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.
Reply
Old 4th October 2017, 02:20 PM   #161
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Well, yes, but there is a historic reason for the second amendment, one which involves the right to revolt. You might find that reason laughable, but it's a very real part of the discussion here. It can't be dismissed out of hand.
The idea that the Second Amendment involves the right to revolt requires ignoring the body of the Constitution where it states:

Quote:
The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Kestrel 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 4th October 2017, 02:22 PM   #162
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,475
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I am not dismissing it at all. Indeed, I am sure the well regulated militia part of the 2nd was the authors saying, keep all guns controlled by sensible people and away from unsuitable people.
Except that's not what "well regulated militia" means at all.

"Well regulated," in the sense that applied during that period, meant "well equipped."

The "militia" referred to the individual states' need, of being able to raise their own citizens under arms to deal with local and regional threats. Remember, at this time there was no National Guard. There was no standing army that could be deployed anywhere in the 13 states at a moment's notice. For everything from slave revolts to native raids to incursions by French and British troops, the states were their own first line of defense. And their own well-equipped citizens, raised as a militia in times of need, were their armed forces.

In this context, the other clause of the amendment becomes clear: Because the states need to have well armed citizens that they can call on to form a militia for security, the federal government is prohibited from infringing on the citizens' right to possess firearms.

And note the implication here, as well: The amendment explicitly recognizes that the right to bear arms exists--independently of the states' need to have an armed militia. The amendment gives one reason for not infringing upon that right. But there is an established body of constitutional law, that can be traced back to the written arguments of the Framers as they drafted the Constitution, that it is not necessary to list *all* the reasons, in order for the right to enjoy Constitutional protection. And there is an established body of constitutional law, that to infringe upon *any* right, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest, and no lesser infringement that adequately serves the interest.

I think you might have better luck making a "compelling interest" argument, rather than sticking on a misreading of the amendment.
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 4th October 2017, 02:29 PM   #163
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,912
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The idea that the Second Amendment involves the right to revolt requires ignoring the body of the Constitution where it states:
I'm afraid that I don't have any authority in interpreting that amendment. I'll defer to your argument, though it is also clear that others do not do so.
phiwum 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 4th October 2017, 02:29 PM   #164
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think you might have better luck making a "compelling interest" argument, rather than sticking on a misreading of the amendment.
A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Quote:
Thus, to call the first clause of the Second Amendment superfluous is to insult both Marshall and the framers. The “absolute” clause construction of the Second amendment was quite common at the time, and appears in many state constitutions and framing documents. The primary purpose in these constructions is to give the conditions under which the rest of the sentence is true or valid. As a prime example of the ablative absolute, the first clause of the Second Amendment may stand grammatically free, but serves semantically to modify or clarify the meaning of the rest of the sentence. The Framers were clearly familiar with the ablative absolute and used it not as rhetorical fluff or flourish, but as a way of clarifying intent, in this case clarifying that the right to bear arms is granted in the context and within the scope of establishing a militia. Nothing more, nothing less.
ETA: When one looks for articles on the grammar and syntax of the Second Amendment, one can find a variety of opinions. The position of the commas, and how commas were used in 1789 vs how they are used today can result in very different understandings of the connection between the first (well regulated militia) and second (shall not be infringed) clauses. I've used it in technical writing courses as an example of unclear writing.

Last edited by crescent; 4th October 2017 at 02:34 PM.
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 4th October 2017, 02:40 PM   #165
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
This is where the cultural part comes in. I hate, truly hate that the ownership of military equivalent guns has become so normalized in society. I hate that preparing for war with our government is seen as a normal and acceptable thing to do in an increasingly large segment of society.
That normalization is the result of a long term effort by the NRA with help from the firearms industry. The NRA has grown increasing strident, nasty and anti social since the organization was taken over by Harlan Carter in the late 1970s. They have gone from being an education organization and advocacy group for sportsman to being the lobbying and propaganda arm of the militia movement.
Kestrel 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 4th October 2017, 02:40 PM   #166
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,971
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
They do not have anywhere near the gun problem that the US has, but they do have more of a gun problem than countries with far fewer guns.
There's that pesky correlation between ease let f access to guns and incensed successful suicide rate. That seems to be the biggest part of their gun problem.
Stacko 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 4th October 2017, 02:42 PM   #167
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Just a note: you linked to an article by:
"Mark Moe is a retired English teacher. Colorado Voices is an annual competition among writers vying for the opportunity to publish columns of regional interest in The Denver Post."

