Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

Good thing Full Auto is still generally illegal!

Oh, my bad.



I win.

They don't care because they're mentally bucketed into "people who deserved it", for reasons of poverty, race, or what have you. This explains why there's no reaction at all until events where boring suburban types and their kids get shot up.

Sure, but there's only so far they can push the incrementalism before they run up against a hard wall; there is no conceivable political scenario where "normal" handguns or hunting rifles are banned; they can barely clear 50% with the current approach. So they've kind of got limits baked in.

They're not zealous. I mean, LaPierre is an idiot, no doubt, but that's not the same thing. The problem with the NRA is that they are identified as a gun owner lobby when in fact they are gun manufacturer lobby/radical conservative catalyst for hire.

Again, I am not in favor of an assault weapons ban as currently framed, because I don't know to what extent it would be effective. But that being said, the greatest victory for this sort of legislation *if* it can be successfully pointed at spree shootings would be for assault weapons to not be present in the next shooting. So I'm not sure that your criteria are really focusing on the problem at hand.

I don't know what the bottom floor of magazine capacity is in terms of effective interventions. But I'm willing to consider most anything assuming the data supports it. If it turns out that I need an ATF license for my weapon to be operated as anything other than a single-shot weapon, I'm ok with that *if* the data supports it. I don't think that will be the case, but the surest way for us as a nation to come to a reasonable compromise is if we as gun owners can stop seeing the people that thrive on our overconsumption of guns and peripherals as our friends. Because they aren't, and they would offer limitless amounts of harm to civilians in return for growth next quarter, and every time these merchants of death are held up as Good Honest American Freedoms our country loses.

So the NRA has turned a 180 on their views on universal background checks despite that fact that most Americans (including NRA members) support background checks.

Ha, you have the problem of the NRA endangering the public to get a few growth points, as well as these extreme gun control propositions even more massively driving the gun sales than the NRA could ever hope to create.

One thing I definitely hate about all of this, is the fear has driven alot of people that wouldn't normally buy a gun, or buy certain kinds of guns, to go out and purchase them. People tend to what things that they may never ever be able to own again. Heck, I went out and bought a box of Twinkies when I heard Hostess was shutting down and brought them to a party to share, and I hadn't bought a twinkie in probably 10 years. So I fear there are a good amount of people buying guns right now that never would have been responsible gun owners, or won't bother to learn about the guns they are purchasing, take them shooting at the range, or read up on gun safety in the house or in general.

It'd be tragic if nothing gets passed with regards to a AWB, and in turn accidental gun deaths skyrocket in the U.S.

That's as strong an argument for stricter gun laws as I've ever heard.

This is explosive and really makes an emotional appeal, so it probably has no place in a serious discussion. But shit, this is the Sanctorum and just reading this made me want to vomit. (If it has been posted already, I apologize. I quickly read through the last few pages and didn't see it.) It's also two months old, but I only read it today.

Homeowner who shot dead two teens on Thanksgiving day when they broke in taunted girl telling her 'you're dying' before shooting her repeatedly.

I'm pretty sure you should be banned for linking the Daily Mail version, and banned again when it's Old Daily Mail. Here's the story written in earthspeak, no less horrific, but without the imagination-land color commentary.I don't know to what extent "psychopath murders trespassers" is all that useful for precedent, but ymmv.

The brother of the shooter is just as sick.

So it turns out the NRA has compiled an "enemies list" with 506 names of anti-gun organizations and individuals. (They listed Sir Patrick Stewart!)

I can't see any form of reasonable dialogue on gun violence and gun control when there's so much antagonism.

Indeed.

When one has incapacitated an intruder, what else is one to do but roll them onto a tarp, drag them to the kill-room, sorry, "workshop", taunt them, shoot them some more, and then leave the bodies to sit overnight?

Maybe they'll make a handy map of the U.S. with nice target reticle icons so their supporters won't be confused as to what they should do about it.

Jesus fuck, they chose the wrong house to rob. That ain't home defense, that's straight up murder. Hope he goes to jail for a long time.

Sounds like something out of Pulp Fiction.

As far as I'm concerned, they have basically renounced any role they might have played in this process. As experts on the subject matter, they might have made a positive contribution to crafting some reasonable gun regulations, but they have decided to just double down, stuff their fingers in their ears and scream NAHNAHNAHNAHICAN'THEARYOU! As such, they are doing a terrible job representing their member's interests. If I were in the NRA, I'd be pretty pissed.

I didn't say anything about a collapsible stock, the US Army did. I'm pretty sure they have that shit squared away.

