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, 06:41 PM   #201
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,651
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
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.
That is why I put "doing something" in quotes. it gives the appreace of doing something when in reality doing nothing.
__________________
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, 06:42 PM   #202
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If they are that useless then why should you care if they are banned?
Suck and useless are not the same thing. I also explained why I cared in post #179.

Do you think that spraying lots of ammo with a sloppy grip on a rifle at long range is more or less effective than a firm steady hold while aiming each shot? Based on my experience, I'd go with aiming each shot. Less ammo, less time, more casualties.
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, 06:43 PM   #203
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
That is why I put "doing something" in quotes. it gives the appreace of doing something when in reality doing nothing.
Thanks. My post was aimed at anyone who thinks banning a slide fire stock is doing something meaningful.
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, 06:45 PM   #204
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,337
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
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.

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.
I have to admit that unless there is a really good reason that no-one should have access to a weapon, then rather then outright banning them, a restriction on who can have them is better, with those that want them needing to show a good reason why they should be allowed to have them.
__________________

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, 06:45 PM   #205
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,829
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
ETA; Oops it seems I got mixed up on the silencer/slide fire argument also.
Heh. I don't actually object to silencers either. They are useful in the preservation of hearing, and make for good neighbors where shooting areas are close to residences.

I went hunting with my Dad's 12 gauge with a tubular magazine, I think it held 1/2 dozen shells - he's still got in a closet somewhere. I don't object to those, because they are useful for hunting and don't have a huge usefulness in warfare. We would go out to relative's farms in Eastern Colorado. We never actually got anything (these days I go fishing with my kids, and we joke about the difference between "fishing" and "catching"). It was mostly just an excuse to go for an early morning walk and visit relatives in the country.

That old shotgun is unlike a weapon with a 30 shot detachable magazine modified to be functionally automatic. Reasonable people can see the difference.

Last edited by crescent; 4th October 2017 at 06:47 PM.
crescent is online now   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, 07:02 PM   #206
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
That old shotgun is unlike a weapon with a 30 shot detachable magazine modified to be functionally automatic. Reasonable people can see the difference.
Some "reasonable people" think that all guns are either too big (magnum rifles, 50 cal), too small (pocket pistols), too loud (after moving near a range), too quiet (assassins/silencers), too black (beats me, it happened on ISF), no sporting use (handguns designed for hunting/Olympics), or just too whatever. They can't wrap their head about the fact that other opinions matter. Many of these people vote, some of them hold office.
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, 07:16 PM   #207
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,265
Originally Posted by crescent View Post

That old shotgun is unlike a weapon with a 30 shot detachable magazine modified to be functionally automatic. Reasonable people can see the difference.
Not functionally automatic.
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 4th October 2017, 07:34 PM   #208
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,359
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Do you think that spraying lots of ammo with a sloppy grip on a rifle at long range is more or less effective than a firm steady hold while aiming each shot? Based on my experience, I'd go with aiming each shot. Less ammo, less time, more casualties.
Depends on the situation. Aiming each shot might not be so effective when firing into a crowd. And shooting to kill might not be the most effective strategy. Just spray bullets everywhere, then pick off the wounded at close range if you have time.
__________________
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
Old 4th October 2017, 07:40 PM   #209
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,463
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

Last edited by zooterkin; 5th October 2017 at 05:08 AM.
Darth Rotor 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, 07:45 PM   #210
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Depends on the situation. Aiming each shot might not be so effective when firing into a crowd. And shooting to kill might not be the most effective strategy. Just spray bullets everywhere, then pick off the wounded at close range if you have time.
I was talking about the present situation. Dumping a mag with full auto or bump fire makes for a terrible sight picture. These mag dumps or spray and pray as they're called have little place in combat unless the soldier is able to effectively employ it as a type of suppressive fire. Any other experienced shooters might want to offer up their own opinions on it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the shooter was missing the intend target area a lot.
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, 08:04 PM   #211
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I was talking about the present situation. Dumping a mag with full auto or bump fire makes for a terrible sight picture. These mag dumps or spray and pray as they're called have little place in combat unless the soldier is able to effectively employ it as a type of suppressive fire. Any other experienced shooters might want to offer up their own opinions on it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the shooter was missing the intend target area a lot.
Right. Got it. Paddock was a total noob! Problem is, I don't think he cared if the collective internet/world saddled his legacy with this pejorative. The man had a job to do.
Elagabalus 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, 08:05 PM   #212
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12
So views you disagree with= trolling?