Without being too snobby, I think I'll stick to the SCOTUS view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller
Giz 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 4th October 2017, 02:56 PM   #168
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,646
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
Indeed? Which of them are "the necromongers who feel naked and afraid unless they can kill 50 people in seconds." There are people who believe that their liberties are best maintained and protected by being armed. There are people who believe that state and federal government agencies and policy do not adequately protect them and their rights. These people often act in ways that we think are extreme and irrational. It does not, however, make them "necromongers who feel naked and afraid unless they can kill 50 people in seconds."
And the Right no longer has a monopoly on people who fell that way. Since November, you have seen a number of what amounts to Left Wing Miltias form.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 4th October 2017, 03:01 PM   #169
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
There's that pesky correlation between ease let f access to guns and incensed successful suicide rate. That seems to be the biggest part of their gun problem.
The data from Australia rather clearly showed that decreasing the number of guns lowered the firearms suicide rate but did not increase suicides by other methods. Strong evidence against the idea that without firearms people will just resort to other methods.

A related factor is when the suicidal person decides to take others with them. The easy availability of firearms makes the suicide easy, fast and certain.
Kestrel 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 4th October 2017, 03:04 PM   #170
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,646
There seems to be some mommentun in Congress for a ban on Bump Stocks.

This might be tempting for some in the GOP because it gives them a chance to be seen as
"doing something" about the gun issue,while not really upsetting most gun owners. Be interesting to see how the NRA reacts to this. NRA tactic has been to lay low right after a mass shooting but when a few weeks have passed to start the screaming about "Jack booted thugs coming to take away your guns".
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 4th October 2017, 03:32 PM   #171
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,100
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
"doing something" about the gun issue,while not really upsetting most gun owners.
You may be underestimating the "upset" of gun owners and activists if bump stocks move towards a banning. I read about what is regarded as a "slippery slope" where a successful ban of something leads to more bans and then next comes a ban on gun ownership. A powerful lobby wants to make sure that nothing is even teetering on that proposed slope.

The idea is to never throw any bone to the gun (and accessories) control dogs because that will start the slippery slide towards an abolishment of the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 4th October 2017, 03:39 PM   #172
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You may be underestimating the "upset" of gun owners and activists if bump stocks move towards a banning. I read about what is regarded as a "slippery slope" where a successful ban of something leads to more bans and then next comes a ban on gun ownership. A powerful lobby wants to make sure that nothing is even teetering on that proposed slope.

The idea is to never throw any bone to the gun (and accessories) control dogs because that will start the slippery slide towards an abolishment of the 2nd Amendment.
There's certainly some truth to that. But there are a couple of areas where folks have done cheeky end-runs round the legislation (bumpstocks and "stabilizer fins" - i.e. have a stock on a pistol without needing to register as an SBR) that could perhaps be framed as "closing loopholes" rather than "a new ban".
Giz 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 4th October 2017, 03:49 PM   #173
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,141
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
There's certainly some truth to that. But there are a couple of areas where folks have done cheeky end-runs round the legislation (bumpstocks and "stabilizer fins" - i.e. have a stock on a pistol without needing to register as an SBR) that could perhaps be framed as "closing loopholes" rather than "a new ban".
Some of the more...exuberant...pro-gun voices, like the NAGR, will definitely try to spin the slippery slope thing.

But honestly, bump stocks are so phenomenally useless as an accessory that I don't see a lot of organized opposition to a ban unless the NRA decides to go whole-hog on it.
__________________
"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 4th October 2017, 04:04 PM   #174
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You may be underestimating the "upset" of gun owners and activists if bump stocks move towards a banning. I read about what is regarded as a "slippery slope" where a successful ban of something leads to more bans and then next comes a ban on gun ownership. A powerful lobby wants to make sure that nothing is even teetering on that proposed slope.

The idea is to never throw any bone to the gun (and accessories) control dogs because that will start the slippery slide towards an abolishment of the 2nd Amendment.
Slippery slope arguments are a classic logical fallacy. They are also at the core of many pro gun arguments.

If bump fire stocks are banned then before long the jack booted thugs will be kicking in your door to take away the family shotgun.
Kestrel 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 4th October 2017, 04:07 PM   #175
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,100
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
Some of the more...exuberant...pro-gun voices, like the NAGR, will definitely try to spin the slippery slope thing.

