gap even further.

 

[the]

Fully automatic weapons have been strictly regulated in the US since 1934, but yet look at this

*several videos, I didn't watch them all*

It's fascinating to me to watch people with no weapons discipline use weapons. They are ruining all those rifles. A 700 round "burst" - ugh.

Do you think there will be a time when some kid drives a humvee into the school parking lot and shoots up the school with this M2? I don't. But if someone did that would be pretty wild.

"Will a .50 round go through armor designed to stop only up to 7.62?" Hmmm who can say?

 

[sprinkles]

It's fascinating to me to watch people with no weapons discipline use weapons. They are ruining all those rifles. A 700 round "burst" - ugh.

Do you think there will be a time when some kid drives a humvee into the school parking lot and shoots up the school with this M2? I don't. But if someone did that would be pretty wild.

"Will a .50 round go through armor designed to stop only up to 7.62?" Hmmm who can say?

That makes it even more pointed. Not only can people obtain them, they're so causal about it that they can afford to ruin them as well.