# Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

In a surprising move that will be sure to anger certain gun nuts, the Trump administration is banning bump stocks.

https://www.apnews.com/6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af



			
				APNews said:
			
		

> The regulation gives gun owners until late March to turn in or destroy the devices. After that, it will be illegal to possess them under the same federal laws that prohibit machine guns.



I gotta give credit where credit is due, and this is perhaps the first and only instance where that's been the case for the Trump administration.  Bump stocks don't serve any logical purpose beyond random bullet spray.  They certainly aren't useful for hunting or target shooting.  A positive move here.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Dec 19, 2018)

I'll have to do more research, but apparently it's unconstitutional to make things illegal that were legal before. Anyway it doesn't make a difference, you can bump fire without a bump stock anyway:


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'll have to do more research, but apparently it's unconstitutional to make things illegal that were legal before.


That doesn't make much sense.  We outlaw stuff that wasn't illegal previously all the time.  If it's unconstitutional to make legal things illegal, then we've got a lot of retroactive lawsuits to dole out for the war on drugs.



Subtle Demise said:


> Anyway it doesn't make a difference, you can bump fire without a bump stock anyway:


You can, but you're not going to get the same full-auto rate of fire out of most weapons using only your finger.  Just makes it a faster semi-auto.


----------



## Kigiru (Dec 19, 2018)

Ayy, that's actualy very reasonable. Automatic weapon has no recreational or self-defense purpose and attachment that can turn non- or semi- automatic weapon into automatic one should be logically in the same category.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 19, 2018)

Automatic weapons are nothing but ways of people compensating for something iMO, I say good riddance.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 19, 2018)

Haha, americans. Would'nt know a good thing if it hit them in the face. You are so lucky to have probably the greatest president in your history. Someone who is not a bullshitting typical politician spouting meangingless and nothing politically correct garbage. He is as businessman who understands how things are run.

I have american friends and they dont shut up about bad mouthing trump. The ironic thing is these are people who suddenly dont like trump because he is supposedly against women and immigrants. When the same people spent the last 20 years destroying countries and killing countless children.

Oh well, americans. I wish Britain had Trump. We'd get things done.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 19, 2018)

MadonnaProject said:


> Haha, americans. Would'nt know a good thing if it hit them in the face. You are so lucky to have probably the greatest president in your history. Someone who is not a bullshitting typical politician spouting meangingless and nothing politically correct garbage. He is as businessman who understands how things are run.
> 
> I have american friends and they dont shut up about bad mouthing trump. The ironic thing is these are people who suddenly dont like trump because he is supposedly against women and immigrants. When the same people spent the last 20 years destroying countries and killing countless children.
> 
> Oh well, americans. I wish Britain had Trump. We'd get things done.



That is the most condescendingly sarcastic post I've seen yet, that's a helluva an achievement. Congrats.

Well, it could be worse, we could have someone like Theresa May.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

MadonnaProject said:


> You are so lucky to have probably the greatest president in your history. Someone who is not a bullshitting typical politician spouting meangingless and nothing politically correct garbage. He is as businessman who understands how things are run.


Pump the breaks there bro.  Trump has no idea how legislation or foreign/domestic policy work.  One good move does not erase all the negative and/or illegal things he's done as president, and in two years, this administration has only passed one bill through the proper channels.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 19, 2018)

Not going to lie, I laughed harder than I should have at the irony. 

I was pretty neutral about this, but I'm sure not going to be fighting to get these back.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 19, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> That is the most condescendingly sarcastic post I've seen yet, that's a helluva an achievement. Congrats.
> 
> Well, it could be worse, we could have someone like Theresa May.



We'll take trump off your hands and you lot can go back to t'challa or obama or whatever lol.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 19, 2018)

MadonnaProject said:


> We'll take trump off your hands and you lot can go back to t'challa or obama or whatever lol.



I'd rather french kiss a rabid homeless person.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

MadonnaProject said:


> We'll take trump off your hands and you lot can go back to t'challa or obama or whatever lol.


Gladly.  Any president that spoke in complete sentences was vastly superior to Trump, but then again, he kind of makes even GWB look like a card-carrying member of Mensa by comparison.  Watching a country's descent into a corrupt and incompetent banana republic would be a lot easier from afar.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 19, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'll have to do more research, but apparently it's unconstitutional to make things illegal that were legal before.


