Questions for the 'confiscation' advocates...

The basics are covered and then experience over the years behind the wheel comes into play. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'll make an assumption (with no comment needed or expected) that "our generation" was "instructed" on maturity and responsibility in matters apart from operating a motor vehicle, and at least I, and most around me, recognized nonresponsible behavior, which was heavily laden with respect for others around us. That's missing today!

At 14 I got my driver's license. At 16 I was driving a standard shift, flat bed semi hauling materials for a commercial construction company out of town and back. Obviously not "licensed" to do it, but given that responsibility (along with distributing pay checks on Fridays in my supers pickup), because I would NOT stop and pick up a 6 pack to quench my thirst (I knew how to get it!)! We had guns. We didn't shoot people or each other.

(Although I was shot and shot at in my lifetime!)

We were instructed at home on how to behave in an adult world. We did not learn our social skills from TV or "nintendo" games, and generally speaking most of my friends have managed to remain out of prison by being law abiding citizens ... or blending in and not creating too much unwanted attention. Some, of course, are dead.

An interesting announcement yesterday.

Congratulations to him!! In a recent thread on this forum I supported a ban on the bump stock. I'm glad to see that people are not simply sitting on their hands after the most recent tragedy in Florida but are moving forward to prevent a recurrence of the Las Vegas shootings in which the bump stock was used.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

BUT is it just a knee jerk reaction to appease the whiners who say "BUT YOU DON'T care about kids unless you do something, NOW!??"

It won't.

Can you think of anything else that's been "banned" by a law?

Definition: "to ban" ...

"to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict:" Originally Posted by LexusLover

Plenty of things have gotten "Banned", via laws, but have STILL NOT actually stopped people getting them..

And one of the stranger dunces i saw arguing "WE need more gun laws" was on Tucker Carlson last night.. Claiming that Americans "UNFETTERED" access to guns is the cause..

YET he doesn't realize that the definition of "UNFETTERED" means UNRESTRAINED.. YET we have what, over 500+ GUN LAWS stating who can and can't own a gun, where they can carry them etc?? SO how the hell is that unfettered access?

Its almost to the point, i really wish i had uber magical powers, and so could create a mass delusion of "someone doing something".. JUST to see what the liberals would do/say, when the inevitable ramifications happened..

And that think would be "SO YOU liberals really want to eliminate all guns from the hands of all Americans. FINE. Then so be it. From this day forward, NO AMERICAN, whether naturally born into citizenhood, or granted it via naturalization, can ever own or use a firearm ever again...."

Now lets see.. How many gangs are comprised of NON us citizens?? Practically all of MS-13, a sizable chunk of the Albanian and Russian mobs, a large chunk of the Yakuzza and triads..
So, since cops are Americans, and thus can't own/use firearms, same with the military and EVERY GOVERNMENTAL LE agency.. Exactly how soon do those idiot liberals, think we will see a RISE IN violent crime cause those crooks see that now there's NO defenders with guns stopping them run rampant?
OR how soon do they think a foreign power would come in and try to take over?!?!?

vehicles kill more people every year BUT no one talks about better driver training or restricting access Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Hell Medical Malpractice kills 250 THOUSAND or so a year, a lot more than guns AND vehicles combined.. BUT you never hear about people marching to implement restrictions or more regulations on doctors!

In most states a person can purchase a gun and start using it without any training at all. In some states a person can carry a concealed handgun without a license and without any training at all. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

When i spent time looking it up, MOST states you need to go through a backround check to get a gun (pistols especially) and a more stringent check for CCW permits..

I didn't bring up the comparison between ownership of a gun and driving. "No one talks about better driver training or restricting access" because there are many laws in place that do exactly that. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And don't we already have 500+ laws on the books for gun restrictions??

The quote allegedly made by Obama was reported by John Lott in his book "At the Brink". No corroboration. And let's just say John Lott is not the most unbiased person on this planet. So I tend to not believe it.

I am not sure exactly what Feinstein is getting at with her statement. It is NOT a proposal to ban guns. I would agree with you or anyone else that if any politician would support a total ban on guns it would be her. But she has at no time during her tenure in the House proposed legislation asking for a total ban on guns. BTW, I wish Feinstein would just go away.

And as for the statement from Rahm Emanuel, I could not find the context in which it was stated, but it is also NOT a proposal to ban ALL guns. I have no idea what an "entirely new class of guns" is.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Biased right...when Lott started his research he was a stalwart gun control advocate. His research changed his mind.

