Mass Shootings in the US

Full auto effective ban? The NRA still applies so if you have the tax stamp you can own a fully automatic weapon on the NFA register.

If you're talking about bump stocks then it depends where you are. Seeing you don't need a bump stock to bump fire and many people use their trigger finger and specific light grip on the weapon to bump fire, are you advocating cutting people's hands or fingers off?
Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
Don't you mean NFA, not NRA?

As to bump stocks they appeared to be illegal under the NFA until the Obama administration Justice Dept issued an opinion that they were a legal accessory. I believe the Trump people have already issued an order rescinding the Obama peoples opinion.
Do you think that they'll rescind the decision that bootlaces are no longer machine guns along with other insane decisions like chore-boy pan scrubbers being silencers?

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
 
Full auto effective ban? The NRA still applies so if you have the tax stamp you can own a fully automatic weapon on the NFA register.

If you're talking about bump stocks then it depends where you are. Seeing you don't need a bump stock to bump fire and many people use their trigger finger and specific light grip on the weapon to bump fire, are you advocating cutting people's hands or fingers off?

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
I didn't think you could buy them new (fully automatic)?
 
Full auto effective ban? The NRA still applies so if you have the tax stamp you can own a fully automatic weapon on the NFA register.

If you're talking about bump stocks then it depends where you are. Seeing you don't need a bump stock to bump fire and many people use their trigger finger and specific light grip on the weapon to bump fire, are you advocating cutting people's hands or fingers off?

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
I didn't think you could buy them new (fully automatic)?
You can't, only ones put on the NFA register before the date in 1986, those you can buy if you pay the $200 tax stamp and pass the background check and they're legal in your state.

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
 
You can't, only ones put on the NFA register before the date in 1986, those you can buy if you pay the $200 tax stamp and pass the background check and they're legal in your state.

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
Would probably work as a form of control, if it was an electronic gadget that is way out of date in 12 months. Doesn't really work decades-old mechanical item that hasn't changed much. Still the same amount out there I guess, bet prices went up though!
 
You can't, only ones put on the NFA register before the date in 1986, those you can buy if you pay the $200 tax stamp and pass the background check and they're legal in your state.

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
Would probably work as a form of control, if it was an electronic gadget that is way out of date in 12 months. Doesn't really work decades-old mechanical item that hasn't changed much. Still the same amount out there I guess, bet prices went up though!
I used to have a type 7 federal firearms license, if I had paid the SOT and ITAR I could build a full auto AKM for around $350 but if you're buying an NFA register one they're around $25k to $30k.

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
 
I used to have a type 7 federal firearms license, if I had paid the SOT and ITAR I could build a full auto AKM for around $350 but if you're buying an NFA register one they're around $25k to $30k.

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
I'm guessing a few people got a good return on their investment!
 
I used to have a type 7 federal firearms license, if I had paid the SOT and ITAR I could build a full auto AKM for around $350 but if you're buying an NFA register one they're around $25k to $30k.

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
I'm guessing a few people got a good return on their investment!
Welcome to capitalism, supply and demand. The NFA allows an amnesty any time they want, which would reduce the value quickly, if you buy an AKM parts kit (all the gun parts less barrel and receiver) you get the full auto parts, it's just a 5mm hole, a 7mm hole and a 3mm slot in the right place on the right rail and you can fit the full auto parts, only a little more difficult on a AR-15, G3 etc.

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk
 
Of course. I started asking for the stats on handgun murders before and after the ban and I'm now asking for the stats on handgun murders before and after the ban. They're clearly two different questions.

You still haven't produced the stats that are allegedly so easy to find with 5 minutes of googling. I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong but you haven't shown that.

To try and make my point clearer, here's a similar graph:

View attachment 332114

If you just look at the number of motorcyclist fatalities, it's pretty clear that after the law on wearing helmets was introduced the death rate spiked by over 50%. If the blue line wasn't there it would appear that wearing helmets kills people.

