And I don’t understand why not. The fucker crumpled like the sack of shit he is. Armed to the teeth and armored all over vs a line of cops with a bunch of pistols and one rifle in the back. Those cops stood there in the street without protection. Has all the ingredients for catching fire in the media as an “America, fuck yeah!!” showing. Except all they wanna talk about is gun control and this murdering scumbag. Fuck that. Let’s celebrate the cops responding upon hearing the first shot and risking their lives in order to save more.
If those officers had got there five seconds later, the entire outcome would've been much worse. The piece of shit would've made it inside the bar where hundreds of people were hiding and it would have been harder for the police to get a clean shot at him or he could have fired back at the police, killing/wounding them and there would've been no one to stop him. What kind of fucked up society do we live in where it's a good thing "only" nine people were killed in a mass shooting? I've always been a strong 2A proponent, I own guns, grew up with guns etc. However, I'm really starting to lean towards why does the general public need access to weapons that are designed to kill massive amounts of people in a very short time? Are 20-30 feral hogs really going to take over your land? Are 20-30 gang bangers really going to storm your house and you're going to fight them off? Sadly, like many of us, I have no idea what the answer is. I don't think the answer is the newish Red Flag law where someone can call about a person and the cops show up to take their guns. A man in Maryland was being served with a Red Flag seizure, resisted, fought back and was killed by the police. Are anti-2A people really ok with cops killing citizens trying to protect their constitutional rights? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryla...ag-gun-removal-order-fatally-shoot-armed-man/
Agreed and I also agree that it could be a slippery slope. CA use to have 15+ round magazines for handguns, then they lowered it to 10 and then some state (New York?) tried lowering it to 6 But, other than the argument about infringing, why does the public have access to 100 round drums like the Dayton shooter had? Or the Vegas shooter who was using bump stops? I'm just trying to find a balance between the right to bear arms vs slowing down some crazy from murdering a bunch of people in a very short fashion.
Bump stocks are an expensive novelty. You can achieve bump firing just as effectively with a shoe lace, or a belt loop, or a rubber band. But banning shoe laces isn’t scary (nor is it practical). Those drum mags are the same. They’re heavy as shit, expensive, jamming novelties. PMags (magpul brand magazines available everywhere) are cheap, lightweight and insanely reliable. Tape a few of those together, throw some in your pockets and you have the same capacity as a drum mag... the capacity of which likely won’t be used anyway, as they’re very prone to jamming. But they look scary, so fuck it let’s ban them! Then once we ban those, we can start lowering the bar to banning things like 30 round magazines, then 20 round magazines. Then we’re knocking on the door of California!
I present this video: https://twitter.com/nickvinzant/status/1158936728557633537 So that I may gift you all with this gif: https://twitter.com/MikeythePoet/status/1159023514063536129 Use it in good health.
Dumb because that’s not what the atf didn’t argue at all? They argued originally and correctly that the trigger was reset after every shot thus legal under the definition of the law was legal. They did some back breaking backflips to redefine the use of your finger to get the result trump asked for in their latest ruling. That was stunningly dumb.
Bump stocks are stupid because automatic fire on a civilian semi-auto rifle is a novelty. The only reason an M16 has automatic fire is in case your squad loses your machine gun and you need suppressive fire to get by. It's a "break glass in case of emergency" feature. Using a rifle as a machine gun is completely impractical otherwise. The AR platform was designed for one shot, one kill philosphy.
Yup!Amazing how fast magazines run dry when you go full auto, isn’t it? Great way to wear out a barrel and internals too. I guess it’s like doing a long burnout. Yeah, technically you can. But should you? Not unless you wanna be replacing shit like tires and fenders and bolts and barrels in a hurry. The whole obsession with “assault” rifles and “automatic” rifles and “high capacity magazines” is hilarious to me. AR stands for armalite rifle. It’s a platform. Assault is something you do to someone, and if you shoot someone with a rifle that immediately becomes an assault rifle. There can also be assault shotguns and assault pistols. Any firearm that fires and automatically chambers another round without input from the operator (through gas, recoil, etc) is an automatic rifle. There’s basically three types of pistols: revolvers, muzzle loaders (which criminals are allowed to own) and automatics. For shotguns you have break barrels, pumps, and autos. Most prefer the pumps to the autos because they’re just as fast and more reliable. Rifles come in a few shades, but the most popular are auto, lever action, and bolt action, with the lever action and bolt action being able to, again, be fired nearly as rapidly as the autos. Or at least to where the difference is negligible (it takes a certain amount of time anyway after each shot to get back on target). High cap magazines are, well.... a novelty. Like bump stocks. Generally not reliable. Always very heavy and impractical. I run a 20 round mag in my ARs with only 10 rounds in it (though for hogs I’ll fill it up) as a compromise between weight and still giving me enough purchase to use the mag as a foregrip. Those 50 and 100 round drums are range toys at most and paperweights at worst.
Come on man, you can't be serious. You really think the Dayton shooter would've been able to fire 41 rounds in 39 seconds with a bolt action? My 30.06 is bolt action and it'd be comical trying to keep up with my friend's AR And if 100 round drum mags are a novelty, why have them?