BUT is it just a knee jerk reaction to appease the whiners who say "BUT YOU DON'T care about kids unless you do something, NOW!??"



Plenty of things have gotten "Banned", via laws, but have STILL NOT actually stopped people getting them..

And one of the stranger dunces i saw arguing "WE need more gun laws" was on Tucker Carlson last night.. Claiming that Americans "UNFETTERED" access to guns is the cause..

YET he doesn't realize that the definition of "UNFETTERED" means UNRESTRAINED.. YET we have what, over 500+ GUN LAWS stating who can and can't own a gun, where they can carry them etc?? SO how the hell is that unfettered access?

Its almost to the point, i really wish i had uber magical powers, and so could create a mass delusion of "someone doing something".. JUST to see what the liberals would do/say, when the inevitable ramifications happened..

And that think would be "SO YOU liberals really want to eliminate all guns from the hands of all Americans. FINE. Then so be it. From this day forward, NO AMERICAN, whether naturally born into citizenhood, or granted it via naturalization, can ever own or use a firearm ever again...."

Now lets see.. How many gangs are comprised of NON us citizens?? Practically all of MS-13, a sizable chunk of the Albanian and Russian mobs, a large chunk of the Yakuzza and triads..
So, since cops are Americans, and thus can't own/use firearms, same with the military and EVERY GOVERNMENTAL LE agency.. Exactly how soon do those idiot liberals, think we will see a RISE IN violent crime cause those crooks see that now there's NO defenders with guns stopping them run rampant?
OR how soon do they think a foreign power would come in and try to take over?!?!?



Hell Medical Malpractice kills 250 THOUSAND or so a year, a lot more than guns AND vehicles combined.. BUT you never hear about people marching to implement restrictions or more regulations on doctors!



When i spent time looking it up, MOST states you need to go through a backround check to get a gun (pistols especially) and a more stringent check for CCW permits..



And don't we already have 500+ laws on the books for gun restrictions?? Originally Posted by garhkal

Drugs kill what? 35,000 people a year and I do believe that they are banned. How is that even possible? How can you get hold of drugs when they are banned?

In most states a person can purchase a gun and start using it without any training at all. In some states a person can carry a concealed handgun without a license and without any training at all.

Each state has different requirements for obtaining a driver's license, but most, if not all, require a written test to make sure the applicant understands the rules of the road and many states require either the completion of a driver's education course or passing a road test, or both. Here are the requirements in the state of Texas:

Teens under 18 must complete a driver education course to get a provisional license. Courses must include at least 32 hours of classroom instruction and 44 hours of skills training (7 hours BTW, 7 hours observation, 30 hours with a licensed adult with at least one year of driving experience).

Obviously there are age restrictions for driving a car. You also must pass a vision test. In many states, drivers who have reached a certain age (65 or 70 usually) face additional requirements in order to keep their license. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Firearms would require similar provisions as obtaining a Drivers License if owning and carrying a Firearm was a privilege instead of a right. Whether you realize it or not you nor anyone else has a right to drive an automobile. This might sound like a bit ridiculous, but seventy five percent of the population should be restricted from driving an automobile. I'll base this on what I observe by just driving around in my daily life. People are obviously distracted with texting, overall poor driving skills in general and blatant disregard for traffic controls and laws , not to mention their fellow motorists. Couple all these factors together and that's a recipe for disaster and it happens all to often. Laws are in place for our safety be it driving a car or owning and carrying a firearm but they are worthless if a person can't or won't abide by them.

Jim

Biased right...when Lott started his research he was a stalwart gun control advocate. His research changed his mind. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Unfortunately his research turned out to be bogus.

But Lott’s recent successes belie a far more shadowy past. A little over a decade ago, he was disgraced and his career was in tatters. Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions. An investigation uncovered that he had almost certainly fabricated an entire survey on defensive gun use. And a blogger revealed that Mary Rosh, an online commentator claiming to be a former student of Lott’s who would frequently post about how amazing he was, was in fact John Lott himself. He was all but excommunicated from academia.

However, the media’s newfound faith in John Lott is deeply misguided. Rather than turn a new page, Lott has instead returned to his old playbook and used his platform to deceive the public. Our own multi-year investigation into Lott and his organization has uncovered a startling array of new ethical violations, ranging from the profoundly bizarre to the outright fraudulent.

