ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gun laws , Washington politics

Reply
Old 28th January 2018, 09:59 AM   #41
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
If the principal purpose of a bump stock is to send bullets downrange at a higher rate during recreational shooting, then why don't we permit the wide ownership of full-auto machine guns to send bullets more rapidly toward the target at the range? It's only about target practice, right? After all, guns don't kill; people do.
Are you saying the USA doesn't allow "wide ownership" of machine guns? Last I heard more than 30 states allow civilians to own a machine gun without a license. Why is this not wide enough? Recall my links showing how to obtain a MG in the USA in one of my posts on page 1? Probably not as it would undermine your argument.

Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Let's for the moment take off the table criminals with malicious intent. ....
Curb access to guns....rhetoric about foreign terrorists so as to keep Americans safe....
I created this thread to discuss slide fire stocks. You're trying to make into something else. Instead of your strawman and begging the question arguments, perhaps you can stay on topic?

Last edited by Ranb; 28th January 2018 at 10:52 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 10:02 AM   #42
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Well while not technically illegal, in NZ you would need to have an E-Class licence to own one and police permission to import them.
How does that import stuff for guns work in NZ? Is there a group of people or a single person who decides if something is suitable for sporting use? The sporting use criteria is used in the USA.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 10:28 AM   #43
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Are you saying the USA doesn't allow "wide ownership" of machine guns? Last I heard more than 30 states allow civilians to own a machine gun without a license. Why is this not wide enough? Recall my links showing how to obtain a MG in the USA in one of my posts on page 1? Probably not as it would undermine your argument.


I created this thread to discuss slide fire stocks. You're trying to make into something else. Instead of your strawman and begging the question, perhaps you can stay on topic?
isnt it the case that fully automatic weapons cost 10's of thousands of dollars to buy?

bump stocks are the poor mans way to easily achieve fully auto rates of fire for hundreds of dollars instead

why shouldn’t they be treated with similar regulations to fully automatic guns?
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 10:51 AM   #44
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
isnt it the case that fully automatic weapons cost 10's of thousands of dollars to buy?
Yes. The Hughes amendment to the FOPA in 1986 prohibited the registration of new MG's for civilians. Here are some prices; http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?...rmat=headlines

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
bump stocks are the poor mans way to easily achieve fully auto rates of fire for hundreds of dollars instead
We shouldn't discriminate against the poor by banning bump stocks. It's better to control them under the NFA 1934 instead. Back when MG's were much cheaper (pre-1986) and the only additional cost was the $200 tax stamp, MG's were not a problem.

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
why shouldn’t they be treated with similar regulations to fully automatic guns?
Similar regulations would require a change to federal law. As far as I know, no one, not even the Democrats, are willing to do so. Maybe the NRA could propose a compromise. Put slide fire stocks in the NFA (with a $5 stamp) and remove silencers. That would piss of some people, but make more people happy.

Last edited by Ranb; 28th January 2018 at 11:09 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 11:30 AM   #45
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
We shouldn't discriminate against the poor by banning bump stocks. It's better to control them under the NFA 1934 instead. Back when MG's were much cheaper (pre-1986) and the only additional cost was the $200 tax stamp, MG's were not a problem.

Similar regulations would require a change to federal law. As far as I know, no one, not even the Democrats, are willing to do so. Maybe the NRA could propose a compromise. Put slide fire stocks in the NFA (with a $5 stamp) and remove silencers. That would piss of some people, but make more people happy.
theres already "discrimination against the poor" where you have to register before you can get fully automatic gun. the mechanism is different but the resulting rate of fire is comparable to bump stocks

im not asking why arent they being treated the same im asking why shouldnt they be treated the same?

changes to federal law is hard but as with cannabis one state at time works too
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 11:41 AM   #46
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
theres already "discrimination against the poor" where you have to register before you can get fully automatic gun.
Registration is not what makes it discrimination against the poor. Every individual registers poor or rich. It is prohibiting new registration which drives up prices of the fixed supply of MG's that keeps the poor from owning them for the most part.

