NRA opposes outright U.S. ban on gun devices used by Las Vegas killer

[Jdietz]

I do agree better controls are definitely needed, but just outright forbidding a silly piece of plastic won't have any effect.

a 3D printer (~$200) is all you need to produce them, it's not like they are in the firing path. It just bounces the trigger against your finger again and again.

Using it to actually hit something specific is out of the question.

 

 

 

[joecoolfrog]

3 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I agree that it's in pretty poor taste for Senator Feinstein to trot out her gun confiscation and other anti-Second Amendment proposals after every shooting tragedy in an effort to use people's natural emotions during such events to further her anti-gun agenda. This time it's particularly farsicle seeing as the previous Democrat administration of President Obama authorized use of the devices in the first place.

 

Also, I'm taking bets that these bump devices WILL NOT be banned or regulated in any way (at the Federal level). The NRA and hunting and sport shooting enthusists know that it's just the camel's nose under the tent of the anti-gun crowd and if they give an inch they will always be back for more. As after New Town, it's necessary to get the Republican Party in line and shut down these proposals.

 

1 hour ago, ross163103 said:

Exactly! I'm an American--not a liberal, but I wonder when Americans will say "enough is enough". Sad to say but obviously most of the population HASN'T had enough yet, or things would change. If 20 young children mudered at Sandy Hook didn't make a difference, cant see it happening now.

I have given up on expecting logical solutions. Seems that  a lot of US citizens are simply acting out Darwins theories on natural selection within evolution.

[OMGImInPattaya]

6 hours ago, Salerno said:

Sounds very similar to Australia; what's your point?

As this entire thread points out...gun violence (and other crimes like rape, murder, assault, and burglery) are higher in the U.S. than many other countries, including possibly Australia. Therefore it might behoove someone living in a remote rural area (but really everyone everywhere) to have a gun to protect themselves.

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 hours ago, ross163103 said:

Exactly! I'm an American--not a liberal, but I wonder when Americans will say "enough is enough". Sad to say but obviously most of the population HASN'T had enough yet, or things would change. If 20 young children mudered at Sandy Hook didn't make a difference, cant see it happening now.

Had enough of what exactly...Constitutionally ordered liberty? Maybe one reason these mass shooting incidents stand out so much is that violent crime in general, and particularly murder, is down so dramatically from recent decades. The chance of being murdered while a victim of another crime, for example robbery or rape, has declined by up to 80% in most of America since the "crime wave" of the '70s and '80s, which prompted Hillary Clinton to call black people "super-predators." So in reality, it's actually quite a safe time to be living in America despite the rash of shooting incidents.

[Salerno]

Or, you could take a leaf out of the Aussie book, actually have a think about it, and ban weapons that have no place in a civilised country.

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

As this entire thread points out...gun violence (and other crimes like rape, murder, assault, and burglery) are higher in the U.S. than many other countries, including possibly Australia. Therefore it might behoove someone living in a remote rural area (but really everyone everywhere) to have a gun to protect themselves.

Yes. Too many guns, so gun violence, therefor more guns are needed.

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes. Too many guns, so gun violence, therefor more guns are needed.

I'm sure if you, or a family member, friend, or other loved one, were in one of these situations, the first thing you would wish you had had was a gun. They're much more useful than a mobile phone for calling the police in saving your life.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I'm sure if you, or a family member, friend, or other loved one, were in one of these situations, the first thing you would wish you had had was a gun. They're much more useful than a mobile phone for calling the police in saving your life.

Yes, you're in deep shit because there are too many guns. The solution proposed by NRA is more guns, which to everybody else looking in is an unbelievable solution, as is shown time and time again.

[impulse]

America's tried all kinds of experiments with gun control.  Cities with the tightest controls are also some of the ones with the highest murder rates.  Chicago, where I was born, is a good example.  And once the government takes away a freedom, it isn't coming back.  So I, for one, am not really in favor of taking the experiment nation wide at the Federal level.

 

Sadly, with the erosion of privacy and other rights under the Patriot Act, most people are more afraid of the government than we are of criminals.

 

That said, the NRA is screwing up defending bump stocks.  There is no valid purpose for bump stocks in civilian, sporting or even military firearms.  They don't do anything for accuracy or safety.  

Edited October 10, 2017 by impulse

[Damrongsak]

On 10/8/2017 at 7:44 PM, bannork said:

When will Americans wake up and just say no to the NRA?

What is wrong with them ?