Last edited by zooterkin; 5th October 2017 at 05:08 AM.
Hercules56 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, 08:08 PM   #213
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post

What you propose will ban any firearm with auto load capability, multiple barrels or even revolvers. I think all that would be left are the single shots and manual bolt guns.
Negative.

Banning bump stocks and other tools that allow rapid firing would simply require persons pull the trigger each time a round is shot.
Hercules56 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, 08:10 PM   #214
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Based upon the content of your OP, I thought you had never handled or owned a gun in your life with the possible exception of a muzzle loading revolver or rifle.

What do you own/shoot?
I have fired many types of guns.

Shotguns, 22LR rifles, AR-15, various bolt action.

I own two guns and I don't feel like telling you what kind they are.

I've been shooting guns since age 18, which means 23 years.

Funny how gun extremists believe if you support gun regulations you MUST be deathly afraid of firearms and never touched one.
Hercules56 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, 08:13 PM   #215
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,463
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
So views you disagree with= trolling?
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

Last edited by zooterkin; 5th October 2017 at 05:08 AM.
Darth Rotor 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, 08:13 PM   #216
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Is every car owner responsible for the idiots who plow through crowds with lorries?

Your statement is nonsensical. You're not responsible for the actions of others. Look, I'm deathly scared of guns, but I don't deny people their right to own weapons for defense, sport or leisure. I am, however, in favour of sensible gun control measures.
Comparing automobiles to guns is dishonest and silly.

Guns are designed to kill human beings.

Automobiles are not.

I urge Conservatives to cease making these insane analogies.
Hercules56 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, 08:19 PM   #217
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,463
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
So views you disagree with= trolling?
And you give Argumemnon grief for being dishonest and silly?
Pol, meet kettle. Try being honest, for a change. It would be soooo cool.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor 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, 08:24 PM   #218
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
And you give Argumemnon grief for being dishonest and silly?
Pol, meet kettle. Try being honest, for a change. It would be soooo cool.
I don't appreciate your hostility. Not sure what's troubling you but it ain't my fault.
Hercules56 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, 08:34 PM   #219
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Negative.
Really? How did you determine this?

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Banning bump stocks and other tools that allow rapid firing would simply require persons pull the trigger each time a round is shot.
All that is required to bump fire a gun is a spring loaded bolt/slide and enough recoil to rock the gun back and forth against the trigger finger. Look on Youtube for videos showing people bump firing without a slide stock.

This means for example, an AR-15 chambered in 223 or 9mm will readily bump fire without a slide stock. It also means it is the slide or buffer spring that is the "tool" which allows rapid firing. So explain how your suggestion is not a ban on semi-auto guns.

Why are you concerned about slide fire stocks when they are not needed for rapid bump firing?

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I have fired many types of guns.
Then why is it you appear to know very little about them?

Last edited by Ranb; 4th October 2017 at 08:39 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, 08:39 PM   #220
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Right. Got it. Paddock was a total noob! Problem is, I don't think he cared if the collective internet/world saddled his legacy with this pejorative. The man had a job to do.
What does this have to do with the argument that a superfluous accessory like a slide stock on an AR-15 should banned?
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, 08:41 PM   #221
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Really? How did you determine this?


All that is required to bump fire a gun is a spring loaded bolt/slide and enough recoil to rock the gun back and forth against the trigger finger. Look on Youtube for videos showing people bump firing without a slide stock.