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
the mechanism is different but the resulting rate of fire is comparable to bump stocks
The rate of fire is the only thing that makes them comparable. A bump fire AR-15 really is crap compared to an M-16. If Paddock didn't have an 8 acre target to shoot at, he probably would have done little more than make lots of noise.

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
im not asking why arent they being treated the same im asking why shouldnt they be treated the same?
They could be; allow registration of both and eliminate the tax.

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
changes to federal law is hard but as with cannabis one state at time works too
I really doubt that the feds would treat gun owners with the same kind of kid gloves they're treating drug users in states that allow recreational pot now.

Last edited by Ranb; 28th January 2018 at 11:45 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 12:15 PM   #47
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,788
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
makes mass murder a hell of a lot quicker.
Compared to. ...

I'd rather have a reliable weapon than a scary toy if I wanted to harm folks.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 12:20 PM   #48
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Registration is not what makes it discrimination against the poor. Every individual registers poor or rich. It is prohibiting new registration which drives up prices of the fixed supply of MG's that keeps the poor from owning them for the most part.
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
We shouldn't discriminate against the poor by banning bump stocks. It's better to control them under the NFA 1934 instead. Back when MG's were much cheaper (pre-1986) and the only additional cost was the $200 tax stamp, MG's were not a problem.
OK WA are saying its ok to have bump stocks but you need to register same as machine guns right?

are you complaining about the poor not having automatic firearm rate of rife or not?

Quote:
The rate of fire is the only thing that makes them comparable. A bump fire AR-15 really is crap compared to an M-16. If Paddock didn't have an 8 acre target to shoot at, he probably would have done little more than make lots of noise.
fully auto m16 isnt supposed to be that accurate. a bump stock is less accurate but im guessing more accurate than just holding the gun loosely

people can already bump fire for free as you said

bump stocks makes it easier and more accurate

paddock did have an 8 acre target and i can imagine many other situations where you have large similar targets even some where you dont have to shoot from long range
Quote:

They could be; allow registration of both and eliminate the tax.
ahh we shouldnt be banning bump stocks but we should be letting fully automatic guns be manufactured and registered again?

Quote:
I really doubt that the feds would treat gun owners with the same kind of kid gloves they're treating drug users in states that allow recreational pot now.
im talking the opposite way around. if democrats arent in a position to change federal laws classing bumpstocks under NFA at the moment they might be in a much better position in a few years once a good amount of states have banned them

Last edited by ginjawarrior; 28th January 2018 at 12:23 PM.
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 12:25 PM   #49
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Compared to. ...

I'd rather have a reliable weapon than a scary toy if I wanted to harm folks.
its all a matter of taste i guess as you wouldnt use them

yet paddock had a dozen of them..
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 12:40 PM   #50
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
OK WA are saying its ok to have bump stocks but you need to register same as machine guns right?
The bill is not law yet. The bill would add bump stocks to those guns controlled by RCW 9.41.190. That law currently allows SBR's that are registered including new ones. It also allows MG's registered with the feds which only includes those owned by the police military and FFL's in addition to those registered prior to 1986. Since the fed do not register bump stocks, they would be contraband for the little people in WA if the bill becomes law.

Quote:
are you complaining about the poor not having automatic firearm rate of rife or not?
I'm suggesting that limiting the availability of guns based on price is not a good idea.

Quote:
fully auto m16 isnt supposed to be that accurate. a bump stock is less accurate but im guessing more accurate than just holding the gun loosely

people can already bump fire for free as you said
While a bump stock rifle can be held firmly to the shoulder, the forend is still held with pressure forward instead of pulling it back. A recipe for poor accuracy in my opinion.

Quote:
bump stocks makes it easier and more accurate
Yes, but I've yet to see anyone say it is accurate at all. It would be better to say that a bump stock makes a rifle less terribly inaccurate than bump firing without one.

Quote:
ahh we shouldnt be banning bump stocks but we should be letting fully automatic guns be manufactured and registered again?
A suitable compromise might be to register both, so yes.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 12:55 PM   #51
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The bill is not law yet. The bill would add bump stocks to those guns controlled by RCW 9.41.190. That law currently allows SBR's that are registered including new ones. It also allows MG's registered with the feds which only includes those owned by the police military and FFL's in addition to those registered prior to 1986. Since the fed do not register bump stocks, they would be contraband for the little people in WA if the bill becomes law.
bump stocks arent able to be registered federally then they cant be registered in WA?

so it doesnt matter if your rich or poor in WA you cant register them? it affects both equally?


