The Second Amendment

[bruno2000]

Well then society should look into prohibition of sales as an option because it may save innocent lives. Of course we need to look at the downsides as well and weigh them against the benefits.  Has a bill ever been drafted (with reasonable support) for the prohibition of gun sales?

They would be laughed out of the house. (See title of this thread)
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[Matador]

That's a nice thought, but good luck getting that paid for.  And the folks who already own the 300,000,000 guns?

Somehow, car registrations get paid for.  As for the 300M, offer a no-fault surrender, or provide a mechanism to register the firearm.  My neighbor did something similar with the DMV when he completed a kit car that had no VIN number from the factory.

Already done.  EVERY firearm has its serial number and purchaser recorded by the selling FFL holder.

Can you tell me the name of the national registration database that links together firearms and owners?  Wait...

[quote author=https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/are-guns-registered/]
The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner.
[/quote]
Doh.

 

[mattiasNYC]

A hammer can cause "damage".  Lets regulate hammers.

Well I'm just thrilled we can have such a rational discussion about this.

the existing restrictions didn't work out very well due to lazy / incompetent application.

Does that apply to the Vegas massacre as well?

Yes, I believe that owning guns enhances my freedom and safety, as well as sport enjoyment.

You're statistically no safer, and no more free.

That will take an absurdly long time.  There are firearms that are 100 years old, and still function perfectly.  "Assuming the boarders are secure?  You've GOT to be kidding.

Best,
Bruno2000

Look, why do you even care about any possible procedures when you don't want to get rid of guns in the first place? Your argument should really be "I want guns, and if other people die because of gun violence that's ok with me, because it's more important that I get my freedom and sports enjoyment through using guns." That's all you need to say. This pretend concern over viability of measures to stop selling or securing borders or even rounding up weapons is just pretend, because even if it was feasible you'd revert to the prior argument. Just settle for that instead.

In my view Americans aren't sane and mature enough to own weapons, and the statistics on death-by-gun show it.

P.S. Of the 300,000,000 legally owned firearms in the US, how many are involved per year in the commission of a crime?

1. Where do the ILLegal weapons come from?
2. The statistic you mention is irrelevant. What's relevant is gun violence vs gun onwers per capita. There are many collectors and many people that own more than one weapon. A man intent on murder is probably not significantly more dangerous with 100 AR-15s compared to just 5. As a matter of fact, having only two arms I'm guessing two would suffice... or one...

 

[bruno2000]

Somehow, car registrations get paid for.  As for the 300M, offer a no-fault surrender, or provide a mechanism to register the firearm.  My neighbor did something similar with the DMV when he completed a kit car that had no VIN number from the factory.
Can you tell me the name of the national registration database that links together firearms and owners?  Wait...
Doh.

Looks like you're gonna have to change that federal law.  The FFL seller has a record of the transaction, (name and serial #) and those records can be accessed any time by the feds.  When an FFL holder goes out of business those records are turned over.
My reply to your #1 was as to instruction and testing, not registration.
Best,
Bruno2000 

 

[mattiasNYC]

I don't think mass killings will ever stop.  Take away the guns, use a car / truck.  There are just too many crazy / pissed off people.  Maybe it's the meds (or lack thereof)?

But yet again:

1) Cars aren't created for the purpose of killing or harming other humans, but guns are.
2) Are we going to see cars driven into churches and into hotel rooms? If the point seems idiotic I'll clarify it; as horrible as the New York terrorist attack was it paled in comparison to the Vegas incident and other mass killings in the US, as do to my knowledge most other car attacks.

In other words, it's about tools that are intended to harm and kill and therefore are much better at it. We can either just shrug our shoulders and go "Oh well, if he doesn't have an AR15 with a bump stock he could just as well use a plunger. Sure, it'll take longer to kill as many people, but it could still be used as a weapon by a madman".

The reason we don't make that argument = the argument for limiting gun ownership.

 

[bruno2000]

Well I'm just thrilled we can have such a rational discussion about this.