This means for example, an AR-15 chambered in 223 or 9mm will readily bump fire without a slide stock. It also means it is the slide or buffer spring that is the "tool" which allows rapid firing. So explain how your suggestion is not a ban on semi-auto guns.

Why are you concerned about slide fire stocks when they are not needed for rapid bump firing?


Then why is it you appear to know very little about them?
Bump fire stocks facilitate very rapid fireing of assault weapons.

No? Don't tell me you're going to bring up rubber bands and the silly message exchange with the ATF.
Hercules56 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, 08:43 PM   #222
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What does this have to do with the argument that a superfluous accessory like a slide stock on an AR-15 should banned?
Yes, you can bumpfire an AK or AR simply using the loop in your trousers.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Slidefire stock can turn many semi-autos into a virtual fully automatic gun and such are regulated by the NFA.

The Slidefire stock circumvents the NFA and it should be illegal or at the very least, placed under the NFA.
Hercules56 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, 08:51 PM   #223
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Bump fire stocks facilitate very rapid fireing of assault weapons.
Everyone in this thread already knows this.

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
No? Don't tell me you're going to bring up rubber bands and the silly message exchange with the ATF.
Nope. Hold the rifle stock against the shoulder with the trigger finger hooked around the trigger taking up the slack. Pull forward with the left hand causing the trigger to be pulled. The recoil of the rifle allows the trigger/sear to reset while constant pressure forward with the left hand moves the rifle forward again to depress the trigger again. Rifle fires until the mag empties. Similar technique works with handguns.

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Yes, you can bumpfire an AK or AR simply using the loop in your trousers.
So? Why not bump fire from the shoulder without a slidefire stock instead?

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
But that doesn't change the fact that the Slidefire stock can turn many semi-autos into a virtual fully automatic gun and such are regulated by the NFA.
Not even close. Bump fire is still legally defined as semi-auto. A machine gun uses a completely different mode of fire.

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
The Slidefire stock circumvents the NFA and it should be illegal or at the very least, placed under the NFA.
The BATFE says it doesn't. Who am I going to believe here?

Last edited by Ranb; 4th October 2017 at 08:54 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, 08:55 PM   #224
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Everyone in this thread already knows this.


Nope. Hold the rifle stock against the shoulder with the trigger finger hooked around the trigger taking up the slack. Pull forward with the left hand causing the trigger to be pulled. The recoil of the rifle allows the trigger/sear to reset while constant pressure forward with the left hand moves the rifle forward again to depress the trigger again. Rifle fires until the mag empties. Similar technique works with handguns.
The NFA regulates the possession and sale of fully automatic firearms. This is because we as a society have decided that such weapons, when not in the hands of the military or law enforcement, should be strictly controlled due to their highly deadly nature. The extreme nature of these weapons was made clear as day in Las Vegas.

The Slidefire stock and any other attachment that facilitates rapid fire circumvents the intent of the NFA's regulation of fully automatic firearms. That's why they should either be banned or put under the regulation of the NFA.
Hercules56 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, 09:00 PM   #225
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
The Slidefire stock and any other attachment that facilitates rapid fire circumvents the intent of the NFA's regulation of fully automatic firearms. That's why they should either be banned or put under the regulation of the NFA.
Let's say a bill is passed and slide fire stocks are banned or put under the control of the NFA. So what happens when people shooting semi-auto rifles bump fire them using nothing but the proper hold on the stock and forend like they've been doing for decades? What about bump firing handguns?

Will you call for the banning of the buffer or slide springs that make this possible?
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, 09:00 PM   #226
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What does this have to do with the argument that a superfluous accessory like a slide stock on an AR-15 should banned?
You tell me. In your previous posts you (and some other posters) seem to be implying that since Paddock wasn't a real shooter - it doesn't count.
Elagabalus 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, 09:03 PM   #227
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Miracles do sometimes happen.