Quote:
While a bump stock rifle can be held firmly to the shoulder, the forend is still held with pressure forward instead of pulling it back. A recipe for poor accuracy in my opinion.


Yes, but I've yet to see anyone say it is accurate at all. It would be better to say that a bump stock makes a rifle less terribly inaccurate than bump firing without one.
right as you said paddock and his 8 acre target meant at the distance the lack of accuracy was negated

there are plenty of other situations where you have large groups of people and accuracy is second to rate of fire

Quote:
A suitable compromise might be to register both, so yes.
a compromise how? the state government is saying that automatic rates of fire shouldnt be let on the streets
how is making more auto guns in anyway towards that goal?
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 01:25 PM   #52
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
bump stocks arent able to be registered federally then they cant be registered in WA?

so it doesnt matter if your rich or poor in WA you cant register them? it affects both equally?
If the bill passes the poor man's version of full auto will be illegal. The "rich" man's version will still be legal but restricted.

Quote:
there are plenty of other situations where you have large groups of people and accuracy is second to rate of fire
And over 300 million people in the USA who have not demonstrated any willingness to use a bump stock that way.

Quote:
a compromise how? the state government is saying that automatic rates of fire shouldnt be let on the streets
how is making more auto guns in anyway towards that goal?
What the state wants and what I want are not always the same thing.

Actually the state (actually just the bill sponsors) doesn't want high rates of fire facilitated by a bump stock. Doing it some other ways is fine, for now. The original bill made any device that increased the rate of fire contraband. I suspect that the bill sponsors wanted to select just one bogeyman, the bump fire stock, to get enough support in committee.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 01:39 PM   #53
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,688
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
its all a matter of taste i guess as you wouldnt use them

yet paddock had a dozen of them..
As he should have been allowed to.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 01:51 PM   #54
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
If the bill passes the poor man's version of full auto will be illegal. The "rich" man's version will still be legal but restricted.
you're right they should just make both sorts illegal

Quote:
And over 300 million people in the USA who have not demonstrated any willingness to use a bump stock that way.
well now paddock killed himself yeah you're right. for now

im sure that will change soon enough due to copy cats
Quote:

What the state wants and what I want are not always the same thing.

Actually the state (actually just the bill sponsors) doesn't want high rates of fire facilitated by a bump stock. Doing it some other ways is fine, for now. The original bill made any device that increased the rate of fire contraband. I suspect that the bill sponsors wanted to select just one bogeyman, the bump fire stock, to get enough support in committee.
i suspect they wanted to do something about people being able to get unregulated full auto style weapons

the fact that they are allowing them on license as and when they can be registered federally doesnt look to be the boogeyman hunt you're claiming

if it was that it would be a flat ban
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 01:53 PM   #55
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
As he should have been allowed to.
should? he was allowed them.
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 02:28 PM   #56
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,688
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
should? he was allowed them.
And that should have happened
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 02:35 PM   #57
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,942
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
How does that import stuff for guns work in NZ? Is there a group of people or a single person who decides if something is suitable for sporting use? The sporting use criteria is used in the USA.
There is an approved firearms list held by the police. To bring in a gun or fire-arm you need to have the appropriate fire-arms category, and a police permit for that gun or firearm. Guns are inspected at customs to make sure that they comply with the permit and that the permit holder does have the correct licence category.

The Categories are:

A) Standard Firearms Licence. Allows non-military sports and hunting style rifles (i.e. not AR-15's, AK-47's, or anything with a pistol grip) and sport type shotguns. It also includes pre-charged pneumatic type airguns and explosive projectile launchers such as gas powered potato launchers.

B) Pistols Endorsement. Given only if a member of a Police approved Pistols and Handgun club. Can only transport Pistols between home and club, only use them at an approved club.

C) Collectors and Prop firearms Endorsement: This includes otherwise restricted weapons. Weapons held under this category must be deactivated and/or plugged.