Look, why do you even care about any possible procedures when you don't want to get rid of guns in the first place? Your argument should really be "I want guns, and if other people die because of gun violence that's ok with me, because it's more important that I get my freedom and sports enjoyment through using guns." That's all you need to say. This pretend concern over viability of measures to stop selling or securing borders or even rounding up weapons is just pretend, because even if it was feasible you'd revert to the prior argument. Just settle for that instead.

In my view Americans aren't sane and mature enough to own weapons, and the statistics on death-by-gun show it.

1. You started it with the "weapons" remark rather than the proper term "firearms".

2. No, it's not OK with me, so please don't put your words in my mouth.  I'm also sad that folks lost their lives to firearms violence, and also sad for the other forms of lives lost by other means.  I wish there was a solution that did not involve punishing many for the sins of a few.
 
3. Firearms are protected by the 2nd, and getting rid of them is a pipedream. 

4. I am all for securing the boarders, but that's proving difficult if not impossible to do.

5.  You don't think Americans are "sane" enough to own weapons (I ASSume you mean firearms)? That's a pretty broad statement.  What if you're being chased by a bear in Alaska?  You get to have your view, but so do I.

Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bruno2000]

But yet again:

1) Cars aren't created for the purpose of killing or harming other humans, but guns are.
2) Are we going to see cars driven into churches and into hotel rooms? If the point seems idiotic I'll clarify it; as horrible as the New York terrorist attack was it paled in comparison to the Vegas incident and other mass killings in the US, as do to my knowledge most other car attacks.

In other words, it's about tools that are intended to harm and kill and therefore are much better at it. We can either just shrug our shoulders and go "Oh well, if he doesn't have an AR15 with a bump stock he could just as well use a plunger. Sure, it'll take longer to kill as many people, but it could still be used as a weapon by a madman".

The reason we don't make that argument = the argument for limiting gun ownership.

1.  Guns were NOT created for the purpose of killing or harming other humans.
2. See Timothy McVeigh  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh, or what happened on 9/11
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[mattiasNYC]

1. You started it with the "weapons" remark rather than the proper term "firearms".

Look, I made an argument that involved the term "weapon" for a very good reason. You seem to have completely skipped that for some inexplicable reason. Basically, it's very simple:

A "firearm" is a weapon. A bag of cotton can be used as a "weapon". A surface-to-air missile is a "weapon". When I talk about the reason for not allowing certain kinds of weapons (missiles) in private hands the point is that the reason for not allowing those is the reason we should question ownership of other types of weapons. That will NOT include bags of cotton, hammers or cars, unless one is trolling, clueless, or plain out to lunch....

2. No, it's not OK with me, so please don't put your words in my mouth.  I'm also sad that folks lost their lives to firearms violence, and also sad for the other forms of lives lost by other means.  I wish there was a solution that did not involve punishing many for the sins of a few.

Few is a relative term, and you're ok with not "punishing many" because you get to keep what you want.

3. Firearms are protected by the 2nd, and getting rid of them is a pipedream. 

Then why do you bother having this conversation?

5.  You don't think Americans are "sane" enough to own weapons (I ASSume you mean firearms)? That's a pretty broad statement.  What if you're being chased by a bear in Alaska?  You get to have your view, but so do I.

Best,
Bruno2000

Being chased by a bear doesn't make you suddenly sane or mature enough to own a weapon. And yes, I'll keep saying "weapon" because that's what firearms are.  Statistics show that there's clearly something different with Americans compared to people of other nations, given the amount of gun violence here. I mean, feel free to argue that's not the case, but I think it's true.....

 

[Tubetec]

Well Bru,
Seeing as most guns have a limited capacity in term of the magazine the actual rate of fire per minute is difficult or impossible to realise ,its basic maths that if a gun fires 20 rounds in two seconds ,then the equivalent rate of fire per minute is 600 , this number in say something like an Ar-15 is about the 800 mark , of course other factors come into play to such as overheating ,mechanical failure etc

 

[mattiasNYC]

1.  Guns were NOT created for the purpose of killing or harming other humans.

Sure they weren't. Never crossed anybody's mind. I know the US military doesn't have any, so that should be evidence enough.