By that logic, most if not all soft drugs are legally protected by the constitution.

Seriously...I doubt it.


I don't have much opinions on bump stocks. At best, it's an incredibly small step in the right direction. GG, Americans. At this pace, it'll take 104'032 years to make your country safer.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 19, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> By that logic, most if not all soft drugs are legally protected by the constitution.
> 
> Seriously...I doubt it.
> 
> ...


We would have to make the people less violent.


----------



## Ryccardo (Dec 19, 2018)

Kigiru said:


> Automatic weapon has no recreational [...] purpose


I don't believe this claim if true, as evidenced by... huh, the existence of enthusiasts and the continued manufacture of the currently-questioned accessories


----------



## SG854 (Dec 19, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> By that logic, most if not all soft drugs are legally protected by the constitution.
> 
> Seriously...I doubt it.
> 
> ...


U.S. isn’t anywhere close the the most dangerous country for mass shootings.

Out of 86 Countries identified in peer reviewed research, U.S. ranks 62nd. 

Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia are more dangerous then U.S.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

Ryccardo said:


> I don't believe this claim if true, as evidenced by... huh, the existence of enthusiasts and the continued manufacture of the currently-questioned accessories


Anything is everything is manufactured to order, that doesn't make all of it legal and/or ethical to own.


----------



## Ryccardo (Dec 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Anything is everything is manufactured to order,


Exactly, that means someone wants them; and since I doubt any significant amount of people buy said accessories to kill better, they are probably doing so for recreational purposes  (which include shooting random crap on their private property, collection, ...)


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2018)

Ryccardo said:


> Exactly, that means someone wants them; and since I doubt any significant amount of people buy said accessories to kill better, they are probably doing so for recreational purposes  (which include shooting random crap on their private property, collection, ...)


Again, demand for a product doesn't determine the legality or ethical implications of owning that product.  When talking about the world-scale, more full auto weapons are likely ordered to conduct illegal wars/slaughter than for any other purpose.  There has to be a line, obviously individuals aren't allowed to own operational tanks or missiles.  Public safety trumps a frat bro's need to watch a target get completely shredded in seconds.  There's always shotguns for that anyway.



SG854 said:


> U.S. isn’t anywhere close the the most dangerous country for mass shootings.
> 
> Out of 86 Countries identified in peer reviewed research, U.S. ranks 62nd.
> 
> Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia are more dangerous then U.S.


We rank 11th in mass shooting deaths per million citizens.



			
				Investors.com said:
			
		

> So who's tops? Surprisingly, Norway is, with an outlier mass shooting death rate of 1.888 per million (high no doubt because of the rifle assault by political extremist Anders Brevik that claimed 77 lives in 2011). No. 2 is Serbia, at just 0.381, followed by France at 0.347, Macedonia at 0.337, and Albania at 0.206. Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and Czech Republic all follow. Then comes the U.S., at No. 11, with a death rate of 0.089.



https://www.investors.com/politics/...-s-isnt-the-worst-country-for-mass-shootings/


----------



## tooknie (Dec 19, 2018)

MadonnaProject said:


> We'll take trump off your hands and you lot can go back to t'challa or obama or whatever lol.



No WE fucking wont.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Again, demand for a product doesn't determine the legality or ethical implications of owning that product.  When talking about the world-scale, more full auto weapons are likely ordered to conduct illegal wars/slaughter than for any other purpose.  There has to be a line, obviously individuals aren't allowed to own operational tanks or missiles.  Public safety trumps a frat bro's need to watch a target get completely shredded in seconds.  There's always shotguns for that anyway.
> 
> 
> We rank 11th in mass shooting deaths per million citizens.
> ...


We ranked 62 per 100,000 out of 86 countries. What you gave me is a different list that has a much smaller amount of countries.

The the guy that did the study that shows us to be crazy in mass shootings that everyone in media uses is undercounted.

And when people ask for his sources, and ask how he did the research, and how he collected data in countries where they speak a different language then he does, he doesn’t provide his data. He just flat out refuses continuously to give that information. He doesn’t even provide his research to strong gun control advocates. It’s a bogus study.

Actual peer reviewed research shows we rank 62 in mass shootings.


----------



## Chary (Dec 20, 2018)

Xzi said:


> GWB look like a card-carrying member of Mensa by comparison


You usually make sensible posts, but this is just...you've crossed the line, man! Even in jest, that's just too far!! 

