I saw a quote online today (again, one of those quotes with someone's picture next to it, so the veracity can easily be questioned) that said "I don't feel sorry for those people....most country music fans are republicans and gun owners anyway".
YIKES.
I usually don’t use this term, but what a dumb bitch!
One guy killed or injured over 500 people in (roughly) one hour?
One guy. From one vantage point. Wow.
I was in Seattle this weekend at the Seahawks game. I picked up the Pearl Jam Rolling Stone magazine on Saturday. As I was browsing the magazine rack... I saw a Guns n' Ammo magazine titled... simply... 'AR15'. There's a magazine for the gun 'enthusiast' where they can look at pictures of an AR15? At the time I saw the title... I kind of chuckled. Looking back at that moment... it seems almost a it of a foreshadowing event.
When we got back to the hotel after the game... I was mortified by the news that was unfolding in real time. Absolutely horrific.
Sorry to put it this way to the 'defenders of the right', but now is actually a moment that is supposed to concern you for the safety of your neighbours and children... not a moment where you feel the need to concern yourself for the preservation of your hobby.
This is the blueprint for the next mass murder: stay outside of security checkpoints... let people clump together... and then open fire with your rapid fire weapons coupled with large capacity magazines into hordes where you simply cannot miss and they simply cannot flee fast enough. Scary.
This was at the hands of an amateur too. This shithead was a pencil necked coward that wreaked havoc from his makeshift rat hole. As devastating as he proved to be... it could have been worse if it had been a shithead skilled with weapons.
At least the gun nuts have enough class (for now) to stay away with their moronic comments about how all guns (of a caliber) are equally deadly and things like mods and high ammo capacity shouldn't be banned because WE don't know what we are talking about.
You really gonna go on about how your AR-15 is necessary for boar hunting and then turn around and act like those same features don't make it more dangerous for people??? Get a grip.
One guy killed or injured over 500 people in (roughly) one hour?
One guy. From one vantage point. Wow.
I was in Seattle this weekend at the Seahawks game. I picked up the Pearl Jam Rolling Stone magazine on Saturday. As I was browsing the magazine rack... I saw a Guns n' Ammo magazine titled... simply... 'AR15'. There's a magazine for the gun 'enthusiast' where they can look at pictures of an AR15? At the time I saw the title... I kind of chuckled. Looking back at that moment... it seems almost a it of a foreshadowing event.
When we got back to the hotel after the game... I was mortified by the news that was unfolding in real time. Absolutely horrific.
Sorry to put it this way to the 'defenders of the right', but now is actually a moment that is supposed to concern you for the safety of your neighbours and children... not a moment where you feel the need to concern yourself for the preservation of your hobby.
This is the blueprint for the next mass murder: stay outside of security checkpoints... let people clump together... and then open fire with your rapid fire weapons coupled with large capacity magazines into hordes where you simply cannot miss and they simply cannot flee fast enough. Scary.
This was at the hands of an amateur too. This shithead was a pencil necked coward that wreaked havoc from his makeshift rat hole. As devastating as he proved to be... it could have been worse if it had been a shithead skilled with weapons.
At least the gun nuts have enough class (for now) to stay away with their moronic comments about how all guns (of a caliber) are equally deadly and things like mods and high ammo capacity shouldn't be banned because WE don't know what we are talking about.
You really gonna go on about how your AR-15 is necessary for boar hunting and then turn around and act like those same features don't make it more dangerous for people??? Get a grip.
There were too many posts in the last 2 days to catch up one, only read the last page or so. At least for me when I've made similar comments in the passed I was referring to things like a pistol grip as one example of how gun laws are not effective. A gun can be banned because of a pistol grip (which I highly doubt have had any impact on any mass shooting ever), but the definitions of fixed magazine are too loose to be effective. All there needs to be is a "tool" required to remove a magazine for it to be considered fixed, so many rifles like that have a button too small to push with a finger so the point of a bullet is used to push the eject button and that fits the definition of a "fixed" magazine. I'm not against someone owning an Ar-15, but there should not be access to large magazines and such a flimsy definition of what a fixed magazine is. Magazines on a rifle like that should be bolted or screwed in with a limit of about 5 rounds that you can feed in one at a time. He would have been more effective with a bolt action rifle than with the above requirements for a fixed magazine.
But instead of focusing on changes like that my perception is that anti-gun politicians try to ban entire guns instead of the features that make them deadly and the result is the pro-gun side fight to prevent the bans resulting in nothing changing. Instead of a wide ban on assault rifles, it is my belief that there would be less resistance to banning specific features and a better definition of things like a fixed magazine. Of course there would still be resistance to it, but it would be less and probably far more effective change.