I see red flag laws as a decent compromise medium given strong due process is followed. That or we take a look at involuntary commitment laws should be strengthened or both. Instead of blanket banning firearms that are used in a tiny fraction of over all deaths and effects everyone this is more of a scalpel that is directly focused on the types of people that commit these massacres. Also would help get a hold on the bulk of firearm deaths, suicide. Assault rifles or whatever you want to label them in my eyes are a price of freedom arguments to me, beyond the obvious history of the 2nd amendment and civilians owning arms in line with the military (your bolt action Mauser was designed as a weapon of war to kill as many people as quickly as possible). I think it’s the height of hypocrisy that people shriek about not wanting to die for my hobby, again around 300 people die in America each year for ALL rifle deaths, and will turn around and drink to black out every weekend. As far as society cost the ubiquitous nature of liquor makes it that more costly on about every level. Health and healthcare cost related to it, it’s use in violence against women in domestic situations, as the number one date rape drug by ten miles, DUI deaths, and on and on. No real regulations on buying and consuming outside of the simple age barrier. But you know not as many people hunt or shoot so fuck them and their personal freedoms. Guns are scary to me and alcohol is fun!
accurately? No, not accurately. But that fucker wasn’t firing 41 rounds in 39 seconds accurately either. You can operate an AR with one hand. Bolt action requires two and a rest if you’re shooting it that fast (I know you know that). Just saying it is possible. And I don’t know why you have 100 round drums. I’d never buy one. But if you ban them, you get into the slippery slope that California is dealing with.
I don’t know any serious shooters who own novelty items like that. Ammo isn’t cheap and reliability is usually a big priority with people who shoot as a hobby/hunt. That hundred round drum thing is for a fedora wearing incel who thinks he’s being a badass or trying to modify his gun like in a zombie shooter video game. And from the various different sources coming out about the Dayton shooter, it appears he was just weak beta who had rage problems probably because he was weak and insecure. Ban them or don’t. I don’t care. There’s better accessories out there anyway. These mass shootings suck though because the outcry immediately forces left wing dems to take on HIGHLY unpopular stances like gun bans. It’s the fastest way to lose 44 states.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Nobody forces politicians to do anything. They toe the party line. You want to know what would get me to listen to a Democrat? The Democrat that says: "No, fuck that. Gun laws won't change this" Just as I'm more interested in a Republican who fights against unnecessary wars or pro life movement.
Taking into account all firearms deaths in 2017, according to the CDC (page 33), alcohol killed at a rate of 11 per 100,000 people. Firearms was 12.2. In fact, in the previous 18 years of data, the rate of alcohol-induced deaths have never exceeded the rate of deaths by the result of firearms. It's as if one of those things was designed to kill as many things as possible. That's amazing to me, considering the much higher availability of alcohol over firearms. Personally, I have less of a problem with rifle and shotgun ownership since those can have a legitimate use. I'd much rather see handgun ownership limited to the military and police, and limits on what can and can't be swapped out of a gun, with massive penalties for breaking the law. Arguing against any regulation of guns based on slippery slopes ignores years of SCOTUS rulings on protected speech. The first amendment says the government may not make laws abridging the freedom of speech. Yet, we still prohibit assholes from: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater telling lies about you in public banning porn, or any other speech people may find distasteful. A motorcycle backfired in Times Square and caused 20 people to be injured in a fucking stampede. Public safety requires that we re-evaluate shit like background checks, high capacity magazines, and availability. Ignoring or dismissing solutions because they are imperfect ignores that laws affecting the rest of the Constitution are changed, added, or removed all the time anyway. Why should gun laws be any different?
Damn WAPO, that's quite the embarrassment. Seriously, 15 corrections for ONE story? If it was any worse their corrections page would have been longer than the original story. They also recently claimed Warren was the only candidate not courting wealthy donors at private fundraisers. Umm, what about Sanders? It's not like he's some no name candidate polling at half a percent either. I don't think they bothered correcting that one.
But the slippery slope is who defines what a high capacity magazine is, you say 100 round drum is, the next person says 50, the next says 20, the next says 10...
It's a good point and I agree with you to the extent I don't believe gun laws should be any different. What it comes down to is, I don't trust the government to behave in a logical manner when it comes to guns. Like @wexton just said above me, once they start getting down to 30, 20 round magazines, that where laws step over the line in my opinion. If it was just 100 or 50 round drums? Sure, go ahead. I see no legitimate use for them outside of range fun (and you can do that with a bunch of 30 rounders anyway). But I don't trust the government to stop at, say, 30 rounds. But it is a good point and you have a legitimate argument. I don't agree with part of it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Any mag over 30 rounds is stupid in my opinion. You start running into reliability issues after that anyway. I like 20's and 30's in my rifles because I'm lazy. If they were banned, I'd just hunt with a stack of 10 rounders. I can switch a mag and get a round in the chamber in about 2 seconds on most rifles anyway. I think a magazine ban is pointless and stupid, but it wouldn't be the worst thing that happened to law abiding people. Sure as hell wouldn't slow down mass shooters by much.