|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 9, 2017, 01:38 AM | #201 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
Quote:
To the first part , I'd expect we'd all agree banning the bump stock would do nothing to stop or even slowing the frequency of any types of shootings . When it comes to the second part , would banning the stock effect the casualty rate of future shootings ? Well I'd have to say yes . I don't like admitting that but I believe it to be true . How ever there are specific reasons for that I believe . 1) Now every nut job knows about them and just that alone is going to make it more likely then not they would be used again . 2) The ability to obtain and the ease of use along with #1 above again would make it more likely then not they will be used again in a similar way . 3 ) ( and this ones tricky ) the volume of projectiles that can be lunched in a very short amount of time into a crowd by the average nut job as we know them to date. Will more likely then not cause more casualty's then if that same average nut job did not use one . How ever and I believe this was brought up earlier in this thread or I read it on another forum . Either way I agree fully with this thought . "If" a better trained or more practiced marksman was using a simple semi auto with a scope laying prone with a bipod . It's my opinion the casualty rate would/could have been at least double if not triple in that same 10min period from the same location . While at the same time the injury number would have likely been a 1/10 the amount maybe half when considering over penetration and one projectile actually hitting more then one person . So logically speaking I'd say yes banning them or restricting them "now" would reduce casualty's in the future . Practically or reasonably speaking I'd say no banning them will not reduce the casualty rate in future events . It just seems the more these events happen and get reported on . The better the shooters get at racking up the casualty rate . I hope I wrote that in a way that made sense . When I read it it sounds contradictory but in my head it's not .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; October 9, 2017 at 01:46 AM. |
|
October 9, 2017, 01:45 AM | #202 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
|
To be completely accurate, I wasn't asking the question so much as pointing out that it was one of the facts that should be thoroughly investigated as part of a systematic approach to solving the problem.
Quote:
Also, one needs to look at what would be the likely substitute weapon(s) of choice if bump-fire stocks were heavily regulated. In this specific case, for example, the shooter would likely not have had any difficulty, financial or otherwise, purchasing true full-auto weapons. It's unlikely that would have resulted in a better outcome. I agree that's not a likely substitute weapon in the general case, but what about other options that might become more attractive for a person who can't buy bump-fire stocks. Would truck attacks, such as have happened in Europe become more popular? Would the casualties be fewer or greater in that case? If a person had attacked a 22,000 person concert with a large rented truck, what would the expected casualties be? One good example of this is that some studies suggest that banning handguns might actually increase the firearms fatality rate. At first that seems like it's nonsense but once the topic is studied in detail things become clearer. If handguns become very difficult to obtain, many who choose firearms to commit violent crime will be driven to using long guns. Why does that matter? People shot with a long gun are four times more likely to die compared to those shot with handguns. So even if only half as many people use guns for violent crimes (due to the added difficulty of using a long gun in a violent crime) the actual fatality rate could still increase by a factor of two. So banning handguns to cut down on firearms fatalities could conceivably cause a large increase in the number of firearms fatalities--a completely counter-intuitive result. I don't know the answers to the questions that I asked, but it would be important to have some reasonable answers before taking action to place restrictions on everyone in the country. Not only because we should be very cautious about restricting freedoms; but also because if we do something in a hurry it could be useless, or it might even make things worse. There's a reason that gun control tends to make progress only after a mass shooting when emotions are high. It's because when the topic is studied with a fact-based approach, it turns out that what seems simple can actually be very complex and "intuitive reactions" may actually be useless or even counter-productive. What people FEEL needs to be done in the aftermath of a tragedy can actually be exactly the opposite of what the FACTS say should be done.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
October 9, 2017, 02:04 AM | #203 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
|
Scuba, They're not coming to your door, Both sides understand the mistake that would be.
But they very well are coming for your guns via shifts in the law. It's not that they haven't tried in recent years.. they just haven't had the votes. Don't you remember Obama whining after the failed sandy hook gun grab? Unfortunately at the state level some states took a hit anyway. Remember the NY S.A.F.E act.. ya 7 round capacity seems fair don't it? I think the mag rule down from 10 eventually got overturned but still. People say these shootings are happening more often.. well we hear about every single one of them and there are over 100ml more people in this country since I was born.. I bet there are more rapes and muggings too but they don't make the news. More people = more (total) crime.. duh Think of it as inflation for murder. |
October 9, 2017, 08:23 AM | #204 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
The Senator's opinion on the efficacy of legal restrictions is interesting.