As soon as you include the blue line it becomes obvious that the risk of death per mile actually decreased substantially.

In the same way, using stats on all firearm deaths to argue that the handgun ban caused handgun murders to increase is dodgy. Handgun murders may well have increased after the ban but no one has shown that.
I already pointed out that the majority of firearms homicides involve handguns & yes, that includes post ban homicides.

Do your own research if you think any different.

You don't really care in any case, as your mind's made up.
 
I already pointed out that the majority of firearms homicides involve handguns & yes, that includes post ban homicides.

Do your own research if you think any different.
As I've already pointed out, I have done. There are any amount of detailed reports from the ONS and Home Office that run to a dozen pages or more. I've read them. The issue is they don't go back further than the mid 2000s. There are older reports available that cover the right period but they don't specify homicide by weapon type. Which is why I asked you to show where you got the information from.

You don't really care in any case, as your mind's made up.
You carack on keep repeating that as much as you want, it doesn't make it true. Still, I suppose it's easier than admitting the '5 minute google' to find the stats was bollocks ;)
 
If you were over here, you'd bloody well know the "liberals" aim is indeed to "take everyone's guns", in as much as they desire to disarm law abiding citizens whilst doing bugger all to disarm criminals (especially those from their support base).
Don't panic Oddbod.

You are British and have therefore won first prize in the lottery of life.




For you, this is a liberal.



Rest assured that Vince and the other liberals do not want to take your guns. Not least because, aside from the odd fowling piece, you're not likely to have any guns worth worrying about in the UK.
 
There's a famous quote about the first amendment. I think it was made by a Judge. You have the right to free speech but that doesn't mean you can shout FIRE in a crowded theatre.

There's nothing in the second amendment that says convicted felons can't own firearms, yet they can't.

America is like any other country. Citizens' rights are whatever politicians say they are. We the people might as well be We the pawns because those in power will do whatever is politically expedient.

If a lot of politicians lose their seats in the November elections because they are pro-gun, there will be a rapid change of opinion among those who are left. The bottom line is that if they're more afraid of their electorate than the NRA, all those principles about the freedom to bear arms will be dropped faster than a pregnant intern. Americans are living in interesting times.
The bolded part sounds like a great reason to have a 22nd amendment...

And Being pro gun doesnt generally cause you to lose votes - being pro gun control traditionally does. The exceptions are California, New york, New Jersey, Rhode island, Connecticut.. ie the deep blue areas.

Dems want gun control, but worry it could cost them midterms
 
The bolded part sounds like a great reason to have a 22nd amendment...

And Being pro gun doesnt generally cause you to lose votes - being pro gun control traditionally does. The exceptions are California, New york, New Jersey, Rhode island, Connecticut.. ie the deep blue areas.

Dems want gun control, but worry it could cost them midterms
Yup the Blue States. Just ask &Spudgunny. He lives on the East Coast and was more than likely a Hillary voter. He can fill you in on the marvels of gun control out that way.
 
A picture of a group of people protesting in (Austin I bet) doesn’t make for a winning political argument.

If you think it does, you should make your mega bucks helping the democrat party there. I am sure they will be amazed at your ‘new surefire’ strategy.
 
Last edited:
Yup the Blue States. Just ask &Spudgunny. He lives on the East Coast and was more than likely a Hillary voter. He can fill you in on the marvels of gun control out that way.
I don’t want to talk to anyone about any more gun control - it’s all we have in the CA future until the SCOTUS can help us.
 
I don’t want to talk to anyone about any more gun control - it’s all we have in the CA future until the SCOTUS can help us.
I've seen your future SS, and it involves a lot of breech loading, single shot and bullets that are taxed more heavily than cigarettes.
 
I've seen your future SS, and it involves a lot of breech loading, single shot and bullets that are taxed more heavily than cigarettes.
SCOTUS wont allow it. And before it gets even close to that bad, I would be living elsewhere.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top