Trump moves to ban bump stocks

What’s that, Ryan, Hamilton and Bird were all on the local and Police radars as potential problems or nutters?
You've been told numerous times that Ryan and Bird weren't on 'the Police radar' irrespective of what you and some shooting organisations think. As for Bird, if you really want certificates revoking for his offence, you can always disagree with pretty much every shooting organisation.
There seems to be a trend here with spree shooters world wide.
You mean being a bit of a Walt? Having never served in the military like Ryan but wanting 'military style' (Type 56 and M1 Carbine) firearms?
Could you 'uncrimp' the magazine?
Not very easily: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/117802/deactivation-of-firearms-2010.pdf
 
Have an informative
I hadn't realised they existed - I assumed that the additional costs complexity and public resistance would have made that a non seller.
Its actually going through the courts, as many think its unconstitutional. To be honest - every law they come up with, someone makes a work around. And those things designed to slow down a mass shooter are easily bypassed/replaced.

These are not intricate swiss watches...any machine shop/home DIY enthusiast could do it.
 
Charles Whitman used a .243 Remington 700 rifle, the classic deer hunting rifle, with a 3 round internal magazine.
And? Your line of argument is 'if you can cut your finger with a paper cut then why ban guns as there's risks in everything'. It's spurious equivalence.

You are never going to remove the risk of misuse of firearms but surely you can reduce the extent of it by removing the 'more user friendly guns'.

And you're comparing apples with oranges. Whitman shot the number he did because he was on a water tower.

Someone carrying out a spree shoot with a limited capacity bolt action in a school is likely not to kill or wound as many victims as with a semi-automatic with a 10 or whatever quick change mags.
 
And? Your line of argument is 'if you can cut your finger with a paper cut then why ban guns as there's risks in everything'. It's spurious equivalence.

You are never going to remove the risk of misuse of firearms but surely you can reduce the extent of it by removing the 'more user friendly guns'.

And you're comparing apples with oranges. Whitman shot the number he did because he was on a water tower.

Someone carrying out a spree shoot with a limited capacity bolt action in a school is likely not to kill or wound as many victims as with a semi-automatic with a 10 or whatever quick change mags.
It was not a water tower, it was the main campus building from the top observation deck. The actual killings he did included his wife and mum as well as people in the building as he made his way to the deck. He only used the Remington to a certain extent, he used other firearms as well. Meerkatz was being to vague to prove his point.
 
You are never going to remove the risk of misuse of firearms but surely you can reduce the extent of it by removing the 'more user friendly guns'..
Would you include hand guns in that? The murderer at Virginia Tech killed 32 people, which is still has the highest death toll of any active shooter in a school, using two handguns.

The whole thing of obsessing about certain types of weapon is a huge red herring. What needs to be improved is the identification of the individual who may be a threat.
 
It's already here. If you hadn't noticed billions of dollars are going into this, and it isn't going away. It's backed by the big players as well.

So it’s not actually here, it’s not actually happening day to day yet, and certain,y won’t be a driverless accident free world for many decades yet.
 
And? Your line of argument is 'if you can cut your finger with a paper cut then why ban guns as there's risks in everything'. It's spurious equivalence.

You are never going to remove the risk of misuse of firearms but surely you can reduce the extent of it by removing the 'more user friendly guns'.

And you're comparing apples with oranges. Whitman shot the number he did because he was on a water tower.

Someone carrying out a spree shoot with a limited capacity bolt action in a school is likely not to kill or wound as many victims as with a semi-automatic with a 10 or whatever quick change mags.
The world is full of danger, stairs, bloody dangerous things, kill untold numbers every year, yet no ones falling for a stair ban.
A danger free totally but safe world? Who’d want to live such a dull life?
 
So it’s not actually here, it’s not actually happening day to day yet, and certain,y won’t be a driverless accident free world for many decades yet.
It may be not that far away.

As you like google.

German car manufacturer Audi will use Nvidia technology to bring its driverless cars to market by 2020, both companies announced this week at CES 2017.
While the partnership between Audi and graphics cards maker Nvidia is nothing new, more recently, Audi has been using Nvidia's AI platform to intelligently monitor of road conditions and to deliver technology for its autonomous vehicles.
This continued partnership will see Audi and Nvidia develop a 'Level 4' autonomous vehicle - a car capable of driving entirely autonomously.