One guy killed or injured over 500 people in (roughly) one hour?
One guy. From one vantage point. Wow.
I was in Seattle this weekend at the Seahawks game. I picked up the Pearl Jam Rolling Stone magazine on Saturday. As I was browsing the magazine rack... I saw a Guns n' Ammo magazine titled... simply... 'AR15'. There's a magazine for the gun 'enthusiast' where they can look at pictures of an AR15? At the time I saw the title... I kind of chuckled. Looking back at that moment... it seems almost a it of a foreshadowing event.
When we got back to the hotel after the game... I was mortified by the news that was unfolding in real time. Absolutely horrific.
Sorry to put it this way to the 'defenders of the right', but now is actually a moment that is supposed to concern you for the safety of your neighbours and children... not a moment where you feel the need to concern yourself for the preservation of your hobby.
This is the blueprint for the next mass murder: stay outside of security checkpoints... let people clump together... and then open fire with your rapid fire weapons coupled with large capacity magazines into hordes where you simply cannot miss and they simply cannot flee fast enough. Scary.
This was at the hands of an amateur too. This shithead was a pencil necked coward that wreaked havoc from his makeshift rat hole. As devastating as he proved to be... it could have been worse if it had been a shithead skilled with weapons.
At least the gun nuts have enough class (for now) to stay away with their moronic comments about how all guns (of a caliber) are equally deadly and things like mods and high ammo capacity shouldn't be banned because WE don't know what we are talking about.
You really gonna go on about how your AR-15 is necessary for boar hunting and then turn around and act like those same features don't make it more dangerous for people??? Get a grip.
There were too many posts in the last 2 days to catch up one, only read the last page or so. At least for me when I've made similar comments in the passed I was referring to things like a pistol grip as one example of how gun laws are not effective. A gun can be banned because of a pistol grip (which I highly doubt have had any impact on any mass shooting ever), but the definitions of fixed magazine are too loose to be effective. All there needs to be is a "tool" required to remove a magazine for it to be considered fixed, so many rifles like that have a button too small to push with a finger so the point of a bullet is used to push the eject button and that fits the definition of a "fixed" magazine. I'm not against someone owning an Ar-15, but there should not be access to large magazines and such a flimsy definition of what a fixed magazine is. Magazines on a rifle like that should be bolted or screwed in with a limit of about 5 rounds that you can feed in one at a time. He would have been more effective with a bolt action rifle than with the above requirements for a fixed magazine.
But instead of focusing on changes like that my perception is that anti-gun politicians try to ban entire guns instead of the features that make them deadly and the result is the pro-gun side fight to prevent the bans resulting in nothing changing. Instead of a wide ban on assault rifles, it is my belief that there would be less resistance to banning specific features and a better definition of things like a fixed magazine. Of course there would still be resistance to it, but it would be less and probably far more effective change.
both sides need to be educated about the concerns of both sides. only then can meaningful change occur.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine). But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry. As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...
Wrong. Don't talk about things of which you have little or no knowledge.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
America giving itself a giant pat on the back today. Trying to find the positive in the massacre and sweeping the truth under the rug.
The truth is America needs to start banning these military styled weapons and pulling them off the streets and out of peoples homes. Otherwise these massacres will not stop.
You want a hunting rifle, great. Take proper training courses, have background checks and register that rifle. That's all any sane person needs. No civilian needs a handgun or shotgun, let alone an AR-15.
I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine). But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry. As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...
Wrong. Don't talk about things of which you have little or no knowledge.
Oh I have plenty of knowledge in this area and that portion of my comment is most definitely correct. They are the same ones that try to load deer into their cars in Yellowstone to “save them”. I have several aquantances in the forest service that have stayed what I just did.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
America giving itself a giant pat on the back today. Trying to find the positive in the massacre and sweeping the truth under the rug.
The truth is America needs to start banning these military styled weapons and pulling them off the streets and out of peoples homes. Otherwise these massacres will not stop.
You want a hunting rifle, great. Take proper training courses, have background checks and register that rifle. That's all any sane person needs. No civilian needs a handgun or shotgun, let alone an AR-15.
On Fox news last night it seemed to me like they were trying to make it a Kumbaya moment. It was a bit nauseating.