We like to say "I'm the NRA."

 

Bump stocks are somewhat of a novelty, though can be used with devastating results as we have seen.  On the other hand, it's pretty easy to learn to bump fire many semi-autos without any extra device at all.  Or rubber bands can be used.  I've seen pictures of a piece of string connected in such a way as to convert a particular semi-auto rifle to true automatic fire.  On some rifles, it's pretty easy to manufacture an auto-sear, and prints are available on the web.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, you're in deep shit because there are too many guns. The solution proposed by NRA is more guns, which to everybody else looking in is an unbelievable solution, as is shown time and time again.

I guess you didn't read (or choose to ignore) my post pointing out that violent crime is actually at historic lows; so I fail to see the " deep shit" to which you refer. 

 

To anticipate your next argument, guns are still necessary to defend against and deter the crimes that are still taking place.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

America's tried all kinds of experiments with gun control.  Cities with the tightest controls are also some of the ones with the highest murder rates.  Chicago, where I was born, is a good example.  And once the government takes away a freedom, it isn't coming back.  So I, for one, am not really in favor of taking the experiment nation wide at the Federal level.

 

Sadly, with the erosion of privacy and other rights under the Patriot Act, most people are more afraid of the government than we are of criminals.

 

That said, the NRA is screwing up defending bump stocks.  There is no valid purpose for bump stocks in civilian, sporting or even military firearms.  They don't do anything for accuracy or safety.  

No, they are kicking the camel's nose out of the tent.

[Meljames]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

America's tried all kinds of experiments with gun control. 

 

No they haven't. 

[FritsSikkink]

12 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I agree that it's in pretty poor taste for Senator Feinstein to trot out her gun confiscation and other anti-Second Amendment proposals after every shooting tragedy in an effort to use people's natural emotions during such events to further her anti-gun agenda. This time it's particularly farsicle seeing as the previous Democrat administration of President Obama authorized use of the devices in the first place.

 

Also, I'm taking bets that these bump devices WILL NOT be banned or regulated in any way (at the Federal level). The NRA and hunting and sport shooting enthusists know that it's just the camel's nose under the tent of the anti-gun crowd and if they give an inch they will always be back for more. As after New Town, it's necessary to get the Republican Party in line and shut down these proposals.

See how you talk when one or more of your family members get killed.

[pegman]

The biggest problem they have is with handguns. 

[Damrongsak]

27 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

See how you talk when one or more of your family members get killed.

Yeah, had that happen to my 20 year old boy in Iraq. It was a rocket propelled grenade but the bad guys were also shooting.  At any rate, it wasn't pretty.

He was a "gun guy", as is my younger son. Remarkably liberal as long as you don't get in their face.  And they were/are good marksmen. Hit what they needed to  if the need arose.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Damrongsak

[boomerangutang]

Beware of wolves in sheeps' clothing.   The NRA knows they need to say some appeasing words right now, but just scratch the surface, and they're the same harmful-to-America gun-hugging organization they've been for the past 20 years or so.   In the late 20th century, the NRA was somewhat reasonable, and seemed to care a bit about safety of Americans.    As each year rolls by in the 21st century, they're becoming increasingly shrill in favor of every type of military gun.  Don't be fooled by them saying they're open to some restrictions on bump-stock conversions.  

 

It's like a coven of bomb makers saying, "Ok, we won't use as many nails in our bombs, but we still reserve the right to use broken glass and razor blades."

 

[riclag]

On 10/9/2017 at 11:26 AM, Jonnapat said:

Stupid, stupid, stupid. A country ruled by the NR A and their very powerful connections.

Can you imagine action movie's without gun's?

[Meljames]

19 minutes ago, pegman said:

The biggest problem they have is with handguns. 

 

Or the mentally unhealthy amassing stockpiles of assault weapons and accessories.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Meljames

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

<snip>

 

To anticipate your next argument, guns are still necessary to defend against and deter the crimes that are still taking place.

That was exactly my argument. You need more guns because there are too many guns around.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Meljames said:

5 hours ago, impulse said:

America's tried all kinds of experiments with gun control. 

No they haven't. 

 

Have, too.  See how useful and informative that is?

 

[impulse]

10 hours ago, Jdietz said:

I do agree better controls are definitely needed, but just outright forbidding a silly piece of plastic won't have any effect.

a 3D printer (~$200) is all you need to produce them, it's not like they are in the firing path. It just bounces the trigger against your finger again and again.