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
October 9, 2017, 08:34 AM | #205 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 11, 2013
Posts: 115
|
Feinstein's Bumpfire Ban Bill
Quote:
While I don't live in fear of a scary fantasy character, I'll subject myself to your metaphor and acknowledge that you've pointed out the difference between you and me --the compromisers vs. the "all-or-nothing" crowd... A wise man once said, "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry "Suspect everyone who APPROACHES...". Well... I do! I guess some would call that paranoia, I know the liberal anti-gun politicians would. Last edited by winchester1917; October 9, 2017 at 08:39 AM. |
|
October 9, 2017, 09:18 AM | #206 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Forgive me if it has been beaten to death as did not carefully read every post.
I am not going to "die on the hill" in regards to bump stocks or cranks or things that are designed as range toys to attempt to bridge a gap between semi-auto and full auto. I have always passed those booths at the gun show with the feeling that the ATF would eventually come down on them or they would be otherwise banned. That and I have no desire to simply spit led out like that. However the wording of this bill is vague and the author should not be considered to be operating in good faith in regards to "reasonable" regulation (whatever that is). Maybe its just a lack of knowledge on the subject that they are attempting to regulate (it would not be the first time). Want to negotiate? I will trade bump fire stocks and cranks to the NFA list in return for silencers coming off it - one law gone for every new one type thing. However this has to be a carefully worded thing and not "anything designed to increase the rate of fire" Its conceivable any magazine past the capacity that came with the gun does this. It is conceivable low recoil ammunition does this. There are too many things that fall under the "anything" category. |
October 9, 2017, 09:22 AM | #207 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/...e-gun-control/ When legislative leaders take the current hysteria as an opportunity to exploit for greater restriction, perhaps it's time to take the idea of a slippery slope more seriously. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; October 9, 2017 at 09:40 AM. |
|||
October 9, 2017, 05:27 PM | #208 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
|
Look at the west coast, guns a being taken away piece by piece.
I live in Washington State.... the most gun loving population I’ve ever encountered and they are facing attempts. Also, in some cases around the country, it’s not the big scary government, it’s the voters. Once other states start putting guns on the ballots, gun rights will slowly disappear. |
October 9, 2017, 10:44 PM | #209 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 26, 2016
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 1,636
|
Quote:
Other southern and Midwestern states are doing the same. I work at a university and we had a big raffle at one of our big events giving away a Beretta shotgun, a sig pistol, a yeti cooler, and other stuff. We also have state laws in our constitution that forbid state enforcement of Federal gun laws running contrary to the states.....kind of like the legal marijuana states. It really seems we have two distinct America's rifting further apart as time goes by. Hard to speculate where this all ends, but my region has a track record of taking states rights very seriously. |
|
October 10, 2017, 07:15 AM | #210 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 298
|
Quote:
Last edited by jrinne0430; October 10, 2017 at 07:28 AM. |
|
October 10, 2017, 09:57 AM | #211 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
jrinne0430:
Quote:
It happened quickly here b/c of the population shift. Every other state will go this way eventually as the city populations overtake the rural populations in political power. Example 1: Illinois. Why do policies led by Chicago politics dictate what happens in Springfield? The only chance for a reversal of this tide would be if some absolutely average citizen (not off-duty LEO, not ex-mil) uses an AR with a 30 round magazine to save a busload of kittens and humpback whales from a gang of terrorists wearing "I love ISIS" Tshirts and evil clown masks. And as ha-ha surreal as that sounds, it might just take something that startling.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
October 10, 2017, 10:39 AM | #212 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
People, for the most part, vote for their own self-interest or more accurately what they perceive to be their own self interest.
Those who do not personally care about owning a firearm will often support, or at least not oppose, a candidate based on his or her support for the 2nd amendment. Those who do not personally care about owning an assault rifle (or whatever term you want to use) will normally not oppose a candidate solely because he or she supports regulation. While you on these boards may know candidate X's stance on gun control its because it is an area you are concerned with that impacts you directly. Think about some other issue that you are not personally invested in (emotionally or financially). Do you know candidates X's stance on this issue? Does it impact your voting? |
October 10, 2017, 11:32 PM | #213 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2008
Location: Northeast Colorado
Posts: 1,993
|
As a resident of Colorado, it would be interesting to know how many residents consider themselves harmed by gun laws passed in 2013, eg universal background checks and magazine capacity limits. Approximately 5.5 million people live in the state. Any estimates?