But honestly, bump stocks are so phenomenally useless as an accessory that I don't see a lot of organized opposition to a ban unless the NRA decides to go whole-hog on it.
I wonder if the time to go whole-hog on it is when you have a Donald Trump president in office.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 4th October 2017, 04:26 PM   #176
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,475
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I wonder if the time to go whole-hog on it is when you have a Donald Trump president in office.
Probably not. Trump is ideologically... inconsistent, at best. And he doesn't really have the support of the GOP, which is what the NRA really needs, if it's going to influence legislation. Getting him to stay on task would be a difficult proposition. It's not like they can be confident he'll stick to any deal they might try to make.
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 4th October 2017, 05:06 PM   #177
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
This might be tempting for some in the GOP because it gives them a chance to be seen as "doing something" about the gun issue,while not really upsetting most gun owners. Be interesting to see how the NRA reacts to this. NRA tactic has been to lay low right after a mass shooting but when a few weeks have passed to start the screaming about "Jack booted thugs coming to take away your guns".
Doing something. What a crock. Banning slide fire stocks would be like banning black anodizing on the aluminum receivers.

So what they going to do when they finally find out that bump firing is still entirely possible with a standard stock and people have been doing it all along? Probably scream LOOPHOLE!!!! Bump fire loophole. Idiots.
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 4th October 2017, 05:12 PM   #178
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,934
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I'm fairly certain most hunters who use silencers care about the noise reduction. Who have you asked?
Who cares? What is the significance of a hunter wanting a silencer compared to the public good of banning them? It's okay if hunters have to live without silencers. Their concerns don't matter.
Craig4 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 4th October 2017, 05:13 PM   #179
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Slippery slope arguments are a classic logical fallacy. They are also at the core of many pro gun arguments.
It depends upon the bill language. What if they ban anything that uses the firearm's inertia to cause the trigger to function faster? That would restrict just about every firearm (rifle and handgun) that uses a spring loaded bolt or slide to load the chamber.

It will be like trying to restrict ammunition that will penetrate soft body armor; in other words most center fire hunting ammo.

Here is bump firing a semi-auto pistol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F__tcYYBmTo
Yeah, I think it's silly.
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 4th October 2017, 05:17 PM   #180
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,329
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Who cares? What is the significance of a hunter wanting a silencer compared to the public good of banning them? It's okay if hunters have to live without silencers. Their concerns don't matter.
Depends, what is the public good in banning them? They don't disguise a gunshot, they just lessen it so it doesn't travel as far. For those that are near shooting ranges or hunting areas, the public good in having them and lessening the sounds of gunfire are probably greater than any perceived issue of criminals using them. The Hollywood silencer that turns a gunshot into a pfft is a myth.
__________________

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 4th October 2017, 05:18 PM   #181
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Who cares? What is the significance of a hunter wanting a silencer compared to the public good of banning them? It's okay if hunters have to live without silencers. Their concerns don't matter.
I care, so do many others. I know you don't, but what rational reason do you have for banning them? I've heard lots of imaginative speculation backed up with nonexistent "facts" that people made up; but nothing with any substance. Got anything to add other than your personal feelings on the matter?

Silencers have never been illegal in the USA and have been readily available to anyone who wants them; legal or otherwise. But I'm thinking you can't find more than a few cases of people misusing them.

So who matters when it comes to being concerned about them? Why are you or anyone else more important then those who benefit from silencer use? It is not only the shooter that benefits; hope you understand that.

Last edited by Ranb; 4th October 2017 at 05:20 PM.
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 4th October 2017, 05:23 PM   #182
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,100
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The Hollywood silencer that turns a gunshot into a pfft is a myth.
The sound that I've heard in the movies is pyerp.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 4th October 2017, 05:24 PM   #183
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,934
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I care, so do many others. I know you don't, but what rational reason do you have for banning them? I've heard lots of imaginative speculation backed up with nonexistent "facts" that people made up; but nothing with any substance. Got anything to add other than your personal feelings on the matter?

Silencers have never been illegal in the USA and have been readily available to anyone who wants them; legal or otherwise. But I'm thinking you can't find more than a few cases of people misusing them.