Using it to actually hit something specific is out of the question.

 

The components to turn a semi-auto to full auto are easily machined on a lathe and a mill.  With instructions and drawings all over the interweb.  But you don't see many.  Why?  Because there's laws against it, with severe penalties.   And nobody wants to get tossed in prison for a long time.

[ross163103]

14 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Had enough of what exactly

Mass shootings

[billd766]

14 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I'm sure if you, or a family member, friend, or other loved one, were in one of these situations, the first thing you would wish you had had was a gun. They're much more useful than a mobile phone for calling the police in saving your life.

 

I am 73 and the only time I handled a gun was when I was in the RAF for 25 years.

 

Even having lived in 38 countries around the world, some in S America, Mexico, Pakistan, Bangladesh, even Thailand, none of my families or friends have ever been threatened with a gun.

 

Now if you truly believe that you need a gun to look after yourself and your family and friends then you are living in the wrong country and you should consider moving to a country where guns are not needed to protect people.

 

Guns on their own do not kill people. They are inanimate objects and if left alone are harmless.

 

However when guns are picked up by people they become dangerous and can kill people.

 

Even a very small child of 2 or 3 years old can, and have, killed other children.

 

If the gun was not available, then it wouldn't happen.

[ross163103]

4 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Now if you truly believe that you need a gun to look after yourself and your family and friends then you are living in the wrong country and you should consider moving to a country where guns are not needed to protect people.

Exactly, one of the reasons I live in Thailand and not the US.

[Scott]

A few off-topic posts have been removed.   Continued nonsensical deflections will earn suspensions.  

 

The topic is not about some broad ranging plan for gun control.   It is about a specific types of weapons and accessories that increase their fire power.  

 

Stay on topic. 

[halloween]

The Australian Army issue L1A1 semi-auto rifle (7.62mm NATO) could be converted to full auto by removing the trigger assembly and placing a paper match (conveniently supplied in ration packs) under the trigger sear. Would then fire full auto but often wouldn't stop until the magazine was empty. The L2A1, the full auto version, had a heavier barrel, stronger butt and bipod legs.

I'm quite sure many semi-autos are equally easy to convert. The required parts may even be legal.

[impulse]

10 hours ago, ross163103 said:

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

Now if you truly believe that you need a gun to look after yourself and your family and friends then you are living in the wrong country and you should consider moving to a country where guns are not needed to protect people.

Exactly, one of the reasons I live in Thailand and not the US.

 

Drilling down through some statistics, the odds of a Thai gun being used to murder someone is 15 times higher than the odds of a gun in the USA being used to kill someone.  Don't believe me?  Look up how many guns there are in Thailand and the firearm murder rate, then do the same for the USA.

 

There's lots of good reasons to live in Thailand instead of the USA.  Personal safety isn't one of them.  Unless you're moving from East L.A. or the south side of Chicago to Thailand.  But it's easier to move to an even safer place without ever crossing a border.  And in the USA, they actually publish those numbers so you can see where the safer places are.

 

[billd766]

13 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Drilling down through some statistics, the odds of a Thai gun being used to murder someone is 15 times higher than the odds of a gun in the USA being used to kill someone.  Don't believe me?  Look up how many guns there are in Thailand and the firearm murder rate, then do the same for the USA.

 

There's lots of good reasons to live in Thailand instead of the USA.  Personal safety isn't one of them.  Unless you're moving from East L.A. or the south side of Chicago to Thailand.  But it's easier to move to an even safer place without ever crossing a border.  And in the USA, they actually publish those numbers so you can see where the safer places are.

 

 

How many times have you or any of your family or friends ever been threatened by a person with a gun in Thailand?

[ross163103]

On 10/11/2017 at 9:17 AM, impulse said:

 

Drilling down through some statistics, the odds of a Thai gun being used to murder someone is 15 times higher than the odds of a gun in the USA being used to kill someone.  Don't believe me?  Look up how many guns there are in Thailand and the firearm murder rate, then do the same for the USA.

 

There's lots of good reasons to live in Thailand instead of the USA.  Personal safety isn't one of them.  Unless you're moving from East L.A. or the south side of Chicago to Thailand.  But it's easier to move to an even safer place without ever crossing a border.  And in the USA, they actually publish those numbers so you can see where the safer places are.

 

Point taken on the Thailand vs USA handgun/personal safety issue. But saying that, how many mass shootings has Thailand had compared to the US(?). maybe because assault rifles aren't really available here?