America's Gun Violence

tbergs said:

Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

No, I've said exactly why nothing changes. It's no mystery to me.
Neither side wants to compromise. When you have politicians like Pelosi who say they hope its a slippery slope and admit they'll take an inch if you give a mile only give motive for gun lobbyists to fight any changes.

tbergs said:

Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

I didn’t read the article, but am aware of the debate. What would be included in the “similar accessories” category?  I would not be in favor of anything that quacky Feinstein has touched.  She is a large reason that gun owners fear unreasonable restrictions being implemented and have an underlying distrust of Democrat created legislation on firearms.

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

Funny how they were so open to it last week. I'm guessing they don't like those other little stipulations that also limit increasing rate of fire. Pathetic.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other Democrats last week introduced their own bill in the Senate to ban bump stocks that would prohibit "the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire," according to a press release.

I didn’t read the article, but am aware of the debate. What would be included in the “similar accessories” category?  I would not be in favor of anything that quacky Feinstein has touched.  She is a large reason that gun owners fear unreasonable restrictions being implemented and have an underlying distrust of Democrat created legislation on firearms.

It is only talking about accessories that allow for the increased firing rate of the weapon. Can you explain to me why any gun needs to have the ability to increase the already set manufacturer rate of fire? This is about limiting anything besides the ability to increase kill rates, which is obviously being proposed to save human lives and that is it. People are all for the bump stocks because now they are known, but that doesn't eliminate the potential for some other accessory to be used for a similar purpose. This bill is looking to curb that from ever even being a possibility.

Everything about you response is fear based. You talk about looking for reasonable compromise and here it is, but you still argue against it because this one bill will lead to the end of gun ownership. This is why people say the gun lobby runs congress. They allow no compromise and then act like it's the other side being ridiculous.

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.

“Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  

Ammo that the U.S. military uses that I also use:
12 gauge 
30.06
308
5.56/.223 
9mm 
45
Way too broad of a definition.  I have no problem banning tracer or incidinary rounds.

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Yup, don't make it illegal, just regulate it softly because everyone knows the ATF is fully funded and supported in their oversight role. Kind of like the EPA and the coal industry. There, I humored you PJPower. And Mace wonders why nothing changes?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

You humor me a lot, actually.  It humors me more, though, that you never answered the question that I asked  when I asked you humor me.  Instead, you pivoted to a totally different subject, something people usually do when they cannot respond (a typical “whataboutism” that people keep accusing each other of around here)  ATF “fully funded” by the NRA?  I thought they were at least partially funded by our tax dollars, but maybe you are right.  

Okay, I'll humor you and your hostile response to my two questions. Banning those two types of ammunition wouldn't have prevented any mass killings. Now explain to me why a "responsible" gun owner needs military style ammunition? I never claimed the ATF was funded by the NRA, I made a comparison of two federal agencies. Nice pivot and deflection.

“Military style ammunition”?  Most military ammunition is the same cheap ammunition that is used for target practice and probably is less deadly than many of the sofisticated hunting rounds.  In fact, most hunting rounds would probably violate the acceptable types of of bullets that can be used by military personnel.  I have a problem with terms like “military style ammunition”.  I do not have a problem with banning tracer rounds or bump stocks, but am not on board with a sweeping “military style” anything ban.  That term is thrown out there by politicians and nutters that have no idea what they are talking about...or by people that are being purposefully deceptive.  All of the lying and deception by eccentrics is why nothing is ever accomplished.  

If you go back to my original question, why the need for incendiary and tracer rounds? For public consumption? Is this the slippery slope you're so afraid of? Do try to keep the conversation in context, its like arguing that the use of the term magazine versus clip when everyone knows what we're talking about. But hey, 1 out of 100 and 1 out of 435 is many, so there is that.