Source: https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-...-5456e83cf326/

John Lott, a discredited researcher with a history of pushing false and misleading information about guns, scored space in Tuesday’s New York Times. The article, which argues that background checks are flawed and ineffective, continues his streak of misleading and deeply flawed analyses.


Source: https://thinkprogress.org/new-york-t...-0330338258b1/

No, a bump stock does not make the shooter better skilled. Never said so. Useless? Not at all. It allows the shooter to fire more rounds faster by harnessing the gun's natural recoil.

How does it work?

A bump stock is a piece of plastic or metal molded to the lower end of a rifle. The device allows a shooter to fire dozens of rounds in seconds by harnessing the gun’s natural recoil. A rifle with this type of mechanism is optimal with a high-capacity magazine that can hold between 60 and 100 rounds and a hand grip that allows a shooter to push the rifle away from the body to bounce, or bump, the weapon into the trigger finger.

When these are combined, the weapon can shoot large amounts of automatic-like fire without much concern for accuracy, as the recoil from simulated automatic fire would make it difficult to hit specific targets at a long range. But accuracy was not an interest for Paddock, whose elevated position and fire into a dense crowd overcame the disadvantage of inaccurate targeting.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cab111074a74


As for me not having anything to back up my statement about whether or not sales of the bump stock increased after the Las Vegas shootings:

Bump-Stock Sales Are Spiking After Stephen Paddock's Las Vegas Massacre

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/bump-stock-s...assacre-678356 Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So what if a Bump stock enables the gun to fire quicker. What they don't tell you is the incident of problems with round extraction becomes more frequent. Bump stocks for the most part are after market junk.

Jim

BUT is it just a knee jerk reaction to appease the whiners who say "BUT YOU DON'T care about kids unless you do something, NOW!??"

When i spent time looking it up, MOST states you need to go through a backround check to get a gun (pistols especially) and a more stringent check for CCW permits..

And don't we already have 500+ laws on the books for gun restrictions?? Originally Posted by garhkal

The "whiners" seem to be the majority of the people in this country. Maybe Trump's action is knee jerk but I still applaud it. As I've mentioned several times, M-16s are for all intents and purposes banned to almost all citizens in this country and I know of no criminals using them in the commission of a crime.

Sixty-six percent of Americans want stricter gun control laws — the highest level recorded by Quinnipiac University since it started polling the issue after Sandy Hook.

Support for tougher gun laws in the poll released Tuesday has jumped almost 20 points since December 2015. It also found a ban on assault weapons was backed by 67 percent of those surveyed.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...d-high-n849686

I specifically mentioned "training" when when talking about purchasing a gun. Yes, background checks are certainly required when purchasing a gun, but a person can get that gun and go home with absolutely no training. And there are MANY states that do not require a CCW in order to carry a concealed handgun. About 13. Most states are "Shall Issue" states and some are "May Issue". As many people on this forum have stated, the requirements in the state of Texas to obtain a CCW are ridiculously easy. I take them at their word since I have never applied for a CCW.

Her is a link to a site showing CCW requirements by state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concea..._United_States

Since I am not a gun owner I couldn't begin to tell you how many laws are on the books concerning gun control. Nothing you have said would lead me to believe that banning the bump stock would not be a positive action.

So what if a Bump stock enables the gun to fire quicker. What they don't tell you is the incident of problems with round extraction becomes more frequent. Bump stocks for the most part are after market junk.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

It seemed to work very well for Stephen Paddock.

Do you have any link to support your statement that there are problems with round extraction? I could find nothing on the subject.

If the bump stock is for the most part after market junk, then you should have no problem with it being removed from the marketplace.

It seemed to work very well for Stephen Paddock.

Do you have any link to support your statement that there are problems with round extraction? I could find nothing on the subject.

If the bump stock is for the most part after market junk, then you should have no problem with it being removed from the marketplace. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have no problem with it being removed from the market place. The AR-15 cycles rounds far more efficiently than the average person would need anyway without a Bump Stock which inevitably would permanently damage the extraction sear. As far as it working for Stephen Paddock I haven't seen any evidence that an actual shooting even took place from his snipers nest at the Mandalay Bay Hotel. Yeah I know the Media gave a whole run down of the incident of 59 people killed and 500 wounded along with grainy Cell phone videos of sounds of gun fire and people running. Then I saw the infamous picture of the aftermath of where the concert was held and the supposed shooting took place where there was chairs plastic cups and food wrappers strewn about but no evidence of a shooting. Since there isn't any hardcore evidence I'll pass it off as just another Government Psy-Op.