Within the same group 2018

Entering the New Year on a high, car maker Volkswagen announced that it will be partnering with Silicon Valley startup Aurora to assist with the future of its self-driving car fleet.
The car manufacturer aims to launch self-driving taxi fleets across a variety of cities in 2021 and has announced plans to launch dozens of test vehicles in 2018 in partnership with Aurora.
Alongside this, Volkswagen has also partnered with Nvidia to develop an intelligent co-pilot system, which is expected to provide convenience and assistance features using sensors both inside and outside of vehicles. This is will be performed using Nvidia's Drive IX platform.


It's happening, and it's going at a pace now.
 
It was not a water tower, it was the main campus building from the top observation deck. The actual killings he did included his wife and mum as well as people in the building as he made his way to the deck. He only used the Remington to a certain extent, he used other firearms as well. Meerkatz was being to vague to prove his point.
Apologies. You are correct.
 
Would you include hand guns in that? The murderer at Virginia Tech killed 32 people, which is still has the highest death toll of any active shooter in a school, using two handguns.

The whole thing of obsessing about certain types of weapon is a huge red herring. What needs to be improved is the identification of the individual who may be a threat.
Yes I would include handguns. I wouldn't limit a review on what should be allowed to just AR15 or whatever other style of semi auto rifle or firearm. Americans kill each other and themselves intentionally or accidentally more than any other first world country. You need to look at why and the proliferation of guns of whatever sort is probably the reason.
 
meerkatz said:
Points in favour of the AR-15 as a hunting rifle.

It’s very durable and fully weather resistant.
It’s light.
It’s extremely accurate, more so than many bolt action rifles
.223 was a purpose designed small game round.

As stated before, most States have have a 10 round limit for any hunting rifle.
They are not a weather resistant as say a Tikka bolt action in stainless and general production AR15`s are not very accurate at all , only the custom shop ones shoot very well , the biggest problem with them (and the owners) is you can fit any capacity mag to them and they are semi auto , the biggest attraction for too many owners is they like the fact they are based on the current US assault rife and it makes them feel like a SF soljer.


CptDanjou
Could you be any more of a fucktard by chance? However after reading your posts I gather you have quite a bit more drivel to spout.
 
The world is full of danger, stairs, bloody dangerous things, kill untold numbers every year, yet no ones falling for a stair ban.
A danger free totally but safe world? Who’d want to live such a dull life?
You're dodging the issue.

If you don't want a dull life then go free climbing, wrestle alligators, pick a fight with an mma expert, go BASE jumping, or whatever. But dodging bullets during a spree shoot doesn't seem like a good alternative.

We're not saying the world is risk free but you work towards reducing whatever harms you or is likely to kill you such as some tw@t having a gun.

Do you still want arsenic in wallpaper to get the lustrous green colour it produced. Well yeah, but not if you're worried about the deaths caused by it. Not surprisingly that was banned years ago.

Do you still want thousands killed on the roads due to drink drivers having one for the he road, and more. Unsurprisingly that has also been legislated for. When the drink driving laws came in here in the uk I understand the police reported a dramatic fall in drunk road accidents. Nanny state? Hell yeah. Bring it on. I don't want be killed by some stupid f*ck who drank too much. There's a risk I may still be killed by a drunk driver, but the risk has been reduced.

If the us wants guns then as a society you have accept the cost. But it seems to me that not everyone in the us wants that.

Have your guns but why can't they be specific for what you need within reason?
 
It may be not that far away.

As you like google.

German car manufacturer Audi will use Nvidia technology to bring its driverless cars to market by 2020, both companies announced this week at CES 2017.
While the partnership between Audi and graphics cards maker Nvidia is nothing new, more recently, Audi has been using Nvidia's AI platform to intelligently monitor of road conditions and to deliver technology for its autonomous vehicles.
This continued partnership will see Audi and Nvidia develop a 'Level 4' autonomous vehicle - a car capable of driving entirely autonomously.