As for the military style automatic weapons used for killing large numbers of people-- I'm guessing the only people who favor making them legal are militia types and they probably see mass killings like this as some kind of "collateral damage". No doubt, those are the kind of people who begin to drool when they think about war and gun fights. Fucking weird.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
America giving itself a giant pat on the back today. Trying to find the positive in the massacre and sweeping the truth under the rug.
The truth is America needs to start banning these military styled weapons and pulling them off the streets and out of peoples homes. Otherwise these massacres will not stop.
You want a hunting rifle, great. Take proper training courses, have background checks and register that rifle. That's all any sane person needs. No civilian needs a handgun or shotgun, let alone an AR-15.
why no shotgun? i grew up hunting with my dad & his dad. my first shotgun was a kid's model single shot.
The history of federal machine gun regulations is well-covered at the website of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Regulation began with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a $200 tax on the manufacture and transfer of "shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as 'any other weapons,' machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers" at the federal level (states and localities have always been free to impose their own restrictions). According to the ATF, "As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms."
The law was amended in 1968, and then again, in particular, in 1986. The latter revision was to "prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986."
So for civilians, the only legally available automatic rifles in the United States under federal law come from the fixed pool of such weapons that existed on May 19, 1986. With a limited supply, shrinking at least a bit over time through attrition, prices for legal machine guns have no place to go but up. A glance at Gunbroker.com, an online listing service (with actual transfers handled by licensed dealers), reveals prices starting in four figures and rapidly going to five for individual weapons.
Purchasing and owning any NFA firearm, including automatic rifles/machine guns requires undergoing a background check and entering the weapon in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record, which is "the central registry of all NFA firearms in the U.S. which are not in the possession or under the control of the U.S. Government," according to the ATF National Firearms Act Handbook. This handbook is an excellent resource for familiarizing yourself with the federal regulation of automatic rifles/machine guns and other NFA firearms. You might want to put aside some time if you decide to peruse it since, including preface and appendices, the book is 220 pages long.
Which is to say, short of outright prohibition, automatic rifles are subject to just about every rule and restriction that has been proposed by opponents of easy civilian possession. If the weapon Paddock used in his rampage was legally acquired and owned, it was done so in accordance with laws intended "to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions" in such firearms in the words of federal regulators themselves.
But what if Paddock's weapons were illegally acquired, or illegally converted to automatic, or were semiautomatic weapons mistakenly identified as machine guns?
The history of federal machine gun regulations is well-covered at the website of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Regulation began with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a $200 tax on the manufacture and transfer of "shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as 'any other weapons,' machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers" at the federal level (states and localities have always been free to impose their own restrictions). According to the ATF, "As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms."
The law was amended in 1968, and then again, in particular, in 1986. The latter revision was to "prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986."
So for civilians, the only legally available automatic rifles in the United States under federal law come from the fixed pool of such weapons that existed on May 19, 1986. With a limited supply, shrinking at least a bit over time through attrition, prices for legal machine guns have no place to go but up. A glance at Gunbroker.com, an online listing service (with actual transfers handled by licensed dealers), reveals prices starting in four figures and rapidly going to five for individual weapons.
Purchasing and owning any NFA firearm, including automatic rifles/machine guns requires undergoing a background check and entering the weapon in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record, which is "the central registry of all NFA firearms in the U.S. which are not in the possession or under the control of the U.S. Government," according to the ATF National Firearms Act Handbook. This handbook is an excellent resource for familiarizing yourself with the federal regulation of automatic rifles/machine guns and other NFA firearms. You might want to put aside some time if you decide to peruse it since, including preface and appendices, the book is 220 pages long.
Which is to say, short of outright prohibition, automatic rifles are subject to just about every rule and restriction that has been proposed by opponents of easy civilian possession. If the weapon Paddock used in his rampage was legally acquired and owned, it was done so in accordance with laws intended "to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions" in such firearms in the words of federal regulators themselves.
But what if Paddock's weapons were illegally acquired, or illegally converted to automatic, or were semiautomatic weapons mistakenly identified as machine guns?
they weren't. they were purchased legally, which is the whole point.
America giving itself a giant pat on the back today. Trying to find the positive in the massacre and sweeping the truth under the rug.
The truth is America needs to start banning these military styled weapons and pulling them off the streets and out of peoples homes. Otherwise these massacres will not stop.
You want a hunting rifle, great. Take proper training courses, have background checks and register that rifle. That's all any sane person needs. No civilian needs a handgun or shotgun, let alone an AR-15.
why no shotgun? i grew up hunting with my dad & his dad. my first shotgun was a kid's model single shot.