Really though, nothing of value has been lost. I'm for this ban, I don't see any reason to have kept it.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Again, demand for a product doesn't determine the legality or ethical implications of owning that product.  When talking about the world-scale, more full auto weapons are likely ordered to conduct illegal wars/slaughter than for any other purpose.  There has to be a line, obviously individuals aren't allowed to own operational tanks or missiles.  Public safety trumps a frat bro's need to watch a target get completely shredded in seconds.  There's always shotguns for that anyway.
> 
> 
> We rank 11th in mass shooting deaths per million citizens.
> ...


Also that link you gave me mentions a study by John Lott. Which is the guy speaking in the video link I gave. And he’s well known in the gun research community for his book “More Guns Less Crime.”

So if your giving me a link about research that guy did and using his data to try to counter my points, then you have to accept that his peer reviewed data research shows we ranked 62 out of 86.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 20, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> By that logic, most if not all soft drugs are legally protected by the constitution.
> 
> Seriously...I doubt it.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I keep forgetting that the US is far more dangerous than Colombia, North Korea and Somalia combined.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 20, 2018)

"Dems gonna take our guns!"


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Also that link you gave me mentions a study by John Lott. Which is the guy speaking in the video link I gave. And he’s well known in the gun research community for his book “More Guns Less Crime.”
> 
> So if your giving me a link about research that guy did and using his data to try to counter my points, then you have to accept that his peer reviewed data research shows we ranked 62 out of 86.


Here are the tables taken straight from the study:












You're probably referring to a different study that includes non-European nations as well.  Kinda sad that we have to use unstable third-world countries as filler in order to make us look better.  Regardless of where we rank it's clear we have a problem with relatively-frequent mass shootings in the US.

When broken down by state it looks even worse:






Like dear god we have several states with more murders from mass shootings than Albania or Slovakia.


----------



## Joe88 (Dec 20, 2018)

Thought michigan would have topped that list


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

The Right to Bare Arms was included in the United States Constitution to make sure that the citizens of our great country could overthrow the Government if they became too oppressive. That was the original reason. It wasn't included so we could hunt deer. I have no problem with normal citizens owning any sort of gun that the government owns. I do not believe in gun control. I don't care if some random Liberal gets his or her feelings hurt for me simply repeating what our founding fathers said.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2018)

cots said:


> The Right to Bare Arms was included in the United States Constitution to make sure that the citizens of our great country could overthrow the Government if they became too oppressive. That was the original reason. It wasn't included so we could hunt deer.


Precisely.  It's far less about the right of the individual to own guns and far more about the right to organize a resistance or militia.  The founding fathers never could've imagined the types of weapons we have today though.  A militia with pistols isn't going to do shit against an endless army of weaponized flying drones.  Perhaps a bigger issue is that the gun nut crowd are fine with authoritarianism as long as it comes from their political corner.


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Perhaps a bigger issue is that the gun nut crowd are fine with authoritarianism as long as it comes from their political corner.



Those people are a vocal minority (akin to radicals) that people like to use as an example to push their political agenda. Most law abiding gun owners take no part in that nonsense. Limiting our ability to defend ourselves against the Government in any way, shape or form is not acceptable.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 20, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Thought michigan would have topped that list



It's ironic how DC and Chicago, with their precious gun bans, have an awful lot of gun-related crime. Gee, wonder how that happened.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> It's ironic how DC and Chicago, with their precious gun bans, have an awful lot of gun-related crime. Gee, wonder how that happened.


They're surrounded by regions that don't restrict firearms in any way. It's not exactly effective to ban weapons in a location where a person could buy them legally 50 miles away and bring them in


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> It's ironic how DC and Chicago, with their precious gun bans, have an awful lot of gun-related crime. Gee, wonder how that happened.



It proves that criminals don't care about the law which should had been evident when passing them.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They're surrounded by regions that don't restrict firearms in any way. It's not exactly effective to ban weapons in a location where a person could buy them legally 50 miles away and bring them in


Exactly, gun bans are useless


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 20, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Exactly, gun bans are useless





cots said:


> It proves that criminals don't care about the law which should had been evident when passing them.


But yet we keep traffic laws, murder laws, and other laws. Laws are not made to stop criminals, they made to define what is a criminal and or harmful act.


cots said:


> Those people are a vocal minority (akin to radicals) that people like to use as an example to push their political agenda. Most law abiding gun owners take no part in that nonsense. Limiting our ability to defend ourselves against the Government in any way, shape or form is not acceptable.