So who matters when it comes to being concerned about them? Why are you or anyone else more important then those who benefit from silencer use? It is not only the shooter that benefits; hope you understand that.
Your silly little hobby is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Craig4 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 4th October 2017, 05:28 PM   #184
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,329
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Your silly little hobby is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
You still have failed to produce a valid reason for why that sacrifice should be made. It's like saying that all off-road tyres should be banned because car accidents.
__________________

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 4th October 2017, 05:36 PM   #185
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Your silly little hobby is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Your argument is no more logical than some of the racist arguments I've encountered on the forum. The "just because" argument never ever works; should never be acceptable on this forum. I'm only trashing your argument; not you.
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 4th October 2017, 05:36 PM   #186
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
So what they going to do when they finally find out that bump firing is still entirely possible with a standard stock and people have been doing it all along? Probably scream LOOPHOLE!!!! Bump fire loophole. Idiots.
It is harder to figure out to do it right without the stock. It is harder to do it longer periods of time.

Without one, I doubt the guy in Vegas could have killed 58 people as quickly and from the same distance that he did.

It makes it harder - that's enough.
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 4th October 2017, 05:39 PM   #187
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,475
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Your silly little hobby is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
You're willing to make for what benefit?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
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 4th October 2017, 05:43 PM   #188
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
It is harder to figure out to do it right without the stock. It is harder to do it longer periods of time.

Without one, I doubt the guy in Vegas could have killed 58 people as quickly and from the same distance that he did.

It makes it harder - that's enough.
I've bump fired AR-15's with and without slide fire stocks. Both are a skill that has to be learned. I've watched too many gun videos on youtube over the last few days to see if I could come up with anything to counter my own personal experiences.

After watching much more crap than I ever want to watch again, I'm not able to find enough evidence to convince me that a slide fire stock significantly improves the rate of fire when an AR-15 with a standard or light weight trigger (</=6 pounds) is bump fired. Just about every video out there shows failures to fire for one reason or another while trying to dump a 30 round mag.

What is your personal experience with bump firing an ar-15 with and without a slide fire stock?

Last edited by Ranb; 4th October 2017 at 05:45 PM.
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 4th October 2017, 05:44 PM   #189
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You're willing to make for what benefit?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
It's nice that you love your hobby enough to allow people the weapons they need to kill people who are not you.

Here's the question of the moment: Without being able to buy slide-stocks at Cabela's or god-knows how many other retailers, could he have killed as many people as he did?

I get that he could have bump fired without one. But would he have had the accuracy and endurance that he did?

I get that he could have made his own. He had 12 of them in the room, according to current reports. Would have made some of his own? Would they have worked as well as the ones from Cabela's?

How many people get to die so people can play around with devices designed to mimic illegal devices?
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 4th October 2017, 05:46 PM   #190
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What is your personal experience with bump firing an ar-15 with and without a slide fire stock?
My personal experience is seeing the customer reviews, and watching some of the same videos you probably watched - and seeing people state over and over again how much easier it is with the slide-stock. I get that you have your experience - but you were not the shooter, you are not the people who wrote the customer reviews or in the videos who said it was much easier with the stock than without.

Were they lying?
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 4th October 2017, 05:48 PM   #191
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I get that he could have bump fired without one. But would he have had the accuracy and endurance that he did?
Sure he could. Both require a loose hold on the rifle.

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
How many people get to die so people can play around with devices designed to mimic illegal devices?
What illegal devices are you talking about? Machine guns have never been illegal in Nevada.
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 4th October 2017, 05:52 PM   #192
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Sure he could. Both require a loose hold on the rifle.
Then why did he have 12 of them?

Quote:
What illegal devices are you talking about? Machine guns have never been illegal in Nevada.
They are illegal without the correct federal permit, which he did not have.
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 4th October 2017, 05:52 PM   #193
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
My personal experience is seeing the customer reviews, and watching some of the same videos you probably watched - and seeing people state over and over again how much easier it is with the slide-stock. I get that you have your experience - but you were not the shooter, you are not the people who wrote the customer reviews or in the videos who said it was much easier with the stock than without.

Were they lying?
I don't think they were lying. But I have also used a slide fire stock. THEY SUCK!

How often do people go on Youtube to talk about how much a product they spent >$100 sucks? Probably not often.
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 4th October 2017, 05:54 PM   #194
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
It's nice that you love your hobby enough to allow people the weapons they need to kill people who are not you.
Is that how you try and persuade people?

Jeez, the sanctimonious shaming makes me want to contribute ... to the NRA.
Giz 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 4th October 2017, 05:55 PM   #195
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Then why did he have 12 of them?
Because he preferred to shoot with them? Why do you think he had them?

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
They are illegal without the correct federal permit, which he did not have.
Wrong again. No permit or license required in Nevada. Just a tax stamp; the stamp is only proof the tax was paid.

