re: Republican-Sponsored Anti-Gun Bill - Take Action!

I have seven guns currently in my house, and shot with my 7 & 9 year olds within the last 10 days or so. So I'm not a "gun grabber" by any means. I'm not going to wade into this discussion any further than to say this

quote:

---

Guns, semi or select fire, are actually one of the least efficient tools for "committing mass murder"

---

Not real sure a random 60 year old could kill 59 people with knives. Especially from 1000 yards away. Guns are incredibly efficient at committing mass murder, even if people don't know how to use them properly. Hell, I doubt the folks that shot 17 people in New Orleans that Mother's day spent much time on the range.

Are there always bombs or other such things that could cause more casualties, sure. But those are harder to come by or build, and your average person can't waltz into walmart and get them.

This kind of thought/ statement is either so obtuse as to have to be willfully so, or is so detached from reality as to make me wonder about anything else you say. It certainly won't convince the people you're scared will take your guns to be rational in their actions, as it shows you're not being rational in your thoughts.

It's not always give an inch, they take a mile. Sometimes you give an inch so they don't.

quote:

---

how do we define what's appropriate? I legitimately don't have a hard stance on where the line should be drawn. And I've yet to hear logic from anyone here that defines it.

---

Killing people is illegal. That's the line. Why do you need a different law to specify that's it's still illegal if you use a firearm?

Edit to add:
You want the an effective way to end this type of public display of evil? Make the killer disappear. Give them no glory, no rights, erase them from existence. These evil people are desperately seeking notoriety and fame, thinking that the attention will fix whatever they deem wrong with society. Make the tactic ineffective and it'll stop being used.

quote:

---

I legitimately don't have a hard stance on where the line should be drawn. And I've yet to hear logic from anyone here that defines it.

---

First, Im not here to dissuade those deeply entrenched for further regulations. That's their beleif, rationalized in their mind, and they have a right to that belief and to pursue those changes. I'm here to persuade, with alternative logic, those still trying to form an opinion or to present an opposing view to what in my opinion is bad logic regarding 2A and what it means.

The hard lines are all in the thread and many other threads on this board. This argument, if you want to call it that, is multifaceted with a dynamic hard line. The issue at hand is further restriction to arms. I draw a hard line right there.

A victory here does not mean people will be buying nukes tomorrow. Conceding here means you are willing to let the hard line be drawn where it further restricts your rights.

quote:

---

.if one end of the spectrum is no weapons and the other end is all weapoms, and the 2nd amendment provides for the right to bear arms, how do we define what's appropriate?

---

If you want to water it down to just those two options, I'll take the latter to answer the question "what is appropriate" since "no weapons" and 2A are mutually exclusive. But, there is no indication that one side is seeking all arms. There is substantial evidence that the other side is actively seeking no arms.

quote:

---

Earlier you said that capitalism should draw the line on arms control..essentially meaning that bill gates could go out and build a militia with whatever he wanted the he could buy or find available.

---

If capatalism drew the line, Bill Gates would not go out and build a militia without an incentive to do so. Since there is nothing to be gained from simply funding a militia with no current objective no one would do it until an incentive arose. Also, considering the US military spends close to 600B per year, well over Mr Gates "net worth" of 88B, of which who knows how much is liquid spendable cash flow, even he could not afford to sustain a army, even on a much smaller scale than the US military.

Same goes for the weapons of mass destruction. Because of their high cost no one would invest in a facility, equipment, employees, specialist and overhead to create a nuke for themsleves or as a viable business model to sell to citizens due to the lack of a viable market.

It makes little since to argue the merit of weapons of mass destruction being covered under 2A when the current topic at hand is how fast is too fast semi-auto.

quote:

---

Not real sure a random 60 year old could kill 59 people with knives. Especially from 1000 yards away. Guns are incredibly efficient at committing mass murder, even if people don't know how to use them properly. Hell, I doubt the folks that shot 17 people in New Orleans that Mother's day spent much time on the range.

Are there always bombs or other such things that could cause more casualties, sure. But those are harder to come by or build, and your average person can't waltz into walmart and get them.

This kind of thought/ statement is either so obtuse as to have to be willfully so, or is so detached from reality as to make me wonder about anything else you say. It certainly won't convince the people you're scared will take your guns to be rational in their actions, as it shows you're not being rational in your thoughts.

It's not always give an inch, they take a mile. Sometimes you give an inch so they don't.

---

I never said knives were efficient, and we can certainly agree they are less efficient than guns. My statement was not meant to discount the tradegy or disrespect the deceased, their families or others involved. It was just meant to point out that evil doers have at their disposal more effiecent tools to carry out their evil. 59 may be the largest mass shooting, but it is far from the largest mass killing which used more efficient methods. I am thankful none of the mass shooters chose to use more efficient methods as the losses would have been much larger.

quote:

---

Are there always bombs or other such things that could cause more casualties, sure. But those are harder to come by or build, and your average person can't waltz into walmart and get them.

---

I honestly dont mean for this to be insulting, but this statement shows you have very little knowledge on the topic. As pointed out in my previous post that you quoted, the materials for making bombs are widely available (order on Amazon if its more convenient for you) and do not require a background check like "waltzing into walmart" to buy a gun does. The methods for mixing fuel and oxiders, building detonators, etc. are widely available and the skill level to do so would range from "Novice" to "Expert" depending on how big or efficient you wanted it to be.

quote:

---

I haven't been reading all the news surrounding the issue, but if the NRA has said anything to the effect of pushing or supporting a ban can you please link it so I can read it.

---

You won't get a link because they never made that statement. All the NRA said was that the ATF should reexamine the legality of bump stocks. Since the ATF already ruled that an AR-15 with a bump stock is still a semi-auto rifle it is legal, and the NRA is expecting that the ruling wouldn't change. Pretty smart move by the NRA if you ask me.

quote:

---

I don't want to lose my right to own a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, over the insistence that we have unfettered access to bump-fire slides and such. We won't win that. You might think so, because the people you associate with are more pro-gun; but please, PLEASE understand there's a lot more people who aren't locked into either side.

---

Please show me in the proposed bill where it outlaws bump stock specifically.

This bill is a terrible piece of legislation.

I this were to pass would would happen to Jerry Miculek's trigger finger? Since his trigger finger can outrun a bump stock

Also, can anyone tell me what the cyclic rate of a semi-auto firearm is?

i would vote yes on a one line bill that says "outlaw the sale of bump stocks"

but no they have to make shite way to complicated. with a 300pg document with big uppity words.

quote:

---

a tyrannical government, and I agree. But to what level of technological innovation does that right extend?

---

The maximum level required for a citizen to defend oneself from a tyrannical government.