Seriously, you do not hunt birds with a rifle. That line of thought gives the NRA grounds to say “see, they do want to take away all of your firearms. Give an inch and they will take a mile”. “No shotguns”... my eyes almost rolled out the back of my head.
It uses the recoil of the gun to reset the trigger which would take some practice to get used to.
For $1K you can buy a semi-auto and a legal mod that is almost as effective as an illegal machine gun in today's world (as witnessed a few days ago)
These weren't legal to buy I thought?
Also these should NOT be legal to buy.
I agree, I cannot think of any real argument as to why a person would need a bump fire attachment. Was it confirmed that he was using one of these on the rifle he used?
America giving itself a giant pat on the back today. Trying to find the positive in the massacre and sweeping the truth under the rug.
The truth is America needs to start banning these military styled weapons and pulling them off the streets and out of peoples homes. Otherwise these massacres will not stop.
You want a hunting rifle, great. Take proper training courses, have background checks and register that rifle. That's all any sane person needs. No civilian needs a handgun or shotgun, let alone an AR-15.
why no shotgun? i grew up hunting with my dad & his dad. my first shotgun was a kid's model single shot.
Seriously, you do not hunt birds with a rifle. That line of thought gives the NRA grounds to say “see, they do want to take away all of your firearms. Give an inch and they will take a mile”. “No shotguns”... my eyes almost rolled out the back of my head.
The shotgun comment was out of line and as a staunch proponent for effective gun legislation... I fully support a hunter's right to own a shotgun. I also support a hunter's right to possess a sidearm given the most stringent of qualifications.
I also think some of the hunting comments are out of line. A hunter going into the bush and shooting his meat for his deep freeze is far more humane than the urban consumer buying factory farmed meat packaged into boxes and sold at Costco and Wal Mart.
The call to cease production and distribution of AR15 rifles (and their ilk) is not out of line though. The defence of such weaponry makes my eyes roll to the back of my head. No citizen should have access to such guns where- as this useless prick proved- they can shoot over five hundred people from one small hole in a window in an hour.
Since 1994 personal gun ownership in the states has gone up 59% but homicides by guns has dropped by 49%... there's absolutely no correlation between the amount of guns and homicides by gun.
also, the weapons he used yesterday were NOT automatic rifles, they were modified to be. The difference is that since 1932 when automatic rifles had been outlawed, there has only been 3 crimes involving automatics on US soil. 3.... not including yesterday obviously since they weren't automatics.
I personally think that there's no reason a civilian should be able to purchase an assault rifle and they therefore should be outlawed.
The history of federal machine gun regulations is well-covered at the website of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Regulation began with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a $200 tax on the manufacture and transfer of "shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as 'any other weapons,' machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers" at the federal level (states and localities have always been free to impose their own restrictions). According to the ATF, "As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms."
The law was amended in 1968, and then again, in particular, in 1986. The latter revision was to "prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986."
So for civilians, the only legally available automatic rifles in the United States under federal law come from the fixed pool of such weapons that existed on May 19, 1986. With a limited supply, shrinking at least a bit over time through attrition, prices for legal machine guns have no place to go but up. A glance at Gunbroker.com, an online listing service (with actual transfers handled by licensed dealers), reveals prices starting in four figures and rapidly going to five for individual weapons.
Purchasing and owning any NFA firearm, including automatic rifles/machine guns requires undergoing a background check and entering the weapon in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record, which is "the central registry of all NFA firearms in the U.S. which are not in the possession or under the control of the U.S. Government," according to the ATF National Firearms Act Handbook. This handbook is an excellent resource for familiarizing yourself with the federal regulation of automatic rifles/machine guns and other NFA firearms. You might want to put aside some time if you decide to peruse it since, including preface and appendices, the book is 220 pages long.
Which is to say, short of outright prohibition, automatic rifles are subject to just about every rule and restriction that has been proposed by opponents of easy civilian possession. If the weapon Paddock used in his rampage was legally acquired and owned, it was done so in accordance with laws intended "to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions" in such firearms in the words of federal regulators themselves.
But what if Paddock's weapons were illegally acquired, or illegally converted to automatic, or were semiautomatic weapons mistakenly identified as machine guns?
they weren't. they were purchased legally, which is the whole point.
correct but from what we know right now, one was modified to be automatic.
Since 1994 personal gun ownership in the states has gone up 59% but homicides by guns has dropped by 49%... there's absolutely no correlation between the amount of guns and homicides by gun.
also, the weapons he used yesterday were NOT automatic rifles, they were modified to be. The difference is that since 1932 when automatic rifles had been outlawed, there has only been 3 crimes involving automatics on US soil. 3.... not including yesterday obviously since they weren't automatics.