Jim

Do you have any link to support your statement that there are problems with round extraction? I could find nothing on the subject.

If the bump stock is for the most part after market junk, then you should have no problem with it being removed from the marketplace. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The AR-15 users report extraction and ejection problems with the spent shell casing. The increased speed may increase the incident of extraction and ejection issues.

I didn't see anyone with a "problem" with it being removed from the market, but that is not going to "solve" the real problem that has surfaced recently.

The burden should be on the person seeking to "remove" something from the market to demonstrate that the removal aids in the elimination or significant reduction in a negative condition. Not, IMO, on the users to show there is no need to remove it. The Government always has the burden to restrict the citizens.

That's like the poster saying you don't "need" an AR-15. That's not what the 2nd Amendment says or even how it's been interpreted. It doesn't say for "hunting"! It wasn't even passed for "hunting rights"! It was passed to protect citizens from the Government ... which is seeking to disarm the citizens by "removing" guns.

BTW: Paddock had a number of rifles set up for the shooting. I haven't seen any reports of stove-piping or other malfunctions on any of the weapons.

Unfortunately his research turned out to be bogus.

But Lott’s recent successes belie a far more shadowy past. A little over a decade ago, he was disgraced and his career was in tatters. Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions. An investigation uncovered that he had almost certainly fabricated an entire survey on defensive gun use. And a blogger revealed that Mary Rosh, an online commentator claiming to be a former student of Lott’s who would frequently post about how amazing he was, was in fact John Lott himself. He was all but excommunicated from academia.

However, the media’s newfound faith in John Lott is deeply misguided. Rather than turn a new page, Lott has instead returned to his old playbook and used his platform to deceive the public. Our own multi-year investigation into Lott and his organization has uncovered a startling array of new ethical violations, ranging from the profoundly bizarre to the outright fraudulent.

Source: https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-...-5456e83cf326/

John Lott, a discredited researcher with a history of pushing false and misleading information about guns, scored space in Tuesday’s New York Times. The article, which argues that background checks are flawed and ineffective, continues his streak of misleading and deeply flawed analyses.


Source: https://thinkprogress.org/new-york-t...-0330338258b1/ Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It's your "Think Progress" that's "bogus", speedy: bogus and notorious liars, speedy. Think Progress is an anti-American, George Soros propaganda outfit, and its writers are sycophant dim-retards who frequently and infamously conspire to misinform in league with the likes of Pelosi and such nefarious hildebeest acolytes John Podesta and David Brock, speedy.

Drugs kill what? 35,000 people a year and I do believe that they are banned. How is that even possible? How can you get hold of drugs when they are banned? Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Except for {banned subject} which many states are wanting to legalize..

The "whiners" seem to be the majority of the people in this country. Maybe Trump's action is knee jerk but I still applaud it. As I've mentioned several times, M-16s are for all intents and purposes banned to almost all citizens in this country and I know of no criminals using them in the commission of a crime. . Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

But you ban one aspect, what's next? And since we keep hearing story after story of pushes for bans of 'nebulous assault weapons', and many dumb shits idea of what counts, is "anything with a pistol grip and a magazine' that means banning PISTOLS as well as AR like weapons..

Except for {banned subject} which many states are wanting to legalize..



But you ban one aspect, what's next? And since we keep hearing story after story of pushes for bans of 'nebulous assault weapons', and many dumb shits idea of what counts, is "anything with a pistol grip and a magazine' that means banning PISTOLS as well as AR like weapons.. Originally Posted by garhkal

Well that's how it's done they do it slowly in small increments. In the case with Gun Control they seem to always demonize the AR-15 and of course they need to link mental Illness with mass shootings. The reason for that is to bend the criteria so just about anyone can be deemed Mentally Ill so they can deny them the purchase of a firearm. Also if an incident literally happens that meets the Governments interest in Gun Control they will exploit it to gain public opinion and awareness. If an incident doesn't happen they'll create it. I'll guarantee you that many of the so called mass shootings that have occurred in the last few decades have been orchestrated. No one was shot, no one was killed. For the most part they are on the same scale as a low budget Hollywood Production. The masses are expected to believe it because the Main stream Media presents it for people to believe it. Actors are interviewed and mock funerals of the victims are exploited. It's simply the way it is and its not against the law.

Jim