Do you guys really believe we need to take away Americans rights to own guns? I  can't believe some of the fucked up shit I've been reading lately. 18 years old is old enough to serve  your country, but not old enough to own a gun   I've said it before and I'll say it again, the prob;ems started in this country when we took the ability to discipline children away from the teachers and then the parents. The problem is what we have become as a society, not the guns.

I'm sure this has been discussed in other threads, but I can't keep up with everything that goes on around here

Just now, Zambroski said:

That's your answer?  "supply and demand".  Well then, how do we eliminate the demand?  Kill suppliers?  That always works out...right?

Shut up!!!! We need to ban guns!

14 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

The nra and gun mfg are motivated to sell less equipment.  Yeah right.  

And they make their money selling guns illegally!!!!!!  Yep...I'm pretty sure that's in their Mission Statement.  BTW, your "supply and demand" argument fails here also.

Stop it.  This is the same argument you are making for drugs...and why it isn't working either.  Only, you are emotional here.

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

That's your answer?  "supply and demand".  Well then, how do we eliminate the demand?  Kill suppliers?  That always works out...right?

Lol his own logic slaps himself in the face 

Just now, Zambroski said:

That's your answer?  "supply and demand".  Well then, how do we eliminate the demand?  Kill suppliers?  That always works out...right?

There’s no single silver bullet in combating gun violence. It’s a combination of new applications. As for killing suppliers? So fucking what? They’ll need to adjust when the sale of illegal firearms leaves the supply chain. 

Just now, DAVE said:

Shut up!!!! We need to ban guns!

That's really the plan.  And it's also the reason we can't enact reasonable legislation.  The left wants so many ways to expand it to violate our Constitutional rights.  They won't vote for a closed end bill.  It's always a "If this doesn't work...then we can do this...and if that doesn't work...then we can do this."  Their aim is to take weapons away from the citizens.  If they were concerened about gun deaths, then they'd make any criminal act with a gun punishable by death (or other) but guess why that won't happen?  Yep...RACIST!!!  (and they need those votes).

Just now, Zambroski said:

That's really the plan.  And it's also the reason we can't enact reasonable legislation.  The left wants so many ways to expand it to violate our Constitutional rights.  They won't vote for a closed end bill.  It's always a "If this doesn't work...then we can do this...and if that doesn't work...then we can do this."  Their aim is to take weapons away from the citizens.  If they were concerened about gun deaths, then they'd make any criminal act with a gun punishable by death (or other) but guess why that won't happen?  Yep...RACIST!!!  (and they need those votes).

Just quiet down. You’re whining now. Nobody here is wanting to ban guns. Fucking bunch of reactive tit babies around this place lately. 

Just now, Zambroski said:

These all sound decent on the surface...but allow me to play devils advocate why they either pose problems or will fail or already have failed.  Answers in RED

 

Many already going though background checks helps promote the point that all buyers and sellers should do so.  We can come to a standard on evaluation by certified psychology professionals.  This should be 100% funded by the applicants.  

No, it doesn't ready happen.  All transactions need to be card logged.  Weapon information can be optional, but card ID of seller, and buyer are recorded.

Interrupting rate of fire is worth it.  5 rounds in the mag is seen as reasonable for hunters and sport shooters.  Thinning out the large capacity mags will take some decades but if we don't start now it will never happen.

As you admitted, they are not effect in general (thus there isn't much of a disappointment when they become illegal).  When used properly they are effective, thus more body count.   You put out the argument for there not being a need for them.  The damage they do when used as designed outweighs any benefits they ad.  

Mag and bag and have school sentinels.  Do both.

We already have sentinel programs in the US, we need to make them more integrated at the federal level.

Neal

 

1 minute ago, spin_dry said:

There’s no single silver bullet in combating gun violence. It’s a combination of new applications. As for killing suppliers? So fucking what? They’ll need to adjust when the sale of illegal firearms leaves the supply chain. 

The problem is we have social issues here.  And it's not just the mental "defects" that are doing this.  Why are we labeling them from the womb?  How are they being made in our society?  It's building anger and hate.  It's anger and hate with more and more limited ways to slowly have a release.  We're a violent species...and the left's idea that we can legislate, and apply rules to erradicate thousands of years of evolution is absolutely idiotic on a scale I find it hard to even try to marginalize.

12 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

While I think that’s all a great idea, it’s not going to effect the amount of firearms making it to the street level via straw purchasing. That’s the big loophole. 

That's fine, undocumented straw purchases can have a 10 or 20 year prison penalty.  It will help reduce the straw purchasing.  Presently there is zero deterrent.

Neal

3 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

Just quiet down. You’re whining now. Nobody here is wanting to ban guns. Fucking bunch of reactive tit babies around this place lately. 

Really?

Just now, DAVE said:

Really?

At FS.com?  No, no one has made that position.

Neal

2 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

Just quiet down. You’re whining now. Nobody here is wanting to ban guns. Fucking bunch of reactive tit babies around this place lately. 

Exactly!  "Just shut up you RACIST!!!!"

Ahhh...fascism...it's not just on the right spectrum anymore.

How about your side get their heads right and stop reacting like emotional twats.  You start...and MY SIDE...will go along with it.  Oh, I usually decline from saying "my side" or "your side" but, gun control is clearly where there are sides and a line between.  Your side has no chance to win this the way you want.  And if you think the goal isn't to ban guns....you're being delusional or intellectually dishonest.  Both?  That runs STRONG on your side. 

 

4 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Many already going though background checks helps promote the point that all buyers and sellers should do so.  We can come to a standard on evaluation by certified psychology professionals.  This should be 100% funded by the applicants.  

