Truth on guns......a change of heart

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here's my point, Mule. A gun kept in a drawer at home is only "protective" if an intruder is breaking in while the homeowner is at home and awake. It's been my experience that the criminals are seldom so "accommodating". I don't care how many links you present to me...I am prepared to bet my bottom dollar that, in the vast majority of the cases, the victim is attacked when he is out of the house...or when he returns home and the intruder is already there. And in those cases...the gun in the drawer is a small consolation, and I don't see that as "adequate protection".

When I read that the citizen has the "right to bear arms"...I perceive this to mean that the citizen has the right to ARM himself. And he can only "arm himself" when he carries the gun WITH him. That's the only sort of "protection" that appeals to me...the "illegality" of it notwithstanding.

Huh? A person arms himself the moment he takes the gun out of the drawer, or out from under the mattress or from wherever else he stashes his heat.

[Inner Dirt]

We don't need more gun control laws, even if you eliminate bump stocks, a non gun owner would be amazed at how fast a person can squeeze a trigger.
Remove the bump stock from the equation and you might cut the dead and wounded in half in the Vegas massacre. As for smaller magazines a non gunner owner would be shocked out how fast a person with quick hands can change them out. I can do it in less than 3 seconds and that includes pulling a new one out of my pocket and putting the empty one back in the same pocket. That is with sausage fingers and numbness in my finger tips from nerve damage.

As far as controlling the number of guns that ship sailed a long time ago. They aren't perishable items if they are properly maintained. There are 17th century flintlock pistols that still work, and even those are common enough a nice one can be bought for the price of a brand new .357 S & W. Making them harder to get won't stop a deranged lunatic from getting a gun. Anything can be acquired for a price.

What we need is lunatic control laws. Most every one of these mass murders leaves a trail that is found after he has committed his atrocities. Of course it is a violation of someone's CIVIL RIGHTS to question them about many types of suspicious behaviors if they haven't committed a crime. So either some of those rights are relaxed or these mass murders and acts of terror will continue. Do a little research, the homicide rate was higher centuries ago before repeating firearms were even invented. I have fired guns since I was 7 and owned them since I was 18, they have never shot anything but inanimate objects. The gun is not the issue.

[Dave Schwartz]

Bump Stocks...

I fail to see the need - and I am very pro-gun rights.

In a tactical situation, it does precisely two things:

1) Wastes ammunition
2) overheats the weapon causing failure

Besides, you can't hit anything with them beyond hitting a barn door at a range of about 10 meters.

Of course, you could certainly fire on a crowd with it.

[Tom]

Strict gun control laws work nowhere.
Look at France, at Chicago.....this is all nothing more than liberal feel-good posturing.

We had a constitutional amendment to outlaw booze....not only did people still buy/sell/drink booze, but violence erupted.

Drugs are illegal, how's that working out for ya?

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Tom

Strict gun control laws work nowhere.
Look at France, at Chicago.....this is all nothing more than liberal feel-good posturing.

We had a constitutional amendment to outlaw booze....not only did people still buy/sell/drink booze, but violence erupted.

Drugs are illegal, how's that working out for ya?

Apples and oranges

[Tom]

Not at all.
What law would have stopped the Las Vegas attacks?
Seriously.
Laws do not stop anything.

What is a common sense gun law that would work?

I'm open to common sense, but that is being used as a buzz word and the dems will come up with laws that are anything but common sense.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The NRA has stolen a march on the gun grabbers and requested that the feds take another look at bump stocks.

The ATF under Obama ruled that bump stocks were legal under current law and needed no further regulation. The NRA seems to be implying that it would not object to some additional regulation of bump stocks under current law.

Suspicious minds suggest that such regulation would eliminate the need for legislation to regulate bump stocks, along with all the other unrelated registration libs would try to hang on such a bill, and the NRA is trying to eliminate any additional legislation before it gets started.

Which is a would be fine. They were illegal for a minute to begin with. At least here in my state. Honestly bump stocks are pretty absurd to begin with. Small consolation. They could even institute a trigger pull weight of 4lbs or more too in the name of safety and head off the charge.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Which is a would be fine. They were illegal for a minute to begin with. At least here in my state. Honestly bump stocks are pretty absurd to begin with. Small consolation. They could even institute a trigger pull weight of 4lbs or more too in the name of safety and head off the charge.

I have never seen one, let alone used one, but the concept seems pretty dumb to me. By all accounts, they degrade accuracy and burn up ammo at a rapid rate. They are a toy with no practical purpose, like a huge-engine muscle car.

There is no practical need for a bump stock, and no practical reason to ban it. A ban would have virtually no impact, and would give legislators a warm and fuzzy feel of having accomplished something. And an urge to do something else easy and meaningless to feel even better. We would be better off if they actually did something useful.

If Paddock didn't have them, it is unlikely that the outcome would have been noticeably different. If legislators want to address a problem, skip the rhetoric and the window dressing and figure out the real problem and a real solution.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

...

Agreed on all counts. Fuzzy feelings are all that people hope to accomplish with gun laws though.

[Dahoss9698]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ashington-post

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ashington-post

DUH HOSS

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by Tom

Not at all.
What law would have stopped the Las Vegas attacks?
Seriously.
Laws do not stop anything.

What is a common sense gun law that would work?

I'm open to common sense, but that is being used as a buzz word and the dems will come up with laws that are anything but common sense.

Nobody knows for sure what would have stopped it. What MIGHT have helped would be a NATIONAL gun registry, that throws up a RED FLAG when the same person tries to buy his 4th weapon in a 6 month period. I know there will be those that will figure a way around it. Outlaw the manufacture of 'bump stocks', and ANY other mechanism that transforms a semi auto to auto. Again, there are those that can, and will, get around that too, but it's a start.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by dartman51

Nobody knows for sure what would have stopped it. What MIGHT have helped would be a NATIONAL gun registry, that throws up a RED FLAG when the same person tries to buy his 4th weapon in a 6 month period. I know there will be those that will figure a way around it. Outlaw the manufacture of 'bump stocks', and ANY other mechanism that transforms a semi auto to auto. Again, there are those that can, and will, get around that too, but it's a start.

Not all bad. Gun registries scare the hell out of gun owners though. The number and timeframe thing though isn't really a starter. I've purchased that many in a similar timeframe and it wasn't really anything out of the ordinary. Also when it comes to ARs most people purchase the lower pictured here and build their own. That's actually the gun, legally speaking, that requires the background check and it's not uncommon for people to buy a couple at a time.

Also, guns aren't transformed by a bump stock. You can bump fire by simply being fat or having a lightweight trigger. I built one with a 3lb trigger and have a video of it bumping off somewhere I'll post if I can find it.

Not arguing with you just some things to consider.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Fantastic.

We are talking about gun control and semi-auto and all that.

Why would a gun registry scare any law-abiding citizen? Other than the time and BS they have to go through?

There are massive amounts of gun laws across every state.

What are the Dems wanting other than bleeding heart normal Bullshit?

Where was this divisive anger when OCrappa was in charge with the Orlando incident?

By the way, is it just crazy Dems that decide to kill a bunch of people or is it just me?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

Fantastic.

We are talking about gun control and semi-auto and all that.

Why would a gun registry scare any law-abiding citizen? Other than the time and BS they have to go through?

Many consider it a precursor to confiscation. I'm not really in that boat but also on the flipside handguns already are registered and used in homicide by a staggeringly larger amount.

I think purchase records though and certain person to person sale legislation would be fine.