Within the same group 2018

Entering the New Year on a high, car maker Volkswagen announced that it will be partnering with Silicon Valley startup Aurora to assist with the future of its self-driving car fleet.
The car manufacturer aims to launch self-driving taxi fleets across a variety of cities in 2021 and has announced plans to launch dozens of test vehicles in 2018 in partnership with Aurora.
Alongside this, Volkswagen has also partnered with Nvidia to develop an intelligent co-pilot system, which is expected to provide convenience and assistance features using sensors both inside and outside of vehicles. This is will be performed using Nvidia's Drive IX platform.


It's happening, and it's going at a pace now.

And how many driver operated cars are on the road now?
How long til the last one is made?
How long until the last driver driven car comes off the road?

I’m still waiting fir the robot Butler I was assured in Tomorrows World in the 60’s was just aiound for the corner.
 
You're dodging the issue.

If you don't want a dull life then go free climbing, wrestle alligators, pick a fight with an mma expert, go BASE jumping, or whatever. But dodging bullets during a spree shoot doesn't seem like a good alternative.

We're not saying the world is risk free but you work towards reducing whatever harms you or is likely to kill you such as some tw@t having a gun.

Do you still want arsenic in wallpaper to get the lustrous green colour it produced. Well yeah, but not if you're worried about the deaths caused by it. Not surprisingly that was banned years ago.

Do you still want thousands killed on the roads due to drink drivers having one for the he road, and more. Unsurprisingly that has also been legislated for. When the drink driving laws came in here in the uk I understand the police reported a dramatic fall in drunk road accidents. Nanny state? Hell yeah. Bring it on. I don't want be killed by some stupid f*ck who drank too much. There's a risk I may still be killed by a drunk driver, but the risk has been reduced.

If the us wants guns then as a society you have accept the cost. But it seems to me that not everyone in the us wants that.

Have your guns but why can't they be specific for what you need within reason?
Mine are specific for what I need.. 'within reason'.
 
You're dodging the issue.

If you don't want a dull life then go free climbing, wrestle alligators, pick a fight with an mma expert, go BASE jumping, or whatever. But dodging bullets during a spree shoot doesn't seem like a good alternative.

We're not saying the world is risk free but you work towards reducing whatever harms you or is likely to kill you such as some tw@t having a gun.

Do you still want arsenic in wallpaper to get the lustrous green colour it produced. Well yeah, but not if you're worried about the deaths caused by it. Not surprisingly that was banned years ago.

Do you still want thousands killed on the roads due to drink drivers having one for the he road, and more. Unsurprisingly that has also been legislated for. When the drink driving laws came in here in the uk I understand the police reported a dramatic fall in drunk road accidents. Nanny state? Hell yeah. Bring it on. I don't want be killed by some stupid f*ck who drank too much. There's a risk I may still be killed by a drunk driver, but the risk has been reduced.

If the us wants guns then as a society you have accept the cost. But it seems to me that not everyone in the us wants that.

Have your guns but why can't they be specific for what you need within reason?

I have a hatchet, do we ban hatchets next?
Maybe we should licence them?
Only people with a log burner have a need to own an axe.
After all, I could go tonto and run out into the street and kill a dozen people with it.
It never jams, has unlimited killing strikes, it’s a proper full auto people chopper upper.


Time, after time, after time, review after review comes to the same conclusion.... licensing ‘things’ doesn’t work, you need to check the people.
If I’m a nutter, I’m going to go tonto with a B.B. gun if that’s all I have.

Example? NFA full auto firearms in the States. background checks by the Feds, pay your tax stamp, have at it with a proper machine gun. Misuse, zero.
It’s not any specific type of gun that is the issue.
It is indeed true, guns don’t kill people, people do.
 
Mine are specific for what I need.. 'within reason'.
And you're definition of within reason would need looking at.

I would love to have an AR15. Do I need one? No I don't and I'm cool with that since I accept the reason not too and the controls around it.

I'm guessing you probably don't need the types of guns you have, but you have cos' you can.

And that's a significant reason for the gun violence problem the US has.
 
And you're definition of within reason would need looking at.

I would love to have an AR15. Do I need one? No I don't and I'm cool with that since I accept the reason not too and the controls around it.

I'm guessing you probably don't need the types of guns you have, but you have cos' you can.

And that's a significant reason for the gun violence problem the US has.
My guns have never committed any violence on any human. I am watching them closely though...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top