Your Gun Control Laws

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2017, 06:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Respect the man's service, but how strong is your argument when you open it with a blatant lie.  About 2/3's of gun related deaths are suicides.  A suicide is not gun violence any more than hanging yourself is rope violence or taking a fistful of Xanax is pill violence.  This kind of disingenuous debate on this subject is why gun owners or pro 2A types have zero trust in the other sides position or motivation.


It's actually a third that die due to gun violence.  Of that third the vast majority of the victims of gun violence are criminals being targeted by other criminals.  It is contradictory, at best, to discuss the need to reduce gun violence while at the same time reducing prison sentences for violent offenders.  We actually do something to bring down those numbers, it's called imprisoning criminals.  Consequently, the numbers have dropped steadily pretty much every years since 1992.  The now rise in crime can be directly attributed to soft on crime laws and politicians.  It cannot be a coincidence that a 25 year trend is suddenly no longer in effect after pro criminal laws are passed in many left leaning states.  Maybe Jimmy Kimmel should have been railing against all the Democrats who drafted these soft on crime laws?

Yeah if your prisons are overcrowded, the violent offenders get out last.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2017, 09:18 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah if your prisons are overcrowded, the violent offenders get out last.  

Do some research on California's AB109 program.  It releases "non-violent" offenders early to reduce prison overcrowding.  Who could argue against such common sense measures such as releasing "non-violent" offenders early?  Except here is what people aren't told, one might think intentionally, the "non-violent" designation is determined by the charge they are currently incarcerated for.  So a two time rapist in prison for burglary is released early because he's a "non-violent" offender.  A guy with multiple charges of assault with a deadly weapon in prison for possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell is a "non-violent" offender.  Lots of these "non-violent" offenders have a very violent past.

This is why, when I hear cries from politicians to protect the public from law abiding gun owners I have to concentrate on not throwing up in my mouth at the insane levels of duplicity and hypocrisy on display.

[Benton]

(10-05-2017, 11:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do some research on California's AB109 program.  It releases "non-violent" offenders early to reduce prison overcrowding.  Who could argue against such common sense measures such as releasing "non-violent" offenders early?  Except here is what people aren't told, one might think intentionally, the "non-violent" designation is determined by the charge they are currently incarcerated for.  So a two time rapist in prison for burglary is released early because he's a "non-violent" offender.  A guy with multiple charges of assault with a deadly weapon in prison for possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell is a "non-violent" offender.  Lots of these "non-violent" offenders have a very violent past.

This is why, when I hear cries from politicians to protect the public from law abiding gun owners I have to concentrate on not throwing up in my mouth at the insane levels of duplicity and hypocrisy on display.

It's not just there.

Years ago (thinking maybe 10 now) we had a disappearance. The boyfriend was connected to a very large drug running group/motorcycle gang. He'd been arrested in connection with a half dozen murder for hire cases, but it never stuck. His only conviction was for a burglary and physical evidence tampering, which he got paroled for in another state. After the disappearance, he was sentenced two or three more times on minor things, but even with the parol violation he served very, very little time. Out of the last 10 years and arrests, he spent maybe two years in jail.

The last time he got arrested was for beating a prostitute while high on cocaine. He pled down to a drug possession charge because the prosecutor didn't think he could make the assault charges stick (the guy claimed he had given the hooker cocaine in exchange for rough sex).

Ah, our legal system.

[NATI BENGALS]

Never knew about bump stocks.

My definition of an automatic weapon is you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting.

With a bump stock it looks like you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting.

Should be banned immediately

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2017, 02:58 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Never knew about bump stocks.

My definition of an automatic weapon is you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting.

With a bump stock it looks like you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting.

Should be banned immediately

ATF signed off on them in 2010.

[Belsnickel]

(10-05-2017, 02:58 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Never knew about bump stocks.

My definition of an automatic weapon is you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting.

With a bump stock it looks like you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting.

Should be banned immediately

(10-05-2017, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: ATF signed off on them in 2010.

The stocks were designed to make it easier for a person with a physical disability to fire the weapon. It was quickly realized it could simulate automatic weapon fire and so there was a question raised to the ATF. Because the stock still requires a trigger pull to occur and does not alter the mechanical operation of the firearm to make it so that is not the case, it is not against the current laws on the books.

Will that change? Possibly. The question will become how strong the lobbying effort will be in relation to that.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(10-05-2017, 02:58 PM)INATI BENGALS Wrote: Never knew about bump stocks.

My definition of an automatic weapon is you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting.

With a bump stock it looks like you pull the trigger and it keeps shooting.

Should be banned immediately

I never knew about them either.

Automatic weapons are illegal in the United States and anything that makes a firearm automatic should be illegal, the law needs to be changed. I can understand why these bump stocks were deemed legal since they don't alter the trigger.

Only problem is that a law making anything illegal will not stop a crazy person from wrecking havoc and murdering as many people as that person can. Murder is illegal yet murder being illegal doesn't stop people from committing murder.

If guns were made illegal in the United States and all firearms were destroyed, melted down and turned into paper clips, would that had stopped this guy who murdered 58 and wounded hundreds from doing what he did?

[Au165]

The NRA in a somewhat surprising move actually is calling for the ATF to review the regulations and legality of bump stocks. I understand this is them "giving" a little in an effort to cut off further discussion about more serious gun regulations, but still that is a surprising move.

[*bfine32*]

[Bengalzona]

(10-05-2017, 03:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: The NRA in a somewhat surprising move actually is calling for the ATF to review the regulations and legality of bump stocks. I understand this is them "giving" a little in an effort to cut off further discussion about more serious gun regulations, but still that is a surprising move.

If we get regulation on bump/sliding stocks, I'll be somewhat satisfied. It looks like the House, Senate and POTUS may all be on-board with this.

[Benton]

(10-05-2017, 03:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: The NRA in a somewhat surprising move actually is calling for the ATF to review the regulations and legality of bump stocks. I understand this is them "giving" a little in an effort to cut off further discussion about more serious gun regulations, but still that is a surprising move.

They aren't proposing or saying they would support legislation, though. Only that the ATF should look at the issue. Uncharacteristic, but most likely just lip service to spread the issue out. It's a lot less likely anything will get legislated as long as there isn't a similar event. Out of sight, out of mind.

I did read something earlier in regard to Paddock being prescribed Prozac (story below). It's a leap in logic to say that the drug had anything to do with the shooting. But it brings up a fair discussion — to me anyway — on if we don't need to have better drug regulations. If Paddock was taking the anti-depressants, he wouldn't have been the first guy in the last 20ish years to suddenly snap and shoot people, from the Carneal school shooting to the Holmes Batman shooting. Maybe everyone pointing fingers at the NRA is pointing fingers at the wrong lobby?

http://people.com/crime/las-vegas-gunman-was-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-that-can-cause-violent-outbursts-report/