EDIT:



Technically a grenade, I'll see if I can find you an actual rocket. I'm sure someone's tried it.

Twice you bolded text that related to collapsible stocks on the previous page, so forgive me if I mistook that. And yes, that is a grenade launcher, but what's your point? That would serve absolutely no dangerous purpose for people today as the actual grenade (the whole missile looking piece) would not be available for anyone in the public to buy. 37mm Launchers are also available to the public, but they are only made to launch things like flares and smoke grenades: http://www.ftfindustries.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=37MM

Rocket launchers just don't really exist. Sure there may have been some experimentally created military device somewhere in the entire worlds past that added a rocket launcher device to a rifle, but it's still a moot point. You ever shot a bottle rocket out of a tube or a glass bottle? That's basically a rocket launcher, just a mere tube for a rocket to sit in.

These are the kinds of things, that shock and awe the ignorant public that don't know any better that these types of things are useless in a threatening or dangerous manner for civilians. They are more decoration than anything useful.

Great, it seems we have a new brett, except he understands punctuation.

If you can't think of any ways in which an active shooter could put smoke and flares to bad use you are pretty dull.

Granted, forcing them to carry a flare pistol is only a minor encumbrance; except the part where they need to put down or sling the rifle to use it. Meanwhile, think of all the legitimate reasons for a civilian to need a grenade launcher mounted on his rifle!

Every NRA member I know has been pissed at them for years. To explain the NRA thing to people again: NRA membership is often required by gun ranges in order to get in the door. Either an NRA card or a very expensive personal insurance policy. This is why the NRA has so much money, and seems so broadly popular: they're basically mandatory membership in the US if you wish to be a gun hobbyist, and they don't represent gun owners in any reasonable way at all.

Or they could just hand carry smoke grenades and toss them like the Batman shooter did? I really think you are reaching here, but good luck. The fact of the matter is they are trying to outlaw cosmetic features, which is totally ludicrous. And meanwhile, little attention is paid to actual performance and the actual lethality of firearms. Is it too much to ask for some intelligence and knowledge behind the legislation instead of basing laws around what Hollywood movies teach us?

I get it now. You're the Hatoful Pigeon bad end.

I like how Brett has become the "you're Hitler" of this forum, any dissenting opinion automatically becomes "hey you're Brett!" instead of people just having the decency to carry on a logical debate/conversation. Obviously, bans on assault looking weapons, bans on cosmetics, high capacity magazines, and bans on things like smoke grenade launchers which have never been used in a crime as far as I know (and that's what were all up in arms about right? things that have actually been used?) are all part of what is "right" in this thread. Anything else is considered "wrong" and therefore is deserved of the Brett aka Hitler moniker. This thread is not a debate at all, it's a one sided we're right, and you're wrong, stop trying to argue otherwise thread.

I've seen Brett's post, he gets very emotional and loves to make personal attacks against people, I have done neither. But whatever.

I like how blah blah blah you're responding to something one person said in one post and that one post has a grand total of zero likes. Get over yourself.

I think the banning on most of those things is more an example of people asking for legitimate needs for their ownership. We have no issue with banning smoke grenade launchers because why the fuck would anyone need one anyways? What is the legitimate use case?

The argument here is at a bit of an impasse because of different approaches. The "everything should be allowed until it is misused" approach, or the "explain the use case or it shouldn't be allowed" approach.

I'll give you Grenade Launchers for legitimate use. But Pistol Grip, Barrel Shroud, Telescoping Stock, and Threaded Barrel all have perfectly legitimate uses for a civilian.

What's the threaded barrel legitimate civilian use? The only thing I can think of are suppressors, and the logical answer to that is "wear ear protection when shooting"?

This is the issue, basically. I find hunting weapons and personal defense pistols to be acceptable firearms use cases. Everything else is optional/hobby. Pistol grips don't phase me. But I'm also not swayed by Pimp My Rifle arguments either.

I'm a fan of range shooting (personally, I stopped because I left Texas, and generally dislike loud noises), I don't really see the problem with allowing firearm ownership with serious registration and training requirements. My issue is that in most states these requirements are not present and there seems to be a loud group of people who think firearm registration is some attempt to become a dictatorship.

Yes, they would have to carry grenades and throw them: that's the point. It limits the ability of a shooter to lob smoke and flares at flat trajectories over long distances without letting go of their weapon. That is a considerable tactical advantage potentially denied to a shooter, with next to no impingement on civilian uses.