It appears the GOP leadership in Congress may accept a law banning bump stocks and other attachments that facilitate rapid fire.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/u...=top-news&_r=0

"Top congressional Republicans, who have for decades resisted any legislative limits on guns, signaled on Wednesday that they would be open to banning the firearm accessory that the Las Vegas gunman used to transform his rifles to mimic automatic weapon fire."
Hercules56 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, 09:05 PM   #228
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
You tell me.
What you're thinking is a mystery to me, so I need more data from you. I don't feel like guessing on this one.

Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
In your previous posts you (and some other posters) seem to be implying that since Paddock wasn't a real shooter - it doesn't count.
You're misunderstanding what I wrote. He was shooting; makes him a real shooter, whatever that means to you.

I suggested that rapid firing instead of a more controlled method of aiming/shooting resulted in fewer casualties.
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, 09:09 PM   #229
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 8,597
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
It appears the GOP leadership in Congress may accept a law banning bump stocks and other attachments that facilitate rapid fire.
Can you explain what this will do for rapid firing rifles? Let's say the slide fire stocks go away and people resume what they simply did in the past; bump firing without the slide fire stock. What as been accomplished by banning these stock?

I think banning the slide fire stocks will be just as effective at reducing the rate of fire on an AR-15 as banning the black colored anodizing that is so popular. In other words, no effect at all.

If you read the rest of the posts in the thread you started you might not be making these fundamental errors in your arguments.

Last edited by Ranb; 4th October 2017 at 09:13 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, 09:30 PM   #230
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,138
Well first they will ban those stocks. That will start the slide down the slippery slope. Then they'll realize that people can just learn to bump fire for the same result. Then they'll make the behavior of bump firing illegal like drunk driving is illegal. Then they'll realize that they can't stop anyone from bump firing and so they'll just ban firearms altogether.

It's the slippery slope that cannot be allowed to begin.
__________________
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, 09:50 PM   #231
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,684
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
You're misunderstanding what I wrote. He was shooting; makes him a real shooter, whatever that means to you.
To be fair, I think he is distinguishing between a gun enthusiast, i.e. the oft claimed "good guy with a gun" like you or me (a "real" shooter), and this crazed loon whose sole reason for owning 40 guns and a dozen bump-stocks was to try to wound and kill as many people as he could in the shortest possible time

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Can you explain what this will do for rapid firing rifles? Let's say the slide fire stocks go away and people resume what they simply did in the past; bump firing without the slide fire stock. What as been accomplished by banning these stock
OK, correct me if I'm wrong (because I have never used a bump stock) but AIUI using a bump stock to attain a machine-gun like performance is much easier than bump firing it manually. Some years ago, I tried to bump-fire an FN 7.62. It was not easy to do; I was able to get off about 3 or 4 rounds really quickly, but I couldn't keep it up (except for the barrel... it was bloody difficult stopping it from going up!). Plus, it was only marginally faster than pulling the trigger as quickly as I could. I imagine manually bump-firing is a skill that is harder to master than using a bump stock. Yes?

If so, then while banning bump-stocks wont stop people from manually bumping, but it will make it less likely that someone who doesn't have skills (e.g. a crazed loon in a 32nd floor hotel room shooting out the window at a crowd of 22,000) to be able to attain the same rate of fire and keep control of the firearm.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky 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, 10:30 PM   #232
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,436
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Miracles do sometimes happen.