The point (should be obvious) has ramifications. If 5500 Colorado residents have been negatively affected, that amounts to 0.1% of the population. 55,000 gun owners negatively affected= 1% of the population. As well, exactly what has been negatively affected? When viewed from this perspective, how much political sway do gun rights advocates really carry? Many members of TFL are staunchly opposed to any erosion of freedoms and/or second ammendment rights, percieved or valid. I fully respect those opinions. As more mass shootings involving semiauto military based weapons happen, is it reasonable for people to fear for their safety and want to see laws protecting their safety? I respect those people too. Just my 2 cents. Last edited by Colorado Redneck; October 10, 2017 at 11:46 PM. |
October 10, 2017, 11:55 PM | #214 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
|
Well magpul pulled at least some of their operations out of the state so economically the state took a hit.
|
October 11, 2017, 06:31 AM | #215 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Quote:
Think about recent "assault" weapon bans. Many of them excluded, for instance, the mini-14 and mini-30. Had the bad actor been "forced" to use one of these weapons rather than an AR-15 (or whatever) based rifle would it have made any difference? What about one of the bolt action rifles? |
|
October 11, 2017, 07:03 AM | #216 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
Has anyone considered why these politicians spend so much time and effort to ban guns ?
|
October 11, 2017, 09:34 AM | #217 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 123
|
This is what I'm saying. So much focus on bump stocks is silly. It is just an excuse. It's being used just like the Benghazi video. Chasing that is foolish and actually accomplishes nothing.
He would have used something else. |
October 11, 2017, 10:38 AM | #218 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Moving out of a state is an interesting issue. I think the legislators that push such laws in the state are fine with that. The number of jobs isn't that much in the overall job portfolio for the state in most cases.
Second, they don't want the industry. Let's say that your state or city was a center of producing -sexually explicit media - (or some other product) you don't find acceptable. You ban and/or put in tight controls of that product. The evil producer says they will move - Success for you. NYS banned Foie Gras production, IIRC - who cared? The end state is not any reasonable gun laws but the removal of everything except a few limiting sporting long arms. There is no acknowledgment of usage for SD or defense against tyranny. The latter is mocked. I'm not against trading if the trade gets rid of something stupid (bump stocks) if you get something better for a net gain (HPA, eliminating sporting purpose restrictions).
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 11, 2017, 12:54 PM | #219 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2008
Location: Northeast Colorado
Posts: 1,993
|
Response to Lohman446
The Colorado magazine ban was no doubt a total waste, from the standpoint of any positive influence on crime. But the political benefits may have won legislators more support. Universal background checks evidently have interfered with gun purchases by prohibited persons.
|
October 11, 2017, 01:35 PM | #220 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2011
Posts: 489
|
Don't let this happen!
Sounds like Feinstein isn't the only one proposing bills. Please read the bill being proposed by Carlos Curbelo (FL) and watch the video to explain it better. In summary, this bill has the potential to outlaw any semi-automatic gun.
I read the forums here after the tragedy at Las Vegas and the community seems split (at least the vocal ones) on bump stocks legality. Please put that aside. This isn't about just bump stocks. The bills says "...any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle...". There is nothing specifically defined at all! I'm sure their intention is bump stocks/echo triggers/etc, but this could easily be interpreted down the road to semi-automatics in general since the standard "rate of fire" is never defined. The video lists out all the representatives who are backing it up. Call/email them all, whether they're in your state or not, asap! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCLoIorYguU https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfi...mpstockban.pdf |
October 11, 2017, 01:51 PM | #221 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
|
deaf ears my friend, Some people still think they're going to get some sort of trade for suppressors out of this.
|
October 11, 2017, 01:56 PM | #222 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
OK... I'm convinced.
I think bump-fire stock are a gimmick, but on principle I now think an attempted ban would be a bad thing.... For the repurcussions... Again I say, good luck against this
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
October 11, 2017, 02:04 PM | #223 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Quote:
My guess is, without getting too political in nature, that those who push for gun regulation use it as a "look at what I have been trying to do" with the base if they are challenged in primaries but don't ever actually expect to see it on the floor of the house or Senate in a form that is actually going to become law (see past repeal votes of the "affordable" care act). They can go back to their base and say "look what I have been trying" and then ignore it for the most part in a general election. |
|
October 11, 2017, 02:24 PM | #224 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
Quote:
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
|
October 11, 2017, 10:20 PM | #225 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
Colorado Redneck
Quote:
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|