I personally think that there's no reason a civilian should be able to purchase an assault rifle and they therefore should be outlawed.
Yes, but are these new gun owners or previous gun owners just buying more guns?
Since 1994 personal gun ownership in the states has gone up 59% but homicides by guns has dropped by 49%... there's absolutely no correlation between the amount of guns and homicides by gun.
also, the weapons he used yesterday were NOT automatic rifles, they were modified to be. The difference is that since 1932 when automatic rifles had been outlawed, there has only been 3 crimes involving automatics on US soil. 3.... not including yesterday obviously since they weren't automatics.
I personally think that there's no reason a civilian should be able to purchase an assault rifle and they therefore should be outlawed.
There are countless studies that convincingly yield results disputing your statement here.
Since 1994 personal gun ownership in the states has gone up 59% but homicides by guns has dropped by 49%... there's absolutely no correlation between the amount of guns and homicides by gun.
also, the weapons he used yesterday were NOT automatic rifles, they were modified to be. The difference is that since 1932 when automatic rifles had been outlawed, there has only been 3 crimes involving automatics on US soil. 3.... not including yesterday obviously since they weren't automatics.
I personally think that there's no reason a civilian should be able to purchase an assault rifle and they therefore should be outlawed.
gun ownership is by far the highest in america as compared to other developed nations. (88 guns per 100 people, second place is 54 guns per 100, and it's Yemen. YEMEN) americans are 25 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than any other developed nation.
conclusion: this statement "there's absolutely no correlation between the amount of guns and homicides by gun" is FALSE.
It uses the recoil of the gun to reset the trigger which would take some practice to get used to.
For $1K you can buy a semi-auto and a legal mod that is almost as effective as an illegal machine gun in today's world (as witnessed a few days ago)
If they make the gun automatic then they are illegal. I'm almost positive there have been no new automatic weapons made since 1986.
Not necessarily. I've seen versions of those, it isn't anything that is considered part of the gun, or even a gun modification. Like the original post said, it allows you to use the recoil to reset the trigger. Essentially allows you to hold the gun in such a way that you are attempting to hold the trigger down, but controls the recoil just enough to back off the trigger to the point it resets so in technicality it isnt considered fully auto because you technically are letting off the trigger after each shot. It has the same effect as if you just rapidly pull the trigger yourself, just does it 5 times faster than humanly possible. I don't know how you could make something like that illegal, could be done with a shoestring. I agree it should be illegal if there's a way to, but do you ban shoestrings within 10 feet of a firearm? Instead I would support magazine limits on assault rifles to 4 or 5 rounds and a real "fixed" magazine.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I saw a quote online today (again, one of those quotes with someone's picture next to it, so the veracity can easily be questioned) that said "I don't feel sorry for those people....most country music fans are republicans and gun owners anyway".
YIKES.
I usually don’t use this term, but what a dumb bitch!
lol yeah she's a graduate of Columbia University book smart but dumb socially ....
Comments
You really gonna go on about how your AR-15 is necessary for boar hunting and then turn around and act like those same features don't make it more dangerous for people???
Get a grip.
At least for me when I've made similar comments in the passed I was referring to things like a pistol grip as one example of how gun laws are not effective. A gun can be banned because of a pistol grip (which I highly doubt have had any impact on any mass shooting ever), but the definitions of fixed magazine are too loose to be effective.
All there needs to be is a "tool" required to remove a magazine for it to be considered fixed, so many rifles like that have a button too small to push with a finger so the point of a bullet is used to push the eject button and that fits the definition of a "fixed" magazine.
I'm not against someone owning an Ar-15, but there should not be access to large magazines and such a flimsy definition of what a fixed magazine is. Magazines on a rifle like that should be bolted or screwed in with a limit of about 5 rounds that you can feed in one at a time.
He would have been more effective with a bolt action rifle than with the above requirements for a fixed magazine.
But instead of focusing on changes like that my perception is that anti-gun politicians try to ban entire guns instead of the features that make them deadly and the result is the pro-gun side fight to prevent the bans resulting in nothing changing. Instead of a wide ban on assault rifles, it is my belief that there would be less resistance to banning specific features and a better definition of things like a fixed magazine. Of course there would still be resistance to it, but it would be less and probably far more effective change.
www.headstonesband.com
The truth is America needs to start banning these military styled weapons and pulling them off the streets and out of peoples homes. Otherwise these massacres will not stop.