Do you tell people it's illegal to drive on public roads because they need a license to do so? Probably not; so why are you pulling this crap with guns?
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 4th October 2017, 06:05 PM   #196
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Is that how you try and persuade people?

Jeez, the sanctimonious shaming makes me want to contribute ... to the NRA.
Because I am done with this BS. As far as I am concerned, the NRA is just as guilty as he is. So are you folks. They used to be good sportsman's group, but that era died long ago. Now all they do is promote fear and discord.

The thing is, I'm not even anti-gun. I used to hunt quail and pheasant. I used to go to ranges. I'll still help local people find places to hunt, if they ask. I never felt the slightest need for any psuedo-military posturing, or the need to be prepared for a civil war against the government I helped elect.

What I am against it the crazies who support a hyper-armed hyper-paranoid society. They cause these things to happen by enabling people like this, just like the person who loans a meth addict $20 for a "cup of coffee".

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Because he preferred to shoot with them? Why do you think he had them?


Wrong again. No permit or license required in Nevada. Just a tax stamp; the stamp is only proof the tax was paid.

Do you tell people it's illegal to drive on public roads because they need a license to do so? Probably not; so why are you pulling this crap with guns?
Tax stamp, permit, its the same thing - without the tax stamp it is illegal (not permitted) to have them. They are intended to regulate the supply, given that no new automatics are available. Did he have a tax stamp? If not, it was illegal for him to have an automatic.
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 4th October 2017, 06:14 PM   #197
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,475
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
It's nice that you love your hobby enough to allow people the weapons they need to kill people who are not you.

Here's the question of the moment: Without being able to buy slide-stocks at Cabela's or god-knows how many other retailers, could he have killed as many people as he did?
You're talking about slide stocks. Craig is talking about silencers. Try to keep up.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
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 4th October 2017, 06:23 PM   #198
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Without one, I doubt the guy in Vegas could have killed 58 people as quickly and from the same distance that he did.
I don't have much experience with an M-16 on full auto, but the one time I dumped (from a firm prone position) a magazine into a 200 yard berm I was told my groups was two feet wide and ten feet high ; it was a tall berm.

Based on my personal experiences with bump fire and from what I've seen online; it's very inaccurate. Much less accurate then holding a machine gun firmly into the shoulder and dumping the mag. I would not be surprised if many bullet impacts outside of the concert area are found, if the police even look.

Slower semi-auto/non-bump firing into the crowd using less ammo but placed with better accuracy might have resulted in more casualties. You don't need the word of this gun nut; even the Brady Campaign likes to claim that semi-auto fire is more dangerous than full auto. Not about to track down that quote though.
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 4th October 2017, 06:29 PM   #199
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,588
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
The thing is, I'm not even anti-gun. I used to hunt quail and pheasant. I used to go to ranges. I'll still help local people find places to hunt, if they ask. I never felt the slightest need for any psuedo-military posturing, or the need to be prepared for a civil war against the government I helped elect.
With a shotgun? A 12 gauge? An evil military grade shotgun? That is the attitude of some people out there. Why is it only the guns you own are acceptable?

What if I wanted to quail hunt with a suppressed 12 gauge to conserve my hearing and be less of a bother to others nearby? Would that make me a bad person?

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Tax stamp, permit, its the same thing
Not according to the feds.

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
- without the tax stamp it is illegal (not permitted) to have them.
He could have obtained a license instead of a tax stamp.

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
They are intended to regulate the supply, given that no new automatics are available. Did he have a tax stamp? If not, it was illegal for him to have an automatic.
New ones are available with a license.

ETA; Oops it seems I got mixed up on the silencer/slide fire argument also.

Last edited by Ranb; 4th October 2017 at 06:32 PM.
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 4th October 2017, 06:35 PM   #200
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,359
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
After watching much more crap than I ever want to watch again, I'm not able to find enough evidence to convince me that a slide fire stock significantly improves the rate of fire... I have also used a slide fire stock. THEY SUCK!
If they are that useless then why should you care if they are banned?

I personally don't care one way or the other. However I would be opposed to banning effective weapons. Less than 50,000 people are shot in the US each year, which is not nearly enough.

Originally Posted by theprestige
Except that's not what "well regulated militia" means at all.

"Well regulated," in the sense that applied during that period, meant "well equipped."
Exactly. No doubt they wanted the militia to be well equipped with the most modern weaponry available. Today that would include machine guns and rockets launchers, tomorrow it might be lazers or hand-held nuclear weapons. According the 2nd amendment, all of these should be available without restriction.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 05:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.