D) Military Endorsement: Reserved for Military and Police personnel. Automatic weapons are allowable for work purposes only.

E) MSSA Endorsement: Military Style Semi Automatic rifles and semi automatic shotguns. Must show just cause for why these fire-arms are required. Self defence is not considered a justifiable reason for any category of fire-arm ownership.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 28th January 2018 at 02:42 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 08:25 PM   #58
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
the fact that they are allowing them on license as and when they can be registered federally doesnt look to be the boogeyman hunt you're claiming
WA might control bump fire stocks like MG's if the bill passes. While a MG can be registered with the feds and possessed in WA, the BATFE does not register bump stocks. This means a bump stock can't be owned by those in WA without a license.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2018, 10:40 PM   #59
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,686
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And that should have happened
Yeah, we get your position.

Fortunately most nations don't consider the freedom to commit mass murder as worth having.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 03:26 AM   #60
Lurch
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 378
So bump stocks degrade accuracy of fire. Their advocates decry
--nay, trumpet--this aspect, to the point of denigrating their capability as awfully inefficient as killing instruments. But out the other side of their mouths claim their utility at the firing range. But they're supposed to be so terrible at putting rounds on target. Well, other than the keeping ammo makers in business, the only other attraction must be the thrills at playing soldier, and imagining the mowing down of whole enemy divisions. Like I said; the gun-stroking set gets their rocks off on this kind of thing.

I get sick and tired of the stating of the fact that the great majority don't use their weapons to kill. The counter fact is that more than enough of them do. And we've seen what havoc just one person can wreak when high fire rates are employed; some 500 victims can attest eloquently enough to that.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 03:30 AM   #61
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,861
You are correct, Lurch. One doesn't need to be accurate when spraying bullets into a crowd.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 06:57 AM   #62
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
So bump stocks degrade accuracy of fire. Their advocates decry
--nay, trumpet--this aspect, to the point of denigrating their capability as awfully inefficient as killing instruments.
I think advocate is the wrong word here. An advocate will support rather than decry.

Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
But out the other side of their mouths claim their utility at the firing range.
Who is doing this?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 07:40 AM   #63
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 42,764
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What effect do you think it will have on crime in WA? Do you think it could save anyone's life at all?

If bump stocks were banned in NV I don't think they would have made a difference.
Yep no law can possibly do anything the only thing left is to rejoice in the uniquely american mass shooting "problem".
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 07:45 AM   #64
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 42,764
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
And yet if someone said "the blood of kids at an Arianna grande concert requires that we ban muslims ", suddenly you'd care about civil rights.
Banning people and banning guns are totally the same. Why australia committed genocide when it passed its gun laws. Worse than the holocaust that.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 08:20 AM   #65
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 213
Wink

Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
the fact that they are allowing them on license as and when they can be registered federally doesnt look to be the boogeyman hunt you're claiming

if it was that it would be a flat ban
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
WA might control bump fire stocks like MG's if the bill passes. While a MG can be registered with the feds and possessed in WA, the BATFE does not register bump stocks. This means a bump stock can't be owned by those in WA without a license.
as i said as and when they can be registered by the btfe with the other automatic weapons then you'll be perfectly fine using them in WA

maybe stop complaining about WA restricting and instead use that energy getting the BATFE to start registering bump stocks along with other full auto as they should be
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 08:39 AM   #66
Lurch
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think advocate is the wrong word here. An advocate will support rather than decry.


Who is doing this?
The decrying by the advocates is my way of saying that they want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand they pooh pooh the potential for harm because of awfully poor accuracy. "What killer in their right mind would hobble themselves with such a gimmicky device? So no need to regulate, and let us carry on with our orgiastic blasting away in our little make believe world?" And when a crazy like Paddock actually does harm, the refrain is, "Think how much worse it would have been with a *real* full auto arsenal!"

Well, the refrain should be, "Think how much less worse it would have been if weapons capable of high fire rates were not available?" And yeah, if necessary that includes semi-auto guns that can be handled so as to deliver a high cyclic rate without an add-on.

Does anyone have a stats--NOT including law enforcement--on the number of gunfire victims who were justifiably shot in the commission of a crime vs innocents and those otherwise unjustifiably shot? In other words, does the self defence stance hold water? Does the number of baddies taken out compensate for the number of non baddies? Is the gun used to deadly effect more often for its stated purpose of self defence than for offence against those undeserving?

It's a worthwhile question, because if it is the case that there are more illegal shootings than legal, the mentality that adopts the gun for defence makes for a larger number of guns in circulation which in turn makes for a larger number of improper uses. A death spiral, of sorts. Or MAD, if you will. And weapons that enhance the number of bullets in flight can only add to the carnage.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 08:50 AM   #67
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
as i said as and when they can be registered by the btfe with the other automatic weapons then you'll be perfectly fine using them in WA

maybe stop complaining about WA restricting and instead use that energy getting the BATFE to start registering bump stocks along with other full auto as they should be
I read the bill again and it seems that any person who is an FFL/SOT will be able to own a bump stock; registered or not.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 09:03 AM   #68
ginjawarrior
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I read the bill again and it seems that any person who is an FFL/SOT will be able to own a bump stock; registered or not.
does that mean this whole "outrage thread" is a big old nothing burger then?
ginjawarrior is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 09:05 AM   #69
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,453
Originally Posted by ginjawarrior View Post
does that mean this whole "outrage thread" is a big old nothing burger then?
FFLs are registered dealers, they don't make up a large percentage of gun owners. Getting a Federal Firearm License is not trivial.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2018, 05:16 PM   #70
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
The FFL is $200/3 years, the SOT is $1000/year. While they are issued on demand to anyone who fills out the application properly, they're still only intended for those who go into the gun business.

I used to be an FFL, not interested in obtaining another license to amass a personal collection.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 09:09 AM   #71
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 527
It's probably not a good idea to ban anything a lunatic uses to kill people. We won't have many legal things left at all once they are all banned. Even pillows can be used for murder most foul.
BrooklynBaby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 10:49 AM   #72
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,037
SB 5992 gets a House hearing on the 9th. It has until 2/26 to get out of the Rules Committee and onto the House floor; 3/2 to get a vote by the House. Even numbered years are short sessions.

If it has support from the House Judiciary Committee (it does) and the Rules Committee (most likely) then it will pass. The Governor is sure to sign the bill if it passes.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 11:05 AM   #73
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,053
Useless legislation.

Feelz good though.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 03:51 PM   #74
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,942
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
It's probably not a good idea to ban anything a lunatic uses to kill people. We won't have many legal things left at all once they are all banned. Even pillows can be used for murder most foul.
How many people can you kill with a pillow in a single event?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 04:04 PM   #75
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,615
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
How many people can you kill with a pillow in a single event?
About as many as you can kill with a pillow with a bump stock attached. Just like a semi-automatic rifle, ironically.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 04:33 PM   #76
Lurch
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Useless legislation.

Feelz good though.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 04:38 PM   #77
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,266
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
It's probably not a good idea to ban anything a lunatic uses to kill people. We won't have many legal things left at all once they are all banned. Even pillows can be used for murder most foul.
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
How many people can you kill with a pillow in a single event?
I am imagining some furious man flinging pillows out the broken window of his high-rise hotel room, becoming even more furious, wondering why it does not seem to be killing anybody.

"Why doesn't it work! I thought pillows were dangerous weapons! Waahhh!!!"
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 04:54 PM   #78
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,615
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
What thousand mile journey do you think this step embarks on? What do you think is the destination?

I ask because obviously there's no point in taking even a single step in a direction you don't want to go. So. What's the direction?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 07:58 PM   #79
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,942
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What thousand mile journey do you think this step embarks on? What do you think is the destination?

I ask because obviously there's no point in taking even a single step in a direction you don't want to go. So. What's the direction?
How about "To decrease US gun crime and mass shootings to the levels of other 1st world countries"?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 08:36 PM   #80
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,172
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
How about "To decrease US gun crime and mass shootings to the levels of other 1st world countries"?
Because just one more law will turn the tide.

Just like how penalty enhancements for crack cocaine stopped the crack epidemic dead in it's tracks.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.