You want a hunting rifle, great. Take proper training courses, have background checks and register that rifle. That's all any sane person needs. No civilian needs a handgun or shotgun, let alone an AR-15.
As for the military style automatic weapons used for killing large numbers of people-- I'm guessing the only people who favor making them legal are militia types and they probably see mass killings like this as some kind of "collateral damage". No doubt, those are the kind of people who begin to drool when they think about war and gun fights. Fucking weird.
It uses the recoil of the gun to reset the trigger which would take some practice to get used to.
For $1K you can buy a semi-auto and a legal mod that is almost as effective as an illegal machine gun in today's world (as witnessed a few days ago)
Also these should NOT be legal to buy.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/03/automatic-weapons-are-already-heavily-re
The history of federal machine gun regulations is well-covered at the website of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Regulation began with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a $200 tax on the manufacture and transfer of "shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as 'any other weapons,' machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers" at the federal level (states and localities have always been free to impose their own restrictions). According to the ATF, "As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms."
The law was amended in 1968, and then again, in particular, in 1986. The latter revision was to "prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986."
So for civilians, the only legally available automatic rifles in the United States under federal law come from the fixed pool of such weapons that existed on May 19, 1986. With a limited supply, shrinking at least a bit over time through attrition, prices for legal machine guns have no place to go but up. A glance at Gunbroker.com, an online listing service (with actual transfers handled by licensed dealers), reveals prices starting in four figures and rapidly going to five for individual weapons.
Purchasing and owning any NFA firearm, including automatic rifles/machine guns requires undergoing a background check and entering the weapon in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record, which is "the central registry of all NFA firearms in the U.S. which are not in the possession or under the control of the U.S. Government," according to the ATF National Firearms Act Handbook. This handbook is an excellent resource for familiarizing yourself with the federal regulation of automatic rifles/machine guns and other NFA firearms. You might want to put aside some time if you decide to peruse it since, including preface and appendices, the book is 220 pages long.
Which is to say, short of outright prohibition, automatic rifles are subject to just about every rule and restriction that has been proposed by opponents of easy civilian possession. If the weapon Paddock used in his rampage was legally acquired and owned, it was done so in accordance with laws intended "to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions" in such firearms in the words of federal regulators themselves.
But what if Paddock's weapons were illegally acquired, or illegally converted to automatic, or were semiautomatic weapons mistakenly identified as machine guns?
www.headstonesband.com
I agree, I cannot think of any real argument as to why a person would need a bump fire attachment. Was it confirmed that he was using one of these on the rifle he used?
I also think some of the hunting comments are out of line. A hunter going into the bush and shooting his meat for his deep freeze is far more humane than the urban consumer buying factory farmed meat packaged into boxes and sold at Costco and Wal Mart.
The call to cease production and distribution of AR15 rifles (and their ilk) is not out of line though. The defence of such weaponry makes my eyes roll to the back of my head. No citizen should have access to such guns where- as this useless prick proved- they can shoot over five hundred people from one small hole in a window in an hour.
It is outrageous.
also, the weapons he used yesterday were NOT automatic rifles, they were modified to be. The difference is that since 1932 when automatic rifles had been outlawed, there has only been 3 crimes involving automatics on US soil. 3.... not including yesterday obviously since they weren't automatics.
I personally think that there's no reason a civilian should be able to purchase an assault rifle and they therefore should be outlawed.
americans are 25 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than any other developed nation.
conclusion: this statement "there's absolutely no correlation between the amount of guns and homicides by gun" is FALSE.
www.headstonesband.com
Not necessarily. I've seen versions of those, it isn't anything that is considered part of the gun, or even a gun modification. Like the original post said, it allows you to use the recoil to reset the trigger. Essentially allows you to hold the gun in such a way that you are attempting to hold the trigger down, but controls the recoil just enough to back off the trigger to the point it resets so in technicality it isnt considered fully auto because you technically are letting off the trigger after each shot. It has the same effect as if you just rapidly pull the trigger yourself, just does it 5 times faster than humanly possible.
I don't know how you could make something like that illegal, could be done with a shoestring. I agree it should be illegal if there's a way to, but do you ban shoestrings within 10 feet of a firearm? Instead I would support magazine limits on assault rifles to 4 or 5 rounds and a real "fixed" magazine.
i believe everyone in switzerland own a gun
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
lol yeah she's a graduate of Columbia University book smart but dumb socially ....
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce