Mass shooting Sutherland Springs church

[Blake]

Because we don’t live in the 1800’s

Explain

[Spurtacular]

This is what pgardn was talking about, which is technology advances.

Can't address the problem from there, the cat is out of the bag, and the tech is cheap. It's like nuclear power, bombs, etc. Eventually, the tech isn't sophisticated/expensive enough, and you're going to have to address it in some other way.

I would argue that nuke tech is expensive and sophisticated and difficult enough. The United Nations is a crony organization that isn't interested in squashing rogue nations.

[Blake]

I would argue that nuke tech is expensive and sophisticated and difficult enough. The United Nations is a crony organization that isn't interested in squashing rogue nations.

Do you understand what the word eventually means

[whitemamba]

Fantasy land / trolling, tbh. Not even bothered.

Your knowledge on the subject is clearly limited.

[Spurtacular]

Do you understand what the word eventually means

STFU, or make a point if you actually have one.

[Spurtacular]

Your knowledge on the subject is clearly limited.

Not bothered. Race trolls are a dime a dozen.

[Blake]

STFU, or make a point if you actually have one.

My point is that you're an illiterate retard

Nobody is arguing against your argument.

[Spurtacular]

My point is that you're an illiterate retard

You have no point. STFU X 2.

[Blake]

You have no point. STFU X 2.

Your point is shit.

[Spurtacular]

Your point is shit.

Do you know what the word eventually means? Who even asks that when the word wasn't used; not that everyone doesn't know what the word is, anyways.

STFU X 3.

[Blake]

Eventually, the tech isn't sophisticated/expensive enough....


Do you know what the word eventually means? Who even asks that when the word wasn't used; not that everyone doesn't know what the word is, anyways.

STFU X 3.

[Trill Clinton]

another SAWM shooting again. this time not too far from SA, again, in floresville.

[Spurtacular]

Blake (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3460)

Eventually has come, one would would have inferred. Fuck, you're a moron!

[CosmicCowboy]

another SAWM shooting again. this time not too far from SA, again, in floresville.

Trill and his fake news...sad. Again.

[Trill Clinton]

Trill and his fake news...sad. Again.

how is it fake news when it was a real report? and what do you mean by "again"? you on that black tar again jack?

[DMC]

More lazy NRA semantics strategy. "lol accessories don't kill people, people kill people." Most of us advanced past that level of argument in high school debate class.

Progress starts with setting an objective. We don't have to have the entirety of gun legislation written to have a discussion on where we need to go with gun control. Step one is agreeing it is too easy and cheap to acquire weapons that make it easy to shoot a lot of people in a short amount of time.

There are weapons and weapon+accessory combinations on the market that can kill a lot of people very quickly. We both know this. Defining "a lot of people" and "a short amount of time" is step 2.

You're the one who wants them priced out of reach for common folks. You need to define what the fuck you're talking about else you're just saying "there are problems, they need to be fixed... by making everything too expensive so only wealthy people can afford to kill a lot of people".

[Spurtacular]

how is it fake news when it was a real report?

You seriously asking that? :lol

[Spurminator]

You're the one who wants them priced out of reach for common folks. You need to define what the fuck you're talking about

Nope. That's not how any of this works. It's an NRA shill tactic to bog the discussion down in the minute and semantic specifics of any proposal. Public pressure towards legislative action does not depend on every specific detail being hashed out. I don't need to have a new redistricted map of Texas to say that the current districting is highly gerrymandered and needs to be changed.

I welcome your suggestions, as the resident gun expert, on which specific guns or accessories it might make sense for us to limit or halt production on, based on the ease with which one may use them to carry out mass murder. My guess is you're not interested in having that discussion because you've been trained to resist any changes that might affect gun sales.


else you're just saying "there are problems, they need to be fixed... by making everything too expensive so only wealthy people can afford to kill a lot of people".

The premise is that if the mass-killing weapons (however we decide to define them) are concentrated with the wealthy collectors they are less likely to be used in crimes of passion or terrorism.

[DMC]

Nope. That's not how any of this works. It's an NRA shill tactic to bog the discussion down in the minute and semantic specifics of any proposal. Public pressure towards legislative action does not depend on every specific detail being hashed out. I don't need to have a new redistricted map of Texas to say that the current districting is highly gerrymandered and needs to be changed.

I welcome your suggestions, as the resident gun expert, on which specific guns or accessories it might make sense for us to limit or halt production on, based on the ease with which one may use them to carry out mass murder. My guess is you're not interested in having that discussion because you've been trained to resist any changes that might affect gun sales.


So you can say that guns that can "mow down 100 people" should be priced out of reach, but you won't exactly define which guns, parts of guns or howitzers you're referring to? This is how placebo legistation gets introduced and passed, because those who are demanding something be done about it have zero idea if the new bill actually does anything meaningful.

If you want to make an impact, you have to start with guns currently in existence. That means confiscation, buy back, whatever. You have to outlaw the production of ammunition and outlaw the sale to civilians, people aren't going to all go out and buy reloaders. The 2nd has nothing to do with the 1st amendment and could easily be done. No one seems to think about that though because no liberal news media shows the 5K rounds of ammo the shooter was in possession of.

Trying to regulate the sale of existing firearms is a fruitless endeavor. You have to simply outlaw them. You cannot force the market to artificially inflate the price of something that the market is flooded with. The reason subguns are so expensive is that they are very limited in supply, no new ones are being made. Meanwhile every sporting goods store in the US has AR-15 type rifles and accessories. Every shooter and gun enthusiast has one or two of them tricked out already. The serious ones reload their own ammo.

You have to stop being a pussy about it and just go for the brass ring of a total ban on firearms and firearm production, full on home searches and confiscation after a brief amnesty period for owners to visit centers of gun buyback and gun receiving centers. Anything short of that will just fuel more gun purchases. I made a thread about it already. I'm sure you scoffed at it then though.



The premise is that if the mass-killing weapons (however we decide to define them) are concentrated with the wealthy collectors they are less likely to be used in crimes of passion or terrorism.
The fellow in Vegas was a wealthy collector. No transferable subgun has ever been used in a crime, much less a mass killing.

Your idea won't work. It involves too many leaps of magic to inflate prices and move firearms to the few wealthy people you think would want them. It has inherent, naive level flaws:

1. Once you make them illegal to own by "anyone" then you reduce the demand.
2. Once you reduce the demand you reduce the cost
3. Reducing the cost makes them just cheap guns, which they are basically.

Your idea ignores the market altogether. Who would sell the guns? Who would benefit from the sale?

It's an outright ban and confiscation and even that wouldn't show any positive trend in our lifetimes. Eventually it would curb gun related deaths, but probably not deaths overall.

[Chris]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23172492_687133301481360_1200302940230511568_n.jpg ?oh=61ebb08b9aadd678e2d3f45c4ef5f1ba&oe=5A6D86EA

[Chris]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23517425_1006741302799913_1298642894819707274_n.pn g?oh=f2c90f86d8e7c8b6e81400cf1cf92cee&oe=5A6E6AFD

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ban semi autos. It provides two things.

It eliminates fire arms that make mass murder easy and it neuters the NRA semantics argument that makes gun nuts feel special because they are in on the jargon. 90% of gun debates now devolve into that stupidity.

Sure the 2nd amendment will not allow the seizure of of owned weapons but it will get rid of new carbines that are doing the lionshare of these massacre. It will take decades for the issue to get better as guns are put out of service with no new ones to replace them. People will still have revolvers, pump actions, and such to protect themselves with.

[boutons_deux]

banning will do no good now. how many semi-automatic dick surrogates, high-capacity MAGAzines are already in the hands of the dickless?

[Trill Clinton]

Nothing worse than conservative christians. some of the most demonic people on earth.


Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot

Hans Fiene, a Lutheran pastor who is also a regular contributor to the right-wing website The Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/author/hansfiene/), has written a new column (https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/saints-first-baptist-church-murdered-god-answering-prayers) in which he explains that allowing 26 people to die at the hands of a crazed gunman at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, this weekend was actually God’s way of answering their prayers.

Fiene begins his column by attacking liberals who have mocked Republican politicians who only offer “thoughts and prayers” for shooting victims — and who don’t take any direct action that could prevent future shootings.

He then explains to liberals that it was part of God’s plan that over two dozen people would get shot up while in their own house of worship.

“It may seem, on the surface, that God was refusing to give such protection to his Texan children,” he writes. “But we are also praying that God would deliver us from evil eternally. Through these same words, we are asking God to deliver us out of this evil world and into his heavenly glory, where no violence, persecution, cruelty, or hatred will ever afflict us again.”

Fiene then says that, in order to fully defeat evil eternally, God has to let evil get some temporary victories, such as this weekend’s mass shooting.

“So when a madman with a rifle sought to persecute the faithful at First Baptist Church on Sunday morning, he failed,” Fiene says. “Just like those who put Christ to death, and just like those who have brought violence to believers in every generation, this man only succeeded in being the means through which God delivered his children from this evil world into an eternity of righteousness and peace.”

Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/conservative-writer-god-was-answering-prayers-of-texas-victims-by-letting-them-get-shot/)

[Trill Clinton]

the pacification of SAWM's needs to end.

927978217310490624

The gunman who killed more than two dozen people (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/lives-of-texas-church-shooting-victims/?utm_term=.6a6a6d96774c) in a small church outside San Antonio on Sunday had a string of troubling episodes in recent years, including an escape from a mental health facility in 2012 after he was caught sneaking guns onto an Air Force base “attempting to carry out death threats” against military superiors, according to a police report.

[Blake]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23172492_687133301481360_1200302940230511568_n.jpg ?oh=61ebb08b9aadd678e2d3f45c4ef5f1ba&oe=5A6D86EA


https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23517425_1006741302799913_1298642894819707274_n.pn g?oh=f2c90f86d8e7c8b6e81400cf1cf92cee&oe=5A6E6AFD

Oh look. Kiddie cartoon memes

[DMC]

the pacification of SAWM's needs to end.

927978217310490624

The gunman who killed more than two dozen people (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/lives-of-texas-church-shooting-victims/?utm_term=.6a6a6d96774c) in a small church outside San Antonio on Sunday had a string of troubling episodes in recent years, including an escape from a mental health facility in 2012 after he was caught sneaking guns onto an Air Force base “attempting to carry out death threats” against military superiors, according to a police report.

All this yet a black man cannot reach for his wallet without being made into a cheese grater on a public roadway.

[DMC]

Nothing worse than conservative christians. some of the most demonic people on earth.


Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot

Hans Fiene, a Lutheran pastor who is also a regular contributor to the right-wing website The Federalist (https://thefederalist.com/author/hansfiene/), has written a new column (https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/saints-first-baptist-church-murdered-god-answering-prayers) in which he explains that allowing 26 people to die at the hands of a crazed gunman at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, this weekend was actually God’s way of answering their prayers.

Fiene begins his column by attacking liberals who have mocked Republican politicians who only offer “thoughts and prayers” for shooting victims — and who don’t take any direct action that could prevent future shootings.

He then explains to liberals that it was part of God’s plan that over two dozen people would get shot up while in their own house of worship.

“It may seem, on the surface, that God was refusing to give such protection to his Texan children,” he writes. “But we are also praying that God would deliver us from evil eternally. Through these same words, we are asking God to deliver us out of this evil world and into his heavenly glory, where no violence, persecution, cruelty, or hatred will ever afflict us again.”

Fiene then says that, in order to fully defeat evil eternally, God has to let evil get some temporary victories, such as this weekend’s mass shooting.

“So when a madman with a rifle sought to persecute the faithful at First Baptist Church on Sunday morning, he failed,” Fiene says. “Just like those who put Christ to death, and just like those who have brought violence to believers in every generation, this man only succeeded in being the means through which God delivered his children from this evil world into an eternity of righteousness and peace.”

Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/conservative-writer-god-was-answering-prayers-of-texas-victims-by-letting-them-get-shot/)



Everything that happens is God's plan to a Christian. This is a coping mechanism used by Christians. It's not unique to that writer. Whatever, the grief those families are dealing with is real, how they deal with it is up to them. Writing about it as if someone needs to be told God wanted their children dead is pretty fucking stupid though.

[DMC]

Ban semi autos. It provides two things.

It eliminates fire arms that make mass murder easy and it neuters the NRA semantics argument that makes gun nuts feel special because they are in on the jargon. 90% of gun debates now devolve into that stupidity.

Sure the 2nd amendment will not allow the seizure of of owned weapons but it will get rid of new carbines that are doing the lionshare of these massacre. It will take decades for the issue to get better as guns are put out of service with no new ones to replace them. People will still have revolvers, pump actions, and such to protect themselves with.

Do you realize how many automobile debates "devolve" into technical aspects of the vehicles? It's not a sedan, it's a coupe. It's not a muscle car because it's a sedan. That's not a Hemi. The correct timing would be 3 degrees above top dead center. That's a bullshit question. Nobody can answer that, it's a trick question.

Decades? If a semi-auto is legal to own by the general population, then it's legal to own. Part of that means the thousands of receivers in warehouses and safes that aren't even on stocks, barrels and trigger groups yet. Oh but that's more technical mumbo jumbo, right?

Gun laws will be specific laws, regulating or outlawing specific aspects of the gun, the manufacture of the firearm and how they can be sold and to whom. They could all fall under a revised NFA. When that happened with subguns, you had x amount of time to register your subgun with the BATF. Past that you were illegally in possession of an unregistered NFA restricted weapon.

The problem is that your party is a lot like you in that they won't learn the facts and instead will push placebo legislation. The NRA will destroy it. They'll go back to the drawing board and come up with a neutered placebo version, where an evil feature like a 15rnd magazine cannot be sold (but can still be owned). That will make the magazines sell like hotcakes in anticipation of the price increase - half the people buying will be hoping to resell at the higher price. The market will be flooded with high capacity magazines again like it was the last time they were "outlawed".

You guys never learn.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have you on ignore DMC. You have nothing worthwhile to bring to a conversation and I don't see that changing. I got tired of your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and ad hominems.

Try a different account, dim.

[RedStripe]

Do you realize how many automobile debates "devolve" into technical aspects of the vehicles? It's not a sedan, it's a coupe. It's not a muscle car because it's a sedan. That's not a Hemi. The correct timing would be 3 degrees above top dead center. That's a bullshit question. Nobody can answer that, it's a trick question.

Decades? If a semi-auto is legal to own by the general population, then it's legal to own. Part of that means the thousands of receivers in warehouses and safes that aren't even on stocks, barrels and trigger groups yet. Oh but that's more technical mumbo jumbo, right?

Gun laws will be specific laws, regulating or outlawing specific aspects of the gun, the manufacture of the firearm and how they can be sold and to whom. They could all fall under a revised NFA. When that happened with subguns, you had x amount of time to register your subgun with the BATF. Past that you were illegally in possession of an unregistered NFA restricted weapon.

The problem is that your party is a lot like you in that they won't learn the facts and instead will push placebo legislation. The NRA will destroy it. They'll go back to the drawing board and come up with a neutered placebo version, where an evil feature like a 15rnd magazine cannot be sold (but can still be owned). That will make the magazines sell like hotcakes in anticipation of the price increase - half the people buying will be hoping to resell at the higher price. The market will be flooded with high capacity magazines again like it was the last time they were "outlawed".

You guys never learn.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That one is on ignore too. Try a different one.

[DMC]

I have you on ignore DMC. You have nothing worthwhile to bring to a conversation and I don't see that changing. I got tired of your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and ad hominems.

Try a different account, dim.

He responds to me after putting me on ignore. :lol

Doesn't understand the concept of "ignore" :lol

Calls facts "in on the jargon" but will berate someone for using a logical fallacy in a discussion. :lol

[Blake]

Do you realize how many automobile debates "devolve" into technical aspects of the vehicles? It's not a sedan, it's a coupe. It's not a muscle car because it's a sedan. That's not a Hemi. The correct timing would be 3 degrees above top dead center. That's a bullshit question. Nobody can answer that, it's a trick question.

Decades? If a semi-auto is legal to own by the general population, then it's legal to own. Part of that means the thousands of receivers in warehouses and safes that aren't even on stocks, barrels and trigger groups yet. Oh but that's more technical mumbo jumbo, right?

Gun laws will be specific laws, regulating or outlawing specific aspects of the gun, the manufacture of the firearm and how they can be sold and to whom. They could all fall under a revised NFA. When that happened with subguns, you had x amount of time to register your subgun with the BATF. Past that you were illegally in possession of an unregistered NFA restricted weapon.

The problem is that your party is a lot like you in that they won't learn the facts and instead will push placebo legislation. The NRA will destroy it. They'll go back to the drawing board and come up with a neutered placebo version, where an evil feature like a 15rnd magazine cannot be sold (but can still be owned). That will make the magazines sell like hotcakes in anticipation of the price increase - half the people buying will be hoping to resell at the higher price. The market will be flooded with high capacity magazines again like it was the last time they were "outlawed".

You guys never learn.

How about outlawing the manufacture of high capacity quick fire guns

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I cannot read what you are writing, DMC. Have fun quoting my posts though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How about outlawing the manufacture of high capacity quick fire guns

Banning semi-autos cuts through all that irrelevant nonsense he just spewed. If the gun loads itself after firing (re:semi-auto) then it should be banned. The tech was developed for war as it is.

[Spurminator]

So you can say that guns that can "mow down 100 people" should be priced out of reach, but you won't exactly define which guns, parts of guns or howitzers you're referring to? This is how placebo legistation gets introduced and passed, because those who are demanding something be done about it have zero idea if the new bill actually does anything meaningful.

I'm not introducing legislation, and I would expect any such legislation to be far more specific than my two paragraph message board opinion on the topic.


If you want to make an impact, you have to start with guns currently in existence. That means confiscation, buy back, whatever. You have to outlaw the production of ammunition and outlaw the sale to civilians, people aren't going to all go out and buy reloaders. The 2nd has nothing to do with the 1st amendment and could easily be done. No one seems to think about that though because no liberal news media shows the 5K rounds of ammo the shooter was in possession of.

Trying to regulate the sale of existing firearms is a fruitless endeavor. You have to simply outlaw them. You cannot force the market to artificially inflate the price of something that the market is flooded with. The reason subguns are so expensive is that they are very limited in supply, no new ones are being made. Meanwhile every sporting goods store in the US has AR-15 type rifles and accessories. Every shooter and gun enthusiast has one or two of them tricked out already. The serious ones reload their own ammo.

You have to stop being a pussy about it and just go for the brass ring of a total ban on firearms and firearm production, full on home searches and confiscation after a brief amnesty period for owners to visit centers of gun buyback and gun receiving centers. Anything short of that will just fuel more gun purchases. I made a thread about it already. I'm sure you scoffed at it then though.

I don't think a full ownership ban is necessary at all, and obviously that would be a huge 2nd Amendment issue. You basically illustrated my point with the subgun example. I want to make the same thing happen to the AR-15 and anything similar.

I do not recall your thread, sorry.


The fellow in Vegas was a wealthy collector. No transferable subgun has ever been used in a crime, much less a mass killing.

Your idea won't work. It involves too many leaps of magic to inflate prices and move firearms to the few wealthy people you think would want them. It has inherent, naive level flaws:

1. Once you make them illegal to own by "anyone" then you reduce the demand.
2. Once you reduce the demand you reduce the cost
3. Reducing the cost makes them just cheap guns, which they are basically.

Your idea ignores the market altogether. Who would sell the guns? Who would benefit from the sale?

It's an outright ban and confiscation and even that wouldn't show any positive trend in our lifetimes. Eventually it would curb gun related deaths, but probably not deaths overall.

I'm not sure you're following my idea at all, because none of your points apply to my premise. I haven't said anything about legality of ownership, nor does my premise at all involve a reduction of demand or lower costs.

It's simple. Define a legally acceptable limits to how fast a gun can be made to fire and how many rounds a magazine should be able to hold. Ban future production of any guns that exceed those limits or any enhancements that, when combined with a gun, exceed those limits. Allow the sale of anything currently in market (preferably also offer a buyback). The cost on new and used guns/accessories in this category will skyrocket, and will be cost prohibitive to most people.

This is good for current gun owners because the value of their assets increases dramatically. This is good for concerned citizens because it slows the influx of high-powered weapons into the market and makes them more difficult to get. Will it end all mass shootings in the US? I doubt it. But I would expect it to significantly slow the trend.

[DMC]

How about outlawing the manufacture of high capacity quick fire guns

Because there's absolutely not a single gun with that description anywhere in the manufacturing catalog.

[DMC]

I'm not introducing legislation, and I would expect any such legislation to be far more specific than my two paragraph message board opinion on the topic.



I don't think a full ownership ban is necessary at all, and obviously that would be a huge 2nd Amendment issue. You basically illustrated my point with the subgun example. I want to make the same thing happen to the AR-15 and anything similar.

I do not recall your thread, sorry.



I'm not sure you're following my idea at all, because none of your points apply to my premise. I haven't said anything about legality of ownership, nor does my premise at all involve a reduction of demand or lower costs.

It's simple. Define a legally acceptable limits to how fast a gun can be made to fire and how many rounds a magazine should be able to hold. Ban future production of any guns that exceed those limits or any enhancements that, when combined with a gun, exceed those limits. Allow the sale of anything currently in market (preferably also offer a buyback). The cost on new and used guns/accessories in this category will skyrocket, and will be cost prohibitive to most people.

This is good for current gun owners because the value of their assets increases dramatically. This is good for concerned citizens because it slows the influx of high-powered weapons into the market and makes them more difficult to get. Will it end all mass shootings in the US? I doubt it. But I would expect it to significantly slow the trend.

What you fail to take into consideration is that you have to first propose that in a bill. Once you do that you increase the sale of these items exponentially. Once your bill passes then sure you may have a starting point howeve once that bill fails now you have an exponentially greater number of the same weapon you're trying to get rid of in the hands of Americans. It's a ban or nothing.

Besides, a revolver can fire as fast as a semi auto even faster depending on who's using it. So you guys really need to understand the terminology and what you're talking about. You can't just lump everything into "bad gun" and try to put that on a bill.

There are tens of millions of semi Autos in the United States. I highly doubt they're going to become prized possessions in the next 100 years. This is true even if you were to no longer manufacture them from this point forward.

[Blake]

Because there's absolutely not a single gun with that description anywhere in the manufacturing catalog.

So you're saying it's impossible to make a gun that would be incapable of conversion to rapid fire?

[DMC]

Banning semi-autos cuts through all that irrelevant nonsense he just spewed. If the gun loads itself after firing (re:semi-auto) then it should be banned. The tech was developed for war as it is.

A revolver loads itself after firing. More ignorance rearing its ugly head. You'll never win if you don't understand what you're dealing with. You can put that on ignore but it's still going to be a fact.

[DMC]

So you're saying it's impossible to make a gun that would be incapable of conversion to rapid fire?

That's not what you said. You said hi capacity. There's a big difference between high capacity and rapid-fire. High capacity is reserved for how much ammo something can take and most guns take one round at a time. What you mean is high-throughput. Fully automatic weapons are already highly regulated. Semi-automatic weapons are legal but one trigger pull is one trigger pull. If you think you're going to defeat this one bite at a time you're wrong. You have to go for an outright ban on guns not an outright ban on features. If you think this jargon I'm using is to confuse then you are out of your depth. Anyone from the gun industry or anyone who knows anything about guns will completely bury you in technical details. If your legislation doesn't consider that then you will have nothing but a placebo again.

[DMC]

The trick is to introduce legislation without triggering a massive flow of guns and accessories to the general population. The only way to do that is to suggest an outright ban and confiscation. No one is going to go out and spend a ton of money anticipating losing all of it. They might get pissed off about it but they're not going to invest in it.

[Blake]

That's not what you said. You said hi capacity. There's a big difference between high capacity and rapid-fire. High capacity is reserved for how much ammo something can take and most guns take one round at a time. What you mean is high-throughput. Fully automatic weapons are already highly regulated. Semi-automatic weapons are legal but one trigger pull is one trigger pull. If you think you're going to defeat this one bite at a time you're wrong. You have to go for an outright ban on guns not an outright ban on features. If you think this jargon I'm using is to confuse then you are out of your depth. Anyone from the gun industry or anyone who knows anything about guns will completely bury you in technical details. If your legislation doesn't consider that then you will have nothing but a placebo again.

I meant both, tbh.

Is it not possible to make a low capacity/non-semi that would be incapable of being altered?

I'm asking you since you're in depth with it

[CosmicCowboy]

I meant both, tbh.

Is it not possible to make a low capacity/non-semi that would be incapable of being altered?

I'm asking you since you're in depth with it

Its called a bolt action rifle

[Blake]

Its called a bolt action rifle

It's not possible to upgrade a bolt action rifle at all?

[DMC]

It's not possible to upgrade a bolt action rifle at all?

A bolt action has a manual bolt in the receiver that requires you to eject the shell and chamber another (if you have a clip, then the shells can stack below the bolt. This is a real clip, not a magazine). It cannot be modified to fire even semi-auto without breaking the law and basically totally rebuilding the gun. This is the most common rifle you will see hunters use. Rarely will you see a hunter using a semi-auto and never a .223 AR-15 unless he's varmint hunting.

Make no mistake, it's against the law to modify a semi-auto to full auto. There's nothing stopping a well funded criminal from building any gun he wants from CNC machined parts.

[Blake]

Well yeah, but we can stop high capacity/rapid fire guns from being legally sold and legally manufactured, right?

[Spurminator]

What you fail to take into consideration is that you have to first propose that in a bill. Once you do that you increase the sale of these items exponentially. Once your bill passes then sure you may have a starting point howeve once that bill fails now you have an exponentially greater number of the same weapon you're trying to get rid of in the hands of Americans. It's a ban or nothing.

The increase is temporary, as I'm sure it was for full-autos.


Besides, a revolver can fire as fast as a semi auto even faster depending on who's using it. So you guys really need to understand the terminology and what you're talking about. You can't just lump everything into "bad gun" and try to put that on a bill.

The revolver has a limited number of rounds in the chamber and requires a fairly slow reload. You're getting bogged down in exceptions that can be easily written in to legislation. It's going to be pages and pages long, no one is expecting the legislation to fit into a 140-character tweet.


There are tens of millions of semi Autos in the United States. I highly doubt they're going to become prized possessions in the next 100 years. This is true even if you were to no longer manufacture them from this point forward.

Their value will substantially increase. That's how the market works. It will increase supply and funnel towards people who are less likely to use them in a crime of passion or terrorism.

There is no perfect solution that prevents any further mass shootings. We've made that bed already through inaction and partisan gun nuttery. It's time to start somewhere.

[DMC]

The increase is temporary, as I'm sure it was for full-autos.

Huh? Full auto sales didn't increase. There was a ban on manufacturing. The increase is always temporary but the legislation never passes so the net effect is that more people have more guns.


The revolver has a limited number of rounds in the chamber and requires a fairly slow reload. You're getting bogged down in exceptions that can be easily written in to legislation. It's going to be pages and pages long, no one is expecting the legislation to fit into a 140-character tweet.

If your goal is to prevent an individual from having the power to kill a lot of other people in short amount of time, you cannot ignore speedloaders for revolvers.

http://www.pistoleer.com/hks/pics/speedloader.jpg

If your goal is to introduce a placebo bill that talks about semi-autos, you're just being the cog in the machine that keeps this thing ramping up.


Their value will substantially increase. That's how the market works. It will increase supply and funnel towards people who are less likely to use them in a crime of passion or terrorism.
What will cause this, what law? No new manufacturing? How will that increase supply? Someone who wants a gun more will pay more for it. Sounds like it would have guns in the hands of people willing to pay everything for it.


There is no perfect solution that prevents any further mass shootings. We've made that bed already through inaction and partisan gun nuttery. It's time to start somewhere.
That's the problem, the "somewhere" is making it worse not better. You fuel fear and that creates more demand for guns. Either ban guns or don't. The first step is getting a candidate who can win an election who will not cater to the NRA, and a house and senate who will sign off on these things. Good luck with that.

[DMC]

Well yeah, but we can stop high capacity/rapid fire guns from being legally sold and legally manufactured, right?

There's no such as a high capacity gun, Blake. Are you being intentionally obtuse and think it's cute? There are high capacity magazines. It's like saying a high runtime cordless drill. It's the battery, not the drill. The gun is a gun, same as any gun. It's the magazine that allows 30 rounds to be fired in succession without reload, and when reload happens, it's very fast. The gun is just a gun.

[spurraider21]

This is just keeps circling back to dmc's Strawman of gun confiscation.

He waives off any other idea and just says "that won't help. You have to resort to confiscation." And then gets to say confiscation is bad

[Spurminator]

This is just keeps circling back to dmc's Strawman of gun confiscation.

He waives off any other idea and just says "that won't help. You have to resort to confiscation." And then gets to say confiscation is bad

Of course. Laws are useless unless they can prevent any breakage of those laws. That's why all drugs are legal and there are no speed limits.

[Spurminator]

Huh? Full auto sales didn't increase. There was a ban on manufacturing. The increase is always temporary but the legislation never passes so the net effect is that more people have more guns.

You just said that sales will increase as legislation is being debated after the proposal of the bill, which is what I was responding to. Are you telling me the 1986 ban was enacted as surprise legislation that no one saw coming? Hell, then let's do it with this legislation too. Certainly seems to be the strategy for Trumpcare and the tax cuts.


If your goal is to prevent an individual from having the power to kill a lot of other people in short amount of time, you cannot ignore speedloaders for revolvers.

http://www.pistoleer.com/hks/pics/speedloader.jpg


That has six bullets. I can ignore it, and any legislation likely would too.


If your goal is to introduce a placebo bill that talks about semi-autos, you're just being the cog in the machine that keeps this thing ramping up.

Semi-auto is a specific that only you are interested in.


What will cause this, what law? No new manufacturing? How will that increase supply? Someone who wants a gun more will pay more for it. Sounds like it would have guns in the hands of people willing to pay everything for it.

That was a typo. I meant demand will increase. My mistake.

Cutting off manufacturing increases demand by reducing supply. Costs go up. The last sentence is a total hypothetical that has no historical example.


That's the problem, the "somewhere" is making it worse not better. You fuel fear and that creates more demand for guns. Either ban guns or don't. The first step is getting a candidate who can win an election who will not cater to the NRA, and a house and senate who will sign off on these things. Good luck with that.

Nope, all or nothing is not a necessary next step. It's a distraction.

[Blake]

There's no such as a high capacity gun, Blake. Are you being intentionally obtuse and think it's cute? There are high capacity magazines. It's like saying a high runtime cordless drill. It's the battery, not the drill. The gun is a gun, same as any gun. It's the magazine that allows 30 rounds to be fired in succession without reload, and when reload happens, it's very fast. The gun is just a gun.

OK, a high capacity magazine.

You gun freaks get so fucking bogged down in trivial semantics

[Blake]

Either ban guns or don't.

Retarded false dilemma

[spurraider21]

Of course. Laws are useless unless they can prevent any breakage of those laws. That's why all drugs are legal and there are no speed limits.
Also murder

[pgardn]

I have some gun freak friends with entirely different takes.
They are not at all paranoid about confiscation and they hate the NRA.
But they do realize, as Nono said, that the cat is out of the bag as far as the huge number of guns circulating. "Our" gun nuts (don't see it this way). The guys that live in Texas I know are really just avid hunters and love guns, are not the slightest bit worried about confiscation and slippery slopes. They do however get pissed on panic buys on ammo by other gun freaks.

Yeah it's my own take based on a bunch of friends I go fishing with who also love hunting. Many Gun guys are particularly interested in all the particulars of mechanisms so they can be a good source of info IMO. And fortunately they are very particular about safety because shooting some of these things... it's not some silly movie for them.

[Chucho]

Retarded false dilemma

Like tipping on take out.

[Blake]

Like tipping on take out.

Not like that at all.

[boutons_deux]

Trash's trusted advisor Alex Jones says SS was staged to make Trash look bad

[DMC]

You just said that sales will increase as legislation is being debated after the proposal of the bill, which is what I was responding to. Are you telling me the 1986 ban was enacted as surprise legislation that no one saw coming? Hell, then let's do it with this legislation too. Certainly seems to be the strategy for Trumpcare and the tax cuts.



That has six bullets. I can ignore it, and any legislation likely would too.



Semi-auto is a specific that only you are interested in.



That was a typo. I meant demand will increase. My mistake.

Cutting off manufacturing increases demand by reducing supply. Costs go up. The last sentence is a total hypothetical that has no historical example.



Nope, all or nothing is not a necessary next step. It's a distraction.

You won't see an intermediate step outside of placebo legislation like the Brady bill or some other ban that really did nothing in the end.

The NFA came about in 1934. In 1986 manufacturing was outlawed (part of FOPA) for machine guns. In 1986 social media didn't exist. The craze didn't really start before social media became a thing.

[DMC]

OK, a high capacity magazine.

You gun freaks get so fucking bogged down in trivial semantics

So you see a bill that says "regulate high capacity guns" and you say "cool, finally" so the law is passed that guns can only fire one bullet at time. Hey, just semantics, right?

[DMC]

Jesus, you fuckers are so soft. It's a wonder you don't menstruate.

[Blake]

So you see a bill that says "regulate high capacity guns" and you say "cool, finally" so the law is passed that guns can only fire one bullet at time. Hey, just semantics, right?

No, the bill would say the guns can only fire so fast and the magazines can only hold so many bullets.

Is this really that hard to understand what I'm saying?

[Blake]

Jesus, you fuckers are so soft. It's a wonder you don't menstruate.

You're the one that needs a gun by his pillow at night, pussy

[DMC]

You're the one that needs a gun by his pillow at night, pussy

So you'd jump up and fight the armed intrude or just suck his dick?

[DMC]

No, the bill would say the guns can only fire so fast and the magazines can only hold so many bullets.

Is this really that hard to understand what I'm saying?

That bill existed already, dipshit. It didn't work then and won't work now.

Goddamn you're a dense little twat.

[Blake]

So you'd jump up and fight the armed intrude or just suck his dick?

How many times have you had to fight an armed intruder?

[Blake]

That bill existed already, dipshit. It didn't work then and won't work now.

Goddamn you're a dense little twat.

What bill

[Blake]

This bill passed in California.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1446

Not sure anyone can say it works or not yet considering it's only about a year old

[DMC]

What bill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban

Like I said, you're one dumb fuck.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also murder

And automatic weapons.

You can take a drill press or similar apparatus and "easily" alter many many semi-autos and yet you do not see a slew of full auto weapons out there. Fact is that it is not as easy as he claims either.

He is disingenuous. I specifically stated that the Heller interpretation makes confiscation impossible but that taking new guns out of circulation would over time reduce the number of semiautos in the population. Further, people would have a legal alternatives for self protection just not semiautos.

What does he do? Shoehorn the same canned arguments he was using several years ago near verbatim. There is no point in engaging him and giving him credibility.

[Blake]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban

Like I said, you're one dumb fuck.

Point out the part where it didn't work

[DMC]

Point out the part where it didn't work

See thread title.

[TSA]

Point out the part where it didn't work

Virginia Tech. No rifles. No high cap mags.

[Th'Pusher]

This is just keeps circling back to dmc's Strawman of gun confiscation.

He waives off any other idea and just says "that won't help. You have to resort to confiscation." And then gets to say confiscation is bad

If you haven’t noticed. DMC is the local prima-donna of the PF.

[Blake]

See thread title.

By that logic pretty much no laws work

[DMC]

By that logic pretty much no laws work

Dude had high capacity magazines. They multiplied. When it was just a bill and only a bill, people went apeshit buying them. People who never owned a 30rnd mag suddenly owned 10 of them. They became very easy to get.

Didn't work.

As long as you keep depending on people who don't want to understand the people they are trying to regulate, it will continue to not work.

[DMC]

Virginia Tech. No rifles. No high cap mags.

3000+ killed by airplanes, not a single round fired, led to millions dying overall.

[DMC]

If you haven’t noticed. DMC is the local prima-donna of the PF.

And you keep following me around like at lost puppy trying to sniff my farts.

[Th'Pusher]

And you keep following me around like at lost puppy trying to sniff my farts.

BUT CONFISCATION!!! IT’S THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING THAT COULD EVER WORK!!!

Hyperbolic pussy.

:lol

[Blake]

Dude had high capacity magazines. They multiplied. When it was just a bill and only a bill, people went apeshit buying them. People who never owned a 30rnd mag suddenly owned 10 of them. They became very easy to get.

Didn't work.

As long as you keep depending on people who don't want to understand the people they are trying to regulate, it will continue to not work.

So there was a temporary run on high capacity mags while the bill was introduced. That showed me.

[da_suns_fan]

That's not what you said. You said hi capacity. There's a big difference between high capacity and rapid-fire. High capacity is reserved for how much ammo something can take and most guns take one round at a time. What you mean is high-throughput. Fully automatic weapons are already highly regulated. Semi-automatic weapons are legal but one trigger pull is one trigger pull. If you think you're going to defeat this one bite at a time you're wrong. You have to go for an outright ban on guns not an outright ban on features. If you think this jargon I'm using is to confuse then you are out of your depth. Anyone from the gun industry or anyone who knows anything about guns will completely bury you in technical details. If your legislation doesn't consider that then you will have nothing but a placebo again.

LOL... You always attempt the chewbacca defense on "what constitutes what" as if its complicated.

Its not.

LOTS of countries have already solved this problem. MOST countries have already solved this problem. Its damn near impossible to get shot in South Korea and theyre under constant threat of invasion. Peeps like DMC use stupid talking points rather than just admit the truth: They really dont want to give up their guns because the like them. They dont care who gets killed.

Some people are just pieces of shit.

[Trill Clinton]

i wish these SAWM shooters would buy their guns from guys like this seller.

XTltQ64ob-s

[DMC]

BUT CONFISCATION!!! IT’S THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING THAT COULD EVER WORK!!!

Hyperbolic pussy.

:lol

Yet here we are.

[DMC]

i wish these SAWM shooters would buy their guns from guys like this seller.

XTltQ64ob-s
"Gun on layaway"

:lol priorities

[DMC]

LOL... You always attempt the chewbacca defense on "what constitutes what" as if its complicated.

Its not.

LOTS of countries have already solved this problem. MOST countries have already solved this problem. Its damn near impossible to get shot in South Korea and theyre under constant threat of invasion. Peeps like DMC use stupid talking points rather than just admit the truth: They really dont want to give up their guns because the like them. They dont care who gets killed.

Some people are just pieces of shit.

How did South Korea solve the problem?

[DMC]

So there was a temporary run on high capacity mags while the bill was introduced. That showed me.

The bill was in effect for years, high capacity magazines never went away. It didn't solve or even dent the issue. It was a placebo just like the rest of the bill that I am sure you know nothing about (but have plenty opinion on regardless).

[boutons_deux]

Country Stars Faith Hill & Tim McGraw Just Broke With Republicans On Guns

http://verifiedpolitics.com/country-stars-faith-hill-tim-mcgraw-just-broke-republicans-guns/

Will they be Dixie-Chicked?

NRA will be gunnin' for them.

[Blake]

The bill was in effect for years, high capacity magazines never went away. It didn't solve or even dent the issue. It was a placebo just like the rest of the bill that I am sure you know nothing about (but have plenty opinion on regardless).

Back to the line of reasoning that if a law doesn't keep people from doing bad stuff that it's not even worth having that law.

Which is pretty much all laws.

[DMC]

Back to the line of reasoning that if a law doesn't keep people from doing bad stuff that it's not even worth having that law.

Which is pretty much all laws.

Just a throw-away line by you, as expected.

The bill was allowed to sunset. No one on your side stopped it. No one on your side reintroduced it.

Do you have any other throw-away quips or are you content that you've now done your part?

[DMC]

Country Stars Faith Hill & Tim McGraw Just Broke With Republicans On Guns

http://verifiedpolitics.com/country-stars-faith-hill-tim-mcgraw-just-broke-republicans-guns/

Will they be Dixie-Chicked?

NRA will be gunnin' for them.






That should swing the pendulum.

[Blake]

Just a throw-away line by you, as expected.

The bill was allowed to sunset. No one on your side stopped it. No one on your side reintroduced it.

Do you have any other throw-away quips or are you content that you've now done your part?

Oh well that must mean gun laws never work.

It's your throwaway logic, not mine

[Spurtacular]

Country Stars Faith Hill & Tim McGraw Just Broke With Republicans On Guns

http://verifiedpolitics.com/country-stars-faith-hill-tim-mcgraw-just-broke-republicans-guns/

Will they be Dixie-Chicked?

NRA will be gunnin' for them.





Country folk don't take their cues from Tim Hill.

#Fail

[Blake]

Country folk don't take their cues from Tim Hill.

#Fail

You speaking on their behalf or are you one of em

[Spurtacular]

You speaking on their behalf or are you one of em

You're gay.

[Blake]

You're gay.

Apparently you're a hick

[DMC]

Oh well that must mean gun laws never work.

It's your throwaway logic, not mine

You're too lazy to even understand which laws already exist(ed). Discussing it with you doesn't work.

[Blake]

You're too lazy to even understand which laws already exist(ed). Discussing it with you doesn't work.

Your argument is Gun Law X(s) doesn't work therefore no gun laws will work. It's a retarded false dilemma.

[boutons_deux]

Ex-Trump adviser dismisses church massacre: Why don’t we talk about the things the world cares about?

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Corey-Lewandowski.jpg


Corey Lewandowski, a former campaign manager and woman beater for President Donald Trump, on Saturday night downplayed the deadly shooting rampage inside a Texas church.

During an appearance on Fox News’ Watters’ World, Lewandowski attacked a reporter for asking Trump about gun restrictions in the days following the massacre.

“You know, when the president is overseas and he is just south of a madman, why don’t we actually talk about the things that the world cares about?” he said. “Which is containing that madman in North Korea.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/ex-trump-adviser-dismisses-church-massacre-why-dont-we-talk-about-the-things-the-world-cares-about/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/ex-trump-adviser-dismisses-church-massacre-why-dont-we-talk-about-the-things-the-world-cares-about/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)

[DMC]

What bill


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban

Like I said, you're one dumb fuck.


Point out the part where it didn't work


See thread title.


Dude had high capacity magazines. They multiplied. When it was just a bill and only a bill, people went apeshit buying them. People who never owned a 30rnd mag suddenly owned 10 of them. They became very easy to get.

Didn't work.

As long as you keep depending on people who don't want to understand the people they are trying to regulate, it will continue to not work.


So there was a temporary run on high capacity mags while the bill was introduced. That showed me.


The bill was in effect for years, high capacity magazines never went away. It didn't solve or even dent the issue. It was a placebo just like the rest of the bill that I am sure you know nothing about (but have plenty opinion on regardless).


Back to the line of reasoning that if a law doesn't keep people from doing bad stuff that it's not even worth having that law.

Which is pretty much all laws.


Oh well that must mean gun laws never work.

It's your throwaway logic, not mine


Your argument is Gun Law X(s) doesn't work therefore no gun laws will work. It's a retarded false dilemma.

This is Blake's typical downward spiral that results from his initial premise being flawed because he's ignorant and lazy and doesn't understand the topic. He's a poor man's version of Chumpdumper.

[Spurtacular]

Apparently you're a hick

I'm not. You're gay for even trying to go there. Your shit is like 1987.

[Spurtacular]

This is Blake's typical downward spiral that results from his initial premise being flawed because he's ignorant and lazy and doesn't understand the topic. He's a poor man's version of Chumpdumper.

A destitute man's version of chump, tbh. I had figured he was nothing but a sniper alt at first. Turns out he just is that lazy / unintelligent.

[Blake]

Either ban guns or don't.

Dmc sticking with his false dilemma and melting down with ad hominems.

Par.

[Blake]

I'm not. You're gay for even trying to go there. Your shit is like 1987.

Calling people gay is like 1977

[DMC]

Dmc sticking with his false dilemma and melting down with ad hominems.

Par.

For something to be a false dilemma, there has to be other viable options. You don't know enough about the subject to illustrate any other options. It comes down to that choice: ban guns or don't.

Are you against banning guns?

:cry "muh guns"

[Spurtacular]

Calling people gay is like 1977

Fine. You're 1977.

[CosmicCowboy]

I can remember when congress "banned" assault rifles that had "pistol grips" and "hand guards" and "flash hiders" going directly at civilian versions of the AK47. A month later container loads of MAK-90's were being unloaded in LA with thumbhole wood stocks and wood foregrips and threaded barrels with just thread protectors. Exactly the same gun with cosmetic concessions to get around the specifics of the bill. It was actually pretty funny

[Th'Pusher]

I can remember when congress "banned" assault rifles that had "pistol grips" and "hand guards" and "flash hiders" going directly at civilian versions of the AK47. A month later container loads of MAK-90's were being unloaded in LA with thumbhole wood stocks and wood foregrips and threaded barrels with just thread protectors. Exactly the same gun with cosmetic concessions to get around the specifics of the bill. It was actually pretty funny

Then ban semiautomatic weapons and any aftermarket modification that convert to semiautomatic.

[Spurtacular]

Then ban semiautomatic weapons and any aftermarket modification that convert to semiautomatic.

Are we going to be banning the govt. from having these weapons while we're at it?

[dabom]

Are we going to be banning the govt. from having these weapons while we're at it?

No you dumb fuck. :lmao

[dabom]

Such weak fucking arguments. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

No you dumb fuck. :lmao

Good idea; surrender to the government. :lmao

"dumb fuck" :lmao

[dabom]

From


Are we going to be banning the govt. from having these weapons while we're at it?

to


Good idea; surrender to the government. :lmao

"dumb fuck" :lmao

:lmao

You're on tilt faggot. Those are all completely different things. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

^^^

Triggered.

[Pavlov]

Good idea; surrender to the government. :lmao

"dumb fuck" :lmaoDo you have guns to fight the government?

[dabom]

^^^

Triggered.

You can see a scared mouse behind that screen. :lol

I'll let you be. :lol

[Blake]

For something to be a false dilemma, there has to be other viable options. You don't know enough about the subject to illustrate any other options. It comes down to that choice: ban guns or don't.

Are you against banning guns?

:cry "muh guns"

The viable option(s) being to ban high capacity mags and rapid fire guns to start.

If you want to dismiss that as an option then I'll just call you stupid and leave it at that.

[DMC]

The viable option(s) being to ban high capacity mags and rapid fire guns to start.

If you want to dismiss that as an option then I'll just call you stupid and leave it at that.

I showed you that banning high capacity magazines did not do anything for the 10 years it was implemented. There's no such as a rapid fire gun. That doesn't exist anywhere in the firearm nomenclature. It's either a full auto, semi-auto or other. The other is bolt action, revolver, break barrel, etc... Shotguns have similar nomenclature however a full auto shotgun is hard to come by.

You can call me anything you like. It's not going to change the facts that you're gun ignorant but very opinionated just the same. You have the answer and don't even know the question.

[DMC]

Then ban semiautomatic weapons and any aftermarket modification that convert to semiautomatic.

Oh yeah all those conversions for bolt actions that make them semiauto, like a semiauto receiver and a different stock and barrel. Oh and a trigger group as well. That should convert it. Why would anyone want to convert to a gun you can buy legally cheaper than the one you're trying to convert, you fucking idiot?

This is like watching retards finger paint in their own shit.

[Blake]

I showed you that banning high capacity magazines did not do anything for the 10 years it was implemented.


"CNN)An analysis performed for CNN found that states that have enacted magazine restrictions are associated with fewer mass shooting events.

"Whether a state has a large capacity ammunition magazine ban is the single best predictor of the mass shooting rate in that state, " said Michael Siegel, a community health science professor at Boston University, who conducted the analysis. These states are associated with a 63% lower rate of mass shootings, according to his analysis....."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/05/politics/gun-laws-magazines-las-vegas/index.html

[dabom]

"CNN)An analysis performed for CNN found that states that have enacted magazine restrictions are associated with fewer mass shooting events.

"Whether a state has a large capacity ammunition magazine ban is the single best predictor of the mass shooting rate in that state, " said Michael Siegel, a community health science professor at Boston University, who conducted the analysis. These states are associated with a 63% lower rate of mass shootings, according to his analysis....."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/05/politics/gun-laws-magazines-las-vegas/index.html

:tu

[Blake]

This is like watching retards finger paint in their own shit.

:cry muh guns

[DMC]

"CNN)An analysis performed for CNN found that states that have enacted magazine restrictions are associated with fewer mass shooting events.

"Whether a state has a large capacity ammunition magazine ban is the single best predictor of the mass shooting rate in that state, " said Michael Siegel, a community health science professor at Boston University, who conducted the analysis. These states are associated with a 63% lower rate of mass shootings, according to his analysis....."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/05/politics/gun-laws-magazines-las-vegas/index.html


Mass shooting events are so rare that statistics regarding them are basically pointless.

[DMC]

:cry muh guns

:cry "muh rapid fire stupidity"

[dabom]

Mass shooting events are so rare that statistics regarding them are basically pointless.

Wtf? :lmao

[DMC]

From a 2012 article in the NY Times;

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.

Continue reading the main story
Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

[DMC]

Wtf? :lmao

2 this year.

In a nation of 300 million people, that 2 people did that is textbook for "rare".

Of course, idiots like you are stricken with recency bias.

[dabom]

2 this year.

In a nation of 300 million people, that 2 people did that is textbook for "rare".

Of course, idiots like you are stricken with recency bias.

There is a correlation though. I'm laughing at your stupidity to dismiss proof with no rebuttal besides your feelings. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

There is a correlation though. I'm laughing at your stupidity to dismiss proof with no rebuttal besides your feelings. :lmao

He just gave you the stat, bro. Also, you suck at trolling.

[dabom]

He just gave you the stat, bro. Also, you suck at trolling.

85 DEAD and 500 Injured. The discussion is how to limit that. The statistics say less lax laws on guns increases the probability of mass shootings. How fucking retarded are you? :lmao

[DMC]

There is a correlation though. I'm laughing at your stupidity to dismiss proof with no rebuttal besides your feelings. :lmao

You call an article "proof"? :lol

[Spurtacular]

85 DEAD and 500 Injured. The discussion is how to limit that. The statistics say less lax laws on guns increases the probability of mass shootings. How fucking retarded are you? :lmao

85 dead / 500 injured from what in what?

[dabom]

85 dead / 500 injured from what in what?

Concert and Church shooting, faggot. :lmao

[dabom]

You call an article "proof"? :lol

Well it's correct, so? :lmao

Can you find proof otherwise? :lmao

[dabom]

I hate coming to the political forum sometimes. No one up to par. :lol

[DMC]

Well it's correct, so? :lmao

Can you find proof otherwise? :lmao

Here's the rest of the NYT article from 2012. Still applies today.


It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.

Continue reading the main story
Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000.

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.

On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. It barred the manufacture and sale of new guns with military features and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. But the law allowed those who already owned these guns — an estimated 1.5 million of them — to keep their weapons.

The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.

The ban did reduce the number of assault weapons recovered by local police, to 1 percent from roughly 2 percent.

“Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” a Department of Justice-funded evaluation concluded.

Still, the majority of Americans continued to support a ban on assault weapons.

One reason: The use of these weapons may be rare over all, but they’re used frequently in the gun violence that gets the most media coverage, mass shootings.

The criminologist James Alan Fox at Northeastern University estimates that there have been an average of 100 victims killed each year in mass shootings over the past three decades. That’s less than 1 percent of gun homicide victims.

But these acts of violence in schools and movie theaters have come to define the problem of gun violence in America.

Most Americans do not know that gun homicides have decreased by 49 percent since 1993 as violent crime also fell, though rates of gun homicide in the United States are still much higher than those in other developed nations. A Pew survey conducted after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., found that 56 percent of Americans believed wrongly that the rate of gun crime was higher than it was 20 years ago.

Even as homicide rates have held steady or declined for most Americans over the last decade, for black men the rate has sometimes risen. But it took a handful of mass shootings in 2012 to put gun control back on Congress’s agenda.

AFTER Sandy Hook, President Obama introduced an initiative to reduce gun violence. He laid out a litany of tragedies: the children of Newtown, the moviegoers of Aurora, Colo. But he did not mention gun violence among black men.

To be fair, the president’s first legislative priority after Sandy Hook was universal background checks, a measure that might have shrunk the market for illegal guns used in many urban shootings. But Republicans in Congress killed that effort. The next proposal on his list was reinstating and “strengthening” bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It also went nowhere.

“We spent a whole bunch of time and a whole bunch of political capital yelling and screaming about assault weapons,” Mayor Mitchell J. Landrieu of New Orleans said. He called it a “zero sum political fight about a symbolic weapon.”

Mr. Landrieu and Mayor Michael A. Nutter of Philadelphia are founders of Cities United, a network of mayors trying to prevent the deaths of young black men. “This is not just a gun issue, this is an unemployment issue, it’s a poverty issue, it’s a family issue, it’s a culture of violence issue,” Mr. Landrieu said.

More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.

David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, argues that the issue of gun violence can seem enormous and intractable without first addressing poverty or drugs. A closer look at the social networks of neighborhoods most afflicted, he says, often shows that only a small number of men drive most of the violence. Identify them and change their behavior, and it’s possible to have an immediate impact.

Working with Professor Kennedy, and building on successes in other cities, New Orleans is now identifying the young men most at risk and intervening to help them get jobs. How well this strategy will work in the long term remains to be seen.

But it’s an approach based on an honest assessment of the real numbers.

Correction: September 21, 2014
A news analysis article last Sunday about the politics around banning assault weapons gave an imprecise and outdated statistic on the use of handguns in killings in the United States. They were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders, not all murders, each year — and in the early 1990s, not in the present.

[Th'Pusher]

Oh yeah all those conversions for bolt actions that make them semiauto, like a semiauto receiver and a different stock and barrel. Oh and a trigger group as well. That should convert it. Why would anyone want to convert to a gun you can buy legally cheaper than the one you're trying to convert, you fucking idiot?

This is like watching retards finger paint in their own shit.

:lol at how excited you are. Fine, just Ban semiautomatic weapons.

[dabom]

The debate isn't that you should ban guns or small arms. You have a right to have guns. The debate is that you shouldn't be able to kill 50 people and injure 500 other people just "because". :lol

Why are you trying to turn this into a "what kills more".

That's never been the debate faggot. :lmao

[dabom]

This shitty deflecting in here. :lmao
































Low tier posters. :lmao

[DMC]

:lol at how excited you are. Fine, just Ban semiautomatic weapons.

Go right ahead.

:lol at how stupid and uninformed you are.

[DMC]

The debate isn't that you should ban guns or small arms. You have a right to have guns. The debate is that you shouldn't be able to kill 50 people and injure 500 other people just "because". :lol

Why are you trying to turn this into a "what kills more".

That's never been the debate faggot. :lmao

I said ban gunsPERIOD. You saying "shouldn't be able to" is silly since people done this with things other than guns. They are able to. Your "ought" means naught.

Now run back upstairs and start a shit thread about third world players, see who bites.

[dabom]

I said ban gunsPERIOD. You saying "shouldn't be able to" is silly since people done this with things other than guns. They are able to. Your "ought" means naught.

Now run back upstairs and start a shit thread about third world players, see who bites.

So you wanna ban guns? :lol

Ok. :lol

[Spurtacular]

Concert and Church shooting, faggot. :lmao

Maybe, we should outlaw large gatherings, then.

[dabom]

Maybe, we should outlaw large gatherings, then.

:lmao

[dabom]

Hey Pavlov, any more repugs I missed today? :lol

[Spurtacular]

:lmao

Glad you see the point. Your crusade against guns is that silly.

[Spurtacular]

Hey Pavlov (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7343), any more repugs I missed today? :lol

WTF you talking about, bro?

[dabom]

WTF you talking about, bro?

You seem to be the most uninformed poster in here. :lol

You really seem like you might actually be missing a chromosome. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Go right ahead.

:lol at how stupid and uninformed you are.

automatic and semiautomatic weapon ban. Everything else is legal for self defense.

[Spurtacular]

You seem to be the most uninformed poster in here. :lol

You really seem like you might actually be missing a chromosome. :lol

You still suck at trolling.

[DMC]

automatic and semiautomatic weapon ban. Everything else is legal for self defense.

:lol

Introduce that

[DMC]

So you wanna ban guns? :lol

Ok. :lol

No, I want you to ban guns. I want liberals to introduce a bill in the senate to ban guns and confiscate existing guns from gun owners.

[Blake]

automatic and semiautomatic weapon ban. Everything else is legal for self defense.


:lol

Introduce that

928294858007212032

[dabom]

No, I want you to ban guns. I want liberals to introduce a bill in the senate to ban guns and confiscate existing guns from gun owners.

I'm not arguing that, faggot. :lmao

Anywhere did I say that? :lol

Lost an argument so you went to another talking point. :lmao

[DMC]

928294858007212032

:lol

You do realize that's mostly about looks, right?

:lol "Owners may keep existing weapons"

Which means... wait for it.... increase in assault style weapons sales!

Placebo inbound!

[DMC]

I'm not arguing that, faggot. :lmao

Anywhere did I say that? :lol

Lost an argument so you went to another talking point. :lmao

Stop interrupting when adults are talking.

[dabom]

Stop interrupting when adults are talking.

Faggot gets owned. :lmao








































































:lmao :lmao

[Blake]

:lol

You do realize that's mostly about looks, right?

:lol "Owners may keep existing weapons"

Which means... wait for it.... increase in assault style weapons sales!

Placebo inbound!

You asked for the bill.

It'll be a temporary increase in sales. Like the run on bump stock. Big deal.

We get it, you think laws are worthless.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol

Introduce that

I’m under no delusion that a ban on semiautomatic weapons could pass, much less be introduced in the house or the senate. They couldn’t pass something the US populace actually agreed on (i.e. universal background checks) after a kid mowed down a bunch of five year olds in a school.

That doesn’t mean a ban on semiautomatic weapons wouldn’t be effective though.

[DMC]

You asked for the bill.

It'll be a temporary increase in sales. Like the run on bump stock. Big deal.

We get it, you think laws are worthless.

So you think that proposal covers all semi-auto and full autos?

:lol it doesn't cover either

Assault style weapons are semi autos but not all semi autos are assault style weapons.

Full auto isn't touched in that proposal.

Also, I said introduce that. I don't see a bill being proposed to ban semi auto weapons.

You moved the goalpost... again.

How many lives did the laws save in that church? Murder has bee illegal for a long time.

[DMC]

I’m under no delusion that a ban on semiautomatic weapons could pass, much less be introduced in the house or the senate. They couldn’t pass something the US populace actually agreed on (i.e. universal background checks) after a kid mowed down a bunch of five year olds in a school.

That doesn’t mean a ban on semiautomatic weapons wouldn’t be effective though.

A ban on all weapons would be effective.

Let's continue to suggest things that simply won't happen. I'll start with world peace.

[boutons_deux]

That doesn’t mean a ban on semiautomatic weapons wouldn’t be effective though.

there 1000s, 10000s?, semiautomatic weapons in the 300M+ guns in USA. That horse is long gone from the barn.

[Blake]

So you think that proposal covers all semi-auto and full autos?

:lol it doesn't cover either

Assault style weapons are semi autos but not all semi autos are assault style weapons.

Full auto isn't touched in that proposal.

Also, I said introduce that. I don't see a bill being proposed to ban semi auto weapons.

You moved the goalpost... again.

How many lives did the laws save in that church? Murder has bee illegal for a long time.

Eh, I didn't really read the bill until now, just saw semi and assumed it was a ban.

At least it calls for a ban on high capacity mags and bump stock which is at least more than an aesthetic move.

[Blake]

A ban on all weapons would be effective.

Let's continue to suggest things that simply won't happen. I'll start with world peace.

Why would a ban on all weapons be effective but not a ban on semis? That makes no sense.

[DMC]

As is made evident by these discussions, nomenclature leaves loopholes. "Firearms" is all encompassing


There is no bill to do either.

Read things before you post them. Your are just flinging shit to see what sticks.

[DMC]

there 1000s, 10000s?, semiautomatic weapons in the 300M+ guns in USA. That horse is long gone from the barn.

millions.

[Th'Pusher]

A ban on all weapons would be effective.

Let's continue to suggest things that simply won't happen. I'll start with world peace.

A ban on all weapons wouldn’t be constitutional. If we’re limiting the conversation to things that will happen, then have fun!

[Blake]

As is made evident by these discussions, nomenclature leaves loopholes. "Firearms" is all encompassing


There is no bill to do either.

Read things before you post them. Your are just flinging shit to see what sticks.

A law with loopholes? No way!

No, I don't keep up with gun jargon or read the ar-15 message boards because I don't care enough to.

But you're not convincing me nor anyone else here that the only two choices are a ban on all guns or no ban at all. You posted a wiki leak to the federal ban and then told me to look at this thread title as evidence of it not working.

It's retarded.

[DMC]

A law with loopholes? No way!

No, I don't keep up with gun jargon or read the ar-15 message boards because I don't care enough to.

But you're not convincing me nor anyone else here that the only two choices are a ban on all guns or no ban at all. You posted a wiki leak to the federal ban and then told me to look at this thread title as evidence of it not working.

It's retarded.

Explain what this proposed law will do, exactly.

It's not the law that has loopholes, it's that firearm nomenclature isn't understood well by lawmakers, and especially not liberal lawmakers. For this reason they are most likely to push forth a neutered version of a bill that could otherwise have teeth, because they think it has a chance of passing. That's what they are after, saying they passed a bill on gun control, not on actually controlling anything.

Of course, as staunch of a supporter as you are of these idiots, and seeing how you also don't know shit about the subject but post images of proposals you haven't even read, you probably would clap joyfully if the neutered placebo passed. Yay, we made a difference.

I can't convince you of something you refuse to understand.

[DMC]

A ban on all weapons wouldn’t be constitutional. If we’re limiting the conversation to things that will happen, then have fun!

So? Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

[Blake]

Explain what this proposed law will do, exactly.

It's not the law that has loopholes, it's that firearm nomenclature isn't understood well by lawmakers, and especially not liberal lawmakers. For this reason they are most likely to push forth a neutered version of a bill that could otherwise have teeth, because they think it has a chance of passing. That's what they are after, saying they passed a bill on gun control, not on actually controlling anything.

Of course, as staunch of a supporter as you are of these idiots, and seeing how you also don't know shit about the subject but post images of proposals you haven't even read, you probably would clap joyfully if the neutered placebo passed. Yay, we made a difference.

I can't convince you of something you refuse to understand.

Looks like for starters, there'll be a ban on high capacity mags.

I posted the CNN article regarding the research on such mag bans, indicating they work.

Looks good to me. You can keep blabbering on if you want, let me know when you have something other than "look at the thread title derp".

[DMC]

Looks like for starters, there'll be a ban on high capacity mags.

Again, what will that do, exactly?

Hint: Don't just say "ban high capacity magazines" because it's misleading. There will be a ban on the manufacture and sell of magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, to the public. Existing magazines can be kept.

So what will it do?


I posted the CNN article regarding the research on such mag bans, indicating they work.

No, you showed cause vs correlation article at did not indicate the ban works. Do you honestly think a ban on high capacity magazines makes the difference on whether or not someone decides to go on a shooting spree, when they are planning on killing themselves as well?

The guy in Texas could have done the same with a hangun with 10 rnd magazines. Who's going to stop him? The other armed man who wasn't in the church?


Looks good to me. You can keep blabbering on if you want, let me know when you have something other than "look at the thread title derp".
I'm sure in your lazy, hazy outlook on this you see a "good to go". People like you are a wet dream for gun nuts. They love it when the other side has no fucking clue.

[Blake]

Again, what will that do, exactly?

Hint: Don't just say "ban high capacity magazines" because it's misleading. There will be a ban on the manufacture and sell of magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, to the public. Existing magazines can be kept.

So what will it do?

No, you showed cause vs correlation article at did not indicate the ban works. Do you honestly think a ban on high capacity magazines makes the difference on whether or not someone decides to go on a shooting spree, when they are planning on killing themselves as well?

The guy in Texas could have done the same with a hangun with 10 rnd magazines. Who's going to stop him? The other armed man who wasn't in the church?

I'm sure in your lazy, hazy outlook on this you see a "good to go". People like you are a wet dream for gun nuts. They love it when the other side has no fucking clue.

The cause vs correlation article from cnn works for me. Will a bam stop everyone? No, but if it slows some freaks down and saves a few lives, sounds good to me.

I don't see why you're crying so hard about this and other bills. Is this going to effect you personally somehow if passed?

[Th'Pusher]

So? Repeal the 2nd Amendment.
No need to be so melodramatic Donna. Semiautomatic ban coupled with a buyback program should suffice.

[CosmicCowboy]

No need to be so melodramatic Donna. Semiautomatic ban coupled with a buyback program should suffice.
So how much are you personally willing to pay in an AR-15 buyback? $1000? $2000 per gun? $5000?

[CosmicCowboy]

You should start a 501(c)3 buyback charity. Everyone in here that hates guns can contribute.

[dabom]

You should start a 501(c)3 buyback charity. Everyone in here that hates guns can contribute.


Why do people argue something that no one is arguing? :lol

[dabom]

I'm about to leave to do some stuff, I just find it funny.

[dabom]

Come on brah. Taking more than a minute to formulate a response. :lol

Trying to make it bullet proof or something. :lol

Anyways I'm out.

[Pavlov]

So at least we're agreed he was Antifa.

[CosmicCowboy]

There was a time back in the 80's that the US Government was one of the biggest AR-15 sellers around. After Vietnam they took the millions of M-16s they had and destroyed all the receivers but sold all the other parts in bulk for pennies. Aftermarket companies started stamping out receivers for $100 and you could build a perfectly good AR-15 for $300. Funny thing, all the other parts including the bolt were original M-16 parts so with one set of holes drilled through the receiver and adding an auto-sear which is a 10 cent piece of stamped metal you could turn it right back into a full auto M-16. The US Government sold millions of those parts kits.

[dabom]

And the government had slaves at one point. It doesn't mean we can't change. :lol

[Pavlov]

Black Panthers used to open carry in state capitol buildings.

[Th'Pusher]

So how much are you personally willing to pay in an AR-15 buyback? $1000? $2000 per gun? $5000?

What I'd personally be willing to pay is irrelevant as it would obviously be a taxpayer funded program. I'd throw $2B at the program. A fraction of the cost of the wall.

[DMC]

No need to be so melodramatic Donna. Semiautomatic ban coupled with a buyback program should suffice.

"Should" as if you have some sort of data to back that up. You can't even identify a semi-auto, since you want to ban conversion kits :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

What I'd personally be willing to pay is irrelevant as it would obviously be a taxpayer funded program. I'd throw $2B at the program. A fraction of the cost of the wall.
2 billion wouldnt scratch the surface. The more you buy, the more the ones that are left are worth.

[DMC]

The cause vs correlation article from cnn works for me. Will a bam stop everyone? No, but if it slows some freaks down and saves a few lives, sounds good to me.

I don't see why you're crying so hard about this and other bills. Is this going to effect you personally somehow if passed?

I'm sure it works for you - laziness coupled with ignorance means the bar of acceptance is pretty low for you.

You posted the bill, not me. You don't even know what's in it.

It's not going to pass. Even if it did, if I wanted to, I could make a tidy profit on it. Just the rumor of it will create cash flow.

[DMC]

2 billion wouldnt scratch the surface. The more you buy, the more the ones that are left are worth.

Could you imagine how many shitty 200 dollar guns would be purchased in hopes that the feds would buy them back for 1K?

[CosmicCowboy]

Laws are funny. Premeditated murder in texas gets you the needle. A gun violation would be what? Ten years at the worst? Yet that sorry fuck mowed down those people at that church anyway. Death penalty possibility didnt bother him.hell, he eventually gave himself the death penalty. Crazy fucks will still do crazy fucking things no matter the penalty.

[dabom]

Why do people use fake arguments to make a point. The point isn't about the penalty. It's how to reduce the death count in mass shootings. :lol

[DMC]

Plus when they do that in the US, they get to be stars. We treat serial killers and mass shooters like celebrities.

[Chucho]

Could you imagine how many shitty 200 dollar guns would be purchased in hopes that the feds would buy them back for 1K?

I use a HiPoint as my fishing pistol, I'd totally do that right now everyday and twice on Thursdays.

[Blake]

I'm sure it works for you - laziness coupled with ignorance means the bar of acceptance is pretty low for you.

You posted the bill, not me. You don't even know what's in it.

It's not going to pass. Even if it did, if I wanted to, I could make a tidy profit on it. Just the rumor of it will create cash flow.

And yet you're so angry about it. I don't get it

[spurraider21]

i remember when australia went bankrupt following their buyback...

we can just follow obama's lead and sell the guns to mexican gangbangers and isis tbh

[CosmicCowboy]

Plus when they do that in the US, they get to be stars. We treat serial killers and mass shooters like celebrities.

Bingo. We have a winner.

[Th'Pusher]

2 billion wouldnt scratch the surface. The more you buy, the more the ones that are left are worth.

I wouldn’t expect to remove all semiautomatic weapons with a buy-back program. But $2B would definitely scratch the surface. And the goal of the buyback program would be to raise the value of the ones left in circulation.

[Th'Pusher]

"Should" as if you have some sort of data to back that up. You can't even identify a semi-auto, since you want to ban conversion kits :lol

Nope. I amended it to a semiautomatic weapon ban. Keep you revolvers, bolt action and shotguns for self defense. I wouldn’t want to infringe on your 2nd amendment rights :lol

[DMC]

And yet you're so angry about it. I don't get it

Poor Blake, doesn't know what to say when Chumdumper isn't here running his circular questioning schtick - resorts to "u mad" response when cornered.

[DMC]

Nope. I amended it to a semiautomatic weapon ban. Keep you revolvers, bolt action and shotguns for self defense. I wouldn’t want to infringe on your 2nd amendment rights :lol

What about semiautomatic shotguns?

[dabom]

Fake arguments. :lmao

Fake points. :lol

100% faggots. :lmao

[DMC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

:lol

Some of that shit is fucking hilarious.

[DMC]

Fake arguments. :lmao

Fake points. :lol

100% faggots. :lmao

Somewhere there's another 3rd world NBA fan starting a thread about a fellow countryman in the NBA. You should seek them out and counter their argument with your staunch logic and wisdom.

[dabom]

Somewhere there's another 3rd world NBA fan starting a thread about a fellow countryman in the NBA. You should seek them out and counter their argument with your staunch logic and wisdom.

Been awfully quiet for repugs even for a monday.

I'm just playing around with ya. And ya get so defensive. :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

What about semiautomatic shotguns?

What part of Semiautomatic weapons ban don’t you understand?

Nobody is impressed with your gun knowledge btw.

[Spurtacular]

What part of Semiautomatic weapons ban don’t you understand?

Nobody is impressed with your gun knowledge btw.

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now we just need DMC to reprise the argument about some guy being able to train to make speedloaders almost as fast as semiautos in terms of rate of fire as if some guy training for years to accomplish that is a reasonable analog.

[DMC]

What part of Semiautomatic weapons ban don’t you understand?

Nobody is impressed with your gun knowledge btw.

You said I could keep my shotguns.

[DMC]

Now we just need DMC to reprise the argument about some guy being able to train to make speedloaders almost as fast as semiautos in terms of rate of fire as if some guy training for years to accomplish that is a reasonable analog.
:lol puts me on ignore
:lol Can't stop thinking about me




































:lol rent free

[Blake]

Poor Blake, doesn't know what to say when Chumdumper isn't here running his circular questioning schtick - resorts to "u mad" response when cornered.

Poor dmc doesn't know why he mad.

Lol cornered.

[CosmicCowboy]

You said I could keep my shotguns.

He is just mentally masturbating anyway. There wont be a semi-auto blanket ban.

[Th'Pusher]

He is just mentally masturbating anyway. There wont be a semi-auto blanket ban.

I already acknowledged a semiautomatic weapons ban was politically untenable. It doesn't mean it wouldn't be an effective and constitutional way to address mass shootings.

[dabom]

I already acknowledged a semiautomatic weapons ban was politically untenable. It doesn't mean it wouldn't be an effective and constitutional way to address mass shootings.

They keep using fake arguments. Pretend they are actually "winning" something. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He is just mentally masturbating anyway. There wont be a semi-auto blanket ban.

Now you are moving the goalposts. You guys were saying that no ban would work because of jargon.

Of course passing any gun control would be difficult but that is besides the point. Fact is you do not need a semiauto for hunting or protection. A ban and buyback policy would over time reduce the number of semiautos in the market even if there was a surge initially. Pair that with mandatory background checks involving a law enforcement agency on all transactions and you have a comprehensive gun control law.

[Chucho]

:lol puts me on ignore
:lol Can't stop thinking about me




































:lol rent free

The only thing consistent with this fraud is his faggotry. 6 figure nickel sack pushing faggot.

[Trill Clinton]

930236279538585600

[Spurminator]

:lol "Dilly Dilly" at the very end, first time that's ever been funny

[CosmicCowboy]

Now you are moving the goalposts. You guys were saying that no ban would work because of jargon.

Of course passing any gun control would be difficult but that is besides the point. Fact is you do not need a semiauto for hunting or protection. A ban and buyback policy would over time reduce the number of semiautos in the market even if there was a surge initially. Pair that with mandatory background checks involving a law enforcement agency on all transactions and you have a comprehensive gun control law.
Mental masturbation. It will never happen.

[Th'Pusher]

Mental masturbation. It will never happen.

If it were to happen, do you think it would be effective at preventing mass shootings?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Mental masturbation. It will never happen.

You certainly hope so. Of course you are unable to argue efficacy or constitutionality.

[DMC]

If it were to happen, do you think it would be effective at preventing mass shootings?

Mass shootings are banned.

[DMC]

Now you are moving the goalposts. You guys were saying that no ban would work because of jargon.

Of course passing any gun control would be difficult but that is besides the point. Fact is you do not need a semiauto for hunting or protection. A ban and buyback policy would over time reduce the number of semiautos in the market even if there was a surge initially. Pair that with mandatory background checks involving a law enforcement agency on all transactions and you have a comprehensive gun control law.

:lol

NFA allows full autos to be owned by civilians.

Fuzzy thinks semiautos can be effectively banned.

[Blake]

Mass shootings are banned.

Might as well not even make legislation about killing people.

[Reck]

930655291569524736

Forgot to hit send for an entire week apparently. :lol

[Chucho]

Might as well not even make legislation about killing people.

Abortion for all! No terms!

[spurraider21]

Abortion for all! No terms!
even if you ban abortions people will have them anyway. so why bother?

[CosmicCowboy]

You certainly hope so. Of course you are unable to argue efficacy or constitutionality.
I see no point in arguing about something that will never happen. I Dont really have a dog in this hunt anyway as I sold all my ARs when the post vietnam surplus ammo ran out and 5.56 went fron 6 cents a round to almost $1 a round. That took a lot of the fun out of it. Plus I sold them for 4 times what I built them for. I am much more into accurate 1/2 moa bolt action rifles. In fact the only semi-auto long gun I own now is a tactical Ruger 10-22 for a throw around truck gun

[CosmicCowboy]

Guns that spray rounds like Fuzzys jizz on bukkaki boutons just dont interest me anymore.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see no point in arguing about something that will never happen. I Dont really have a dog in this hunt anyway as I sold all my ARs when the post vietnam surplus ammo ran out and 5.56 went fron 6 cents a round to almost $1 a round. That took a lot of the fun out of it. Plus I sold them for 4 times what I built them for. I am much more into accurate 1/2 moa bolt action rifles. In fact the only semi-auto long gun I own now is a tactical Ruger 10-22 for a throw around truck gun

Who cares? No one is talking about confiscations. Try and keep up. All I get from that is you are emotionally invested in firearms.

You have also said that assault weapons bans and other parameters of bans won't happen yet you argue the efficacy of those regulations. We both know that if you could use any of your canned arguments or :lol were able to come up with some of your own that you would.

I will concede that the current political climate is prohibitive but things change. For example, with Anthony Kennedy showing every indication that he rejects the arguments for partisan gerrymandering, your ideology is going to have a much more difficult time holding onto power. if SCOTUS rules against it. Combine that with an awful Dem campaign still winning the popular vote by over 2 points and recent state level elections and I can see that status quo worm turning easily.

There would need to be a supermajority that doesn't need purple/red districts to succeed and a blue POTUS but if partisan gerrymandering is shot down that seems a very real possibility.

[CosmicCowboy]

WhO said anything about confiscation? You are such a fuzzybrain.

[CosmicCowboy]

I find it humorous that you are assuming that the hispanics you are counting on to put the democrat party in power will have the same attitude toward guns that you pansyasses do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I find it humorous that you are assuming that the hispanics you are counting on to put the democrat party in power will have the same attitude toward guns that you pansyasses do.

Who said anything about hispanics? I said blue states ie democratic voters, dumbfuck.

As for confiscations, you responded to my post by talking about the guns you had already gotten rid of so the ban would not affect you. I get that you are too dim to understand the logical extension of your statement.

[CosmicCowboy]

Who said anything about hispanics? I said blue states ie democratic voters, dumbfuck.

As for confiscations, you responded to my post by talking about the guns you had already gotten rid of so the ban would not affect you. I get that you are too dim to understand the logical extension of your statement.
I get that you cant read you fucking idiot. I never said anything about fearing confiscation. I said I wasn't interested in them anymore and sold them for a 400% profit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I get that you cant read you fucking idiot. I never said anything about fearing confiscation. I said I wasn't interested in them anymore and sold them for a 400% profit.

So what is the point of bringing up that you had already sold all your semiautos then, dim?

We are talking about a semiauto ban and you bring up that you sold all yours. Were you hoping to impress people like an even bigger dumbfuck than I had initially thought?

[CosmicCowboy]

So what is the point of bringing up that you had already sold all your semiautos then, dim?

We are talking about a semiauto ban and you bring up that you sold all yours. Were you hoping to impress people like an even bigger dumbfuck than I had initially thought?
You are such a stupid dick. Maybe you didnt understand the expression " I don't have a dog in this hunt" meaning a ban would not affect me and I'm not emotionally attached to semi-automatic rifles. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that your fantasy of banning them is just that. A juvenile fantasy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are such a stupid dick. Maybe you didnt understand the expression " I don't have a dog in this hunt" meaning a ban would not affect me and I'm not emotionally attached to semi-automatic rifles. That doesn't stop me from pointing out that your fantasy of banning them is just that. A juvenile fantasy.

:lol so I was right to say that confiscations are not on the table and your post was irrelevant.

You dodged my post discussing the upcoming SCOTUS decision and a changing political landscape. What is juvenile is how you argue, brotherkiller.

[Blake]

sold them for a 400% profit.

:lol you just can't help yourself

[Trill Clinton]

So another SAWM shot and killed 6 and wounded a child yesterday?

[boutons_deux]

Texas Shooting Shows Once Again That Animal Cruelty and Human Cruelty Are Strongly Linked (https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/15/texas-shooting-shows-once-again-that-animal-cruelty-and-human-cruelty-are-strongly-linked/)

What do Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Devin Kelley the Texas church killer and a host of other killers have in common?

They tortured animals and delighted in the pain they inflicted.

Now comes news (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/us/devin-kelley-air-force.html)that Devin Kelley, who killed 26 in a Texas church this month, enjoyed killing animals.

He actually bought dogs online and used them as target practice the New York Times revealed this week.

His Facebook conversations became so full of gleeful descriptions of killing animals, people unfriended and feared him.

In Colorado Springs he was charged (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting)with cruelty to animals after beating his malnourished husky.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/15/texas-shooting-shows-once-again-that-animal-cruelty-and-human-cruelty-are-strongly-linked/

[TSA]

What part of Semiautomatic weapons ban don’t you understand?

Nobody is impressed with your gun knowledge btw.

A pump-action, AR-15-style rifle was used to fire at least 20 rounds during the shooting, police said at a Wednesday news conference. Another 850 rounds and what appeared to be a semi-automatic rifle with ammunition magazines were found in his car, police said. (Authorities had earlier described both weapons as being semi-automatic rifles.)

http://poststar.com/news/state-and-regional/police-miracle-more-weren-t-shot-by-rifle-toting-man/article_8f3fe786-a6ca-58fd-9519-491a8198825d.html#tracking-source=home-latest-1

[Th'Pusher]

A pump-action, AR-15-style rifle was used to fire at least 20 rounds during the shooting, police said at a Wednesday news conference. Another 850 rounds and what appeared to be a semi-automatic rifle with ammunition magazines were found in his car, police said. (Authorities had earlier described both weapons as being semi-automatic rifles.)

http://poststar.com/news/state-and-regional/police-miracle-more-weren-t-shot-by-rifle-toting-man/article_8f3fe786-a6ca-58fd-9519-491a8198825d.html#tracking-source=home-latest-1

Do you have a point?

[TSA]

Do you have a point?

Ban pump action

[TSA]

Take your $2B and enforce laws on the books first
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/15/exclusive-obama-rarely-prosecuted-criminals-who-sought-to-buy-guns-illegally/

[Th'Pusher]

Ban pump action

Are the majority of mass shootings performed with pump action or semiautomatic weapons? Would you consider this to be an outlier or the standard? Should we code for the 80% or the 20%?

[Th'Pusher]

Take your $2B and enforce laws on the books first
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/15/exclusive-obama-rarely-prosecuted-criminals-who-sought-to-buy-guns-illegally/
Ok. I'll double it to $4b, still a fraction of the cost of the wall, or the proposed tax cut...

[CosmicCowboy]

Ban pump action
Dont forget lever action. I can crank out 10 .357 rounds out of my Marlin saddle rifle as fast as an AR-15.

[DMC]

If the libs don't go for a total ban on firearms with confiscation attached, they don't have a hair on their balls (except Nancy).

[Blake]

If the libs don't go for a total ban on firearms with confiscation attached, they don't have a hair on their balls (except Nancy).

You're the only one I know of that thinks the only two options are total ban or no ban.

[Spurminator]

You're the only one I know of that thinks the only two options are total ban or no ban.

He doesn't think that either.