No, it doesn't ready happen.  All transactions need to be card logged.  Weapon information can be optional, but card ID of seller, and buyer are recorded.

Interrupting rate of fire is worth it.  5 rounds in the mag is seen as reasonable for hunters and sport shooters.  Thinning out the large capacity mags will take some decades but if we don't start now it will never happen.

As you admitted, they are not effect in general (thus there isn't much of a disappointment when they become illegal).  When used properly they are effective, thus more body count.   You put out the argument for there not being a need for them.  The damage they do when used as designed outweighs any benefits they ad.  

Mag and bag and have school sentinels.  Do both.

We already have sentinel programs in the US, we need to make them more integrated at the federal level.

Neal

 

I disagree with the very low round limit. It’s a token gesture at best. Mags are very easy to modify to hold more if need be. 

3 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

That's fine, undocumented straw purchases can have a 10 or 20 year prison penalty.  It will help reduce the straw purchasing.  Presently there is zero deterrent.

Neal

Yep.  And there is a reason for that below.

 

8 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

That's really the plan.  And it's also the reason we can't enact reasonable legislation.  The left wants so many ways to expand it to violate our Constitutional rights.  They won't vote for a closed end bill.  It's always a "If this doesn't work...then we can do this...and if that doesn't work...then we can do this."  Their aim is to take weapons away from the citizens.  If they were concerened about gun deaths, then they'd make any criminal act with a gun punishable by death (or other) but guess why that won't happen?  Yep...RACIST!!!  (and they need those votes).

 

2 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

I disagree with the very low round limit. It’s a token gesture at best. Mags are very easy to modify to hold more if need be. 

Very few mass shooters do those kinds of mods, they use all off the shelf, or even stock configs.  There is no argument against reducing mag capacity.

Neal

1 minute ago, Rod Johnson said:

I disagree with the very low round limit. It’s a token gesture at best. Mags are very easy to modify to hold more if need be. 

it's a "bump stock" argument to me.  Most can train themselves to reload in under two seconds.  99% of victims huddle and wait.  There is already a good distance between the attacker and victim that can't be closed in the reloading time.  I have to try and think outside of my military mind on some of this so, I may be off a bit.  I just think most "anti-gun" advocates know almost nothing about guns.  Relaoding an AR or most weapons is a button push, insert mag, button push, fire.  It's not like there's a long procedure.

3 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Yep.  And there is a reason for that below.

 

 

Make it so.  

What you posted doesn't address straw purchasing at all.

Neal

Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

Make it so.  

What you posted doesn't address straw purchasing at all.

Neal

How many purchases are actual "straw purchases"?  It's such a minute amount capared to standard purchasing....then take those "straw purchases" and match them to mass shootings.  I can't imagine the zeros to the right of the decimal for that percentage.

5 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Very few mass shooters do those kinds of mods, they use all off the shelf, or even stock configs.  There is no argument against reducing mag capacity.

Neal

Because they’re available. If they’re not available they can easily make them.  The argument against reducing mag capacity is that it’s a token gesture that limits the fun of law abiding gun owners while missing the mark on the intended outcome. No point in senseless laws

3 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

How many purchases are actual "straw purchases"?  It's such a minute amount capared to standard purchasing....then take those "straw purchases" and match them to mass shootings.  I can't imagine the zeros to the right of the decimal for that percentage.

Ask @Rod Johnson how many are.  I have no idea, I'm just for making that process more deterred, while not impacting the right of citizens to own guns.

Neal

 

10 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

At FS.com?  No, no one has made that position.

Neal

The "ban" word concerning guns is not being used by legislators either.  But it's the goal.  And the argument for "it is not the goal" doesn't matter.  It is what it appears to citizens.  The left is not to be trusted on this issue and hence, isn't going to be....in even the smallest of fashions.  Not sure that's good...but, it is what it is.  If a group presents itself as non-trustworthy thorugh the rhetoric of their fans/followers/groupies....whatever.  Then that's what they'll be labelled as.

Just now, Rod Johnson said:

Because they’re available. If they’re not available they can easily make them.  The argument against reducing mag capacity is that it’s a token gesture that limits the fun of law abiding gun owners while missing the mark on the intended outcome. No point in senseless laws

Then we make the token gesture.  We can make 100 token gestures and they will add up to a meaningful change, while not removing rights of citizens to own guns.

Neal

1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Ask @Rod Johnson how many are.  I have no idea, I'm just for making that process more deterred, while not impacting the right of citizens to own guns.

Neal

 

Yeah... more directed at Spinner as he seems to think these "straw purchases" are the major issue.

1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Then we make the token gesture.  We can make 100 token gestures and they will add up to a meaningful change, while not removing rights of citizens to own guns.

Neal

This is why the alphas are stand-offish with gun laws. The betas just want to throw a bunch of shit and hope something sticks without really thinking it through, and gun enthusiasts are the only ones who get the shit stuck to them.

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

The "ban" word concerning guns is not being used by legislators either.  But it's the goal.  And the argument for "it is not the goal" doesn't matter.  It is what it appears to citizens.  The left is not to be trusted on this issue and hence, isn't going to be....in even the smallest of fashions.  Not sure that's good...but, it is what it is.  If a group presents itself as non-trustworthy thorugh the rhetoric of their fans/followers/groupies....whatever.  Then that's what they'll be labelled as.

Actually many are making the ban argument, along with many of the recently impacted students in Florida.

If the right just remains ignorant with their heads buried in the sand they will get railroaded into that position.  I prefer to avoid that by putting forth reasonable measures.

Neal