Your "it's never been used in a crime" argument is compelling, and by compelling I mean insane. Forward-thinking is not allowed? By this metric aren't I good to go and pick up an M249?

Because of NRA lobbying there's basically no space for a factual debate on firearms in the United States, so you're not going to get this kind of discussion. It's literally impossible! I tried starting something along these lines over in D&D and it made it to like 15 posts because there's just not all that much to say.

edit: oh hay it looks like LK already made this point; that's what I get for replying to an active thread!

Plenty of reasons for a threaded barrel, the most significant is to allow your choice of flash suppressors to help with recoil and muzzle climb. That is why 99.99999999999% of people use these for.

That and suppressors are perfectly legal.

Why do you need help with recoil or muzzle climb when hunting? This is the argument: is the item required for hunting, self defense, or hobby use? Grenade launchers are hobby. I'd argue muzzle brakes are also hobby, as are suppressors.

And for Griot: the argument is should they be. Saying "____ is legal" is irrelevant when discussing laws to change that. The only relevant piece would be constitutionality, which would require a different path to change. But currently the prevailing legal opinion is that restrictions on type of firearm and who may possess them are constitutional (for no real reason, the logic for where the line falls is baseless imo)

Flash Suppressors can also redirect the blast so it does not blast the users eyes and cause flash blindness, especially when shooting at night. A good reason for a threaded barrel, is that you can pick and choose which ones you like best or suit your needs best. Gun manufacturers generally aren't going to put the best ones on their guns by default (to keep costs down), so you are left to go to the aftermarket shop to pick the best suited one.

Originally suppressors were invented by Hiram Maxim as a way to shoot firearms at his home and not annoy his neighbors. They work just like mufflers on cars and can decrease the decibel range down roughly the same as a good set of ear protection. Before 1934 they could be purchased in a hardware store for about $3. Nothing has really changed in their intended use for civillians. After 1935 one must utilize the local sheriff's approval, ATF's registration, background check, and a $200 tax stamp to acquire one legally. This has to have been instituted due to "forward thinking" as suppressors (at least professionally made ones) never saw abundant use in crime despite what Hollywood thinks.

Flash hiders typically just re-direct the gasses at the end of the barrel usually to prevent the "fireball" effect. Depending on caliber, they can reduce muzzle climb or improve the direction of recoil. They do not contribute to the lethality of the firearm.

The argument is that they increase rate of accurate fire, in the case of muzzle brakes. Flash suppressors are a bit different, but mostly a casualty of being attached via the same mechanism as the things people want less of.

This is what I'm trying to explain about why things are on the ban list or not: the list is dividing gun ownership into three categories. Hunting, Self Defense, and Hobby. And cracking down on Hobby usage. It's doing this because hobby gun owners have a shit public image entirely due to the tacticool types ricing their pistols and youtubing the shit out of their tactical training and everything else that your average civilian looks at and goes "uh, that's not defending yourself or shooting a deer, that's pretending you're in the army."

But again: the AWB type stuff is simply a response to public pressure in order to actually get the gun show loophole closed. And the responses of "but, my grenade launcher!" do nothing but make the bill more popular. Concentrate on the pistol grip and such, and find legitimate uses for the things you want to keep. Give up the pure hobby bullshit nobody needs or would even be allowed to fire at a range. Want to argue flash suppressors? Make the case where they'd be useful for hunting and have no other replacement (meaning the issue is the hunting rifles have no compensation, not that you'd prefer another brand).

The issue we have with making sane gun legislation is that half the country is just swinging wildly trying to figure out how to ban things, and the other half is digging their heels in over even the sane bans to the point where you wind up with some random collection of bullshit. The AWB might be sane if the NRA wasn't fighting for your right to fire smoke grenades on general principal. But just remember: it's a vehicle to get mandatory background checks through. Because the public at large has pretty much zero sympathy for the pimped out AR-15 range crowd.

But nobody cares about night shooting when it's compared to the prior "makes reacquiring targets and rapid accurate fire easier" issues with brakes. Let's be honest here: are you firing frequently at night? Typical night usage should involve a round every few seconds tops when shooting an animal, unless I'm missing some 20 wolves scenario since I left the south.

I totally get that these things have uses that aren't "kill dozens of children", what I'm trying to impress upon you is that hobby usage like "shooting at night on the range is fun" isn't going to have much traction in the court of public opinion.

I won't hear one fucking word of support for the NRA after finding out they blocked the CDC from compiling gun-related injuries and deaths. Fuck that organization.

Guns don't kill people, data kills people.