2. See Timothy McVeigh  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh, or what happened on 9/11
Best,
Bruno2000

Was it McVeigh's car that exploded or the explosives in the car?

Were the airplanes that slammed into buildings cars or were they airplanes?

 

[bruno2000]

Then why do you bother having this conversation?

Yep, you have a point there.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bruno2000]

Well Bru,
Seeing as most guns have a limited capacity in term of the magazine the actual rate of fire per minute is difficult or impossible to realise ,its basic maths that if a gun fires 20 rounds in two seconds ,then the equivalent rate of fire per minute is 600 , this number in say something like an Ar-15 is about the 800 mark , of course other factors come into play to such as overheating ,mechanical failure etc

But you said "thousands of rounds per minute".
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bruno2000]

Sure they weren't. Never crossed anybody's mind. I know the US military doesn't have any, so that should be evidence enough.

Was it McVeigh's car that exploded or the explosives in the car?

Were the airplanes that slammed into buildings cars or were they airplanes?

You said "as horrible as the New York terrorist attack was it paled in comparison to the Vegas incident and other mass killings in the US..."  I just sighted other examples of more folks getting killed in a terrorist attack in the US without firearms.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[Tubetec]

Your gun manners may well be exemplary Bruno ,Im not questioning that for a second ,but I think the rights of the individual need to be balanced against the harm thats being done .

 

[bruno2000]

Your gun manners may well be exemplary Bruno ,Im not questioning that for a second ,but I think the rights of the individual need to be balanced against the harm thats being done .

Absolutely!  I agree!
The question, however,  is of that balance.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[Tubetec]

I did google to try and find the fastest gun available to the general public ,I didnt find a straight answer ,I'll bet a serious gunsmith could probably over clock (or whatever the equivalent gun term is) an AR  for a higher repeat rate , most likely due to physics a smaller sub machine gun or automatic pistol could have a higher rate of fire .Ok I accept thousands of rounds per minute may have been a slight overstatement ,but your diverting from  the real issues brought to the table here with semantics. 

 

[Tubetec]

were not all going to agree ever ,thats for sure ,its a been a healthy discussion thats for sure though

 

[Tubetec]

My Dads ex navy ,inhaling all the hot powder from the 40mm bofors over the years took away his sense of smell and taste ,and the politics of it ,well we wont go there ,but Im glad I didnt walk that plank myself 

 

[mattiasNYC]

You said "as horrible as the New York terrorist attack was it paled in comparison to the Vegas incident and other mass killings in the US..."  I just sighted other examples of more folks getting killed in a terrorist attack in the US without firearms.
Best,
Bruno2000

Ok. So what's your point then as far as that relates to gun regulation or trying to get rid  of guns? Are you saying that if we magically got rid of all guns we would see the same rate of death by other means? (and by that i mean the deaths currently by guns)

No change because people would use planes and cars instead?

 

[bruno2000]

I did google to try and find the fastest gun available to the general public ,I didnt find a straight answer ,I'll bet a serious gunsmith could probably over clock (or whatever the equivalent gun term is) an AR  for a higher repeat rate , most likely due to physics a smaller sub machine gun or automatic pistol could have a higher rate of fire .Ok I accept thousands of rounds per minute may have been a slight overstatement ,but your diverting from  the real issues brought to the table here with semantics.

Yes, semantics.  I've been accused of that before, and probably rightly so.  Sorry!
Just for information's sake, 1200-1400 rounds per minute is about as fast as a traditional machine gun will go.  However after about 2000 rounds, changing 30 round mags as fast as you can, the gas port or barrel will burn up.  That's why you see gunners fire bursts rather than continuous fire.  There is, however, the Browning M1917 machine gun that has a water jacket around the barrel that afforded almost continuous firing at a cyclic rate of 450-600 rounds per minute.  Those are Class 3 weapons and CAN be owned by individuals if you are willing to go through all of the paperwork, and have about $25,000-$30,000 to spare, not to mention $$$ for ammo.
The fastest rotary gun now in use is the M134 Minigun.  You nor I can own one, but it can fire 6000 rounds per minute, and is usually found on aircraft.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled program (thread).
Best,
Bruno2000