It appears the GOP leadership in Congress may accept a law banning bump stocks and other attachments that facilitate rapid fire.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/u...=top-news&_r=0

"Top congressional Republicans, who have for decades resisted any legislative limits on guns, signaled on Wednesday that they would be open to banning the firearm accessory that the Las Vegas gunman used to transform his rifles to mimic automatic weapon fire."
Now only criminals will have bump stock. So many police officers are saved each year by armed citizens, but now innocent people will die because law abiding citizens will be disarmed, unable to shoot 100 rounds in 8 seconds. You guys are playing right into the tentacles of the hostile robot aliens. Idiots.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain 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, 10:32 PM   #233
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If so, then while banning bump-stocks wont stop people from manually bumping, but it will make it less likely that someone who doesn't have skills (e.g. a crazed loon in a 32nd floor hotel room shooting out the window at a crowd of 22,000) to be able to attain the same rate of fire and keep control of the firearm.
The crazed loon in Las Vegas apparently learned from the crazed loon in Aurora, Colorado. He found more reliable large capacity magazines and took multiple guns so he could keep firing after a jam. The next loon will be looking for bump fire stocks, following the example of the Las Vegas loon.

Right now he can buy them over the counter for $99 each. A ban would force him to find a black market dealer and pay a much higher price. It also increases the chances that he will attract LE attention.
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, 10:46 PM   #234
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,048
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Let me save you a headache or two.

Gun Right Enthusiasts: Nuh uh, they wouldn't help anything in this situation. Nothing could have been done, this is a terrible tragedy, thoughts and prayers.

Gun Control Enthusiasts:
Uh huh, we have to start somewhere. If x wasn't allowed to be sold then the toll would have been reduced.
Every time some gun nut goes to the range or jerks off with their AK-47, they're stepping over the bodies of the concert goers in Las Vegas or the elementary school students in Sandy Hook. When you engage in your stupid little hobby you pretend is a civil right, it's like you put a gun to the head of a six-year-old in Sandy Hook and squeezed the trigger.

Where x = whatever terrible item was used this time.
FTFY
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris 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, 11:12 PM   #235
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,951
So what about the idea of taxing guns the way we tax cigarettes ?

Guns in the general population create externalities of injuries and death - we can easily quantify the cost of hospitalization, police intervention, loss of income to families etc.

A sales tax dedicated to paying for all the monetary costs of gun violence would accomplish many things at once, like making us aware of the scope of the problem for one.

The idea isn't new, but it might be the one thing that can actually be passed (possibly on a state level) without violating the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
__________________
“I don’t believe in astrology; I’m a Sagittarius and we’re skeptical.” - Arthur C. Clarke
The Great Zaganza 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, 11:43 PM   #236
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,205
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
A lot of people seem to be using this as an excuse to display their superior moral virtue to those who disagree with them.
I don't like the term "virtue signaling" and feel most of the time it is a cheap attempt to poison the well in a discussion ,but I detect a bit of it here.
You mean statements like "I don't think people should be totally dependent on the state for self defense."?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 October 2017, 01:06 AM   #237
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,684
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Now only criminals will have bump stock. So many police officers are saved each year by armed citizens, but now innocent people will die because law abiding citizens will be disarmed, unable to shoot 100 rounds in 8 seconds. You guys are playing right into the tentacles of the hostile robot aliens. Idiots.
Well, to take a leaf from applecorp's book.........
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky 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 October 2017, 01:16 AM   #238
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,893
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
I see. Make sure they have lost of guns. Forget making sure they are suitable to have those guns and they can be trusted with them. Forget training. Just make sure they have massive firepower.

What could possibly go wrong....?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie 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 October 2017, 05:28 AM   #239
Hungry81
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,546
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
I consulted a thesaurus and nowhere could I find equipped as a synonom for regulated and vice versa. Can you provide a source or sources that shows regulated meant equipped back then?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Hungry81 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 October 2017, 05:59 AM   #240
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Now only criminals will have bump stock. So many police officers are saved each year by armed citizens, but now innocent people will die because law abiding citizens will be disarmed, unable to shoot 100 rounds in 8 seconds. You guys are playing right into the tentacles of the hostile robot aliens. Idiots.
Yes, if we ban bump stocks only criminals will possess them.

Just as only criminals possess anthrax, VX, pressure cooker bombs and botulism toxin devices.

Life will somehow go on without being able to fire 10 rounds in one second with the use of a gun attachment.
Hercules56 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 03:43 PM.
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.