Lol, implying that you would actually stand a chance if the government decided they wanted you dead for whatever reason. If for some reason the government decided that they want someone dead, they aren't going to play fair and give them a fighting chance. They are going to poison their food, use a sniper, or a literal army of trained law enforcement. Unless you have the same kind of resources as the government, your gun isn't going to save you if they decide that you are going to die. Honestly, they wouldn't even have to attempt to ban guns if they wanted to kill people.


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> But yet we keep traffic laws, murder laws, and other laws. Laws are not made to stop criminals, they made to define what is a criminal and or harmful act.



The last time I checked those laws do not stop criminals either. Most people respect the law. Limiting our Constitutional Rights with laws is not acceptable.



> Lol, implying that you would actually stand a chance of the government decided they wanted you dead for whatever reason. If for some reason the government decided that they want someone dead, they aren't going to play fair and give them a fighting chance. They are going to poison their food, use a sniper, or a literal army of trained law enforcement. Unless you have the same kind of resources as the government, your gun isn't going to save you if they decide that you are going to die.



"It's far less about the right of the individual to own guns and far more about the right to organize a resistance or militia." - xzi


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Exactly, gun bans are useless


Not useless, just ineffective if done in isolation. Besides, there's no need for an outright ban per se (except perhaps in high-risk areas where they're already banned), regulation just needs to be increased to ensure proper education and competency before ownership, and then periodically afterwards


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 20, 2018)

cots said:


> The last time I checked those laws do not stop criminals either.





Lilith Valentine said:


> Laws are not made to stop criminals, they made to define what is a criminal and or harmful act.


Did you just stop at the end of the first sentance and not even attempt to read the second one?


cots said:


> "It's far less about the right of the individual to own guns and far more about the right to organize a resistance or militia." - xzi


That doesn't change what I said, they aren't going to play fair regardless. If they wanted that kind of resistance dead, they aren't going to do a frontal assault. The governement doesn't have to nor will they play fair.
I feel like people who believe that guns are going to protect them from the government assume that everything is going to be some old school style gentlemen's war, when that simply won't be the case.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I feel like people who believe that guns are going to protect them from the government assume that everything is going to be some old school style gentlemen's war, when that simply won't be the case.


Plus, so long as we remain at least a democratic republic (if not move to full democracy at some point), the right to protest our government and elect our own leaders remains a far more powerful tool, anyway


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Did you just stop at the end of the first sentance and not even attempt to read the second one?



Sorry. I edited the original post, but here is the rest of what I said.

Most people respect the law. Limiting our Constitutional Rights with laws is not acceptable.

Also, the effects of the Law are now evident. It didn't work.



> That doesn't change what I said, they aren't going to play fair regardless. If they wanted that kind of resistance dead, they aren't going to do a frontal assault. The governement doesn't have to nor will they play fair.
> I feel like people who believe that guns are going to protect them from the government assume that everything is going to be some old school style gentlemen's war, when that simply won't be the case.



I never assumed how such an incident would play out.


----------



## orangy57 (Dec 20, 2018)

maybe this will show the right wing that Trump doesn't actually care about anybody, only himself
we all know how gun nuts love trump, and they herald him as this lover of america, when literally half of the stuff he does goes against america and his base. He's taking away social security for war veterans, increasing taxes for the poor and middle class, and all sorts of stuff that's the OPPOSITE OF AMERICAN

Although it think it makes total sense that they got rid of bump stocks, and i hope we eventually get rid of semi-automatic weapons altogether, it just shows that trump isn't making any friends here.


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

Orangy57 said:


> Although it think it makes total sense that they got rid of bump stocks, and i hope we eventually get rid of semi-automatic weapons altogether, it just shows that trump isn't making any friends here.



Trump isn't perfect, but he is the President of the United States and deserves respect none the less. I don't care about some of his policies, but the economy is improving. However, this matter far transcends Trump. The anti-Trump bandwagon will criticize him no matter what he does so I do not take their point of view into much consideration as in there eyes there is nothing that he can do that will be approved. If the policies, actions, laws, etc ... limit our Constitutional Rights I will object and I do not limit my rejection based on Political Party or some Politically Correct bullshit.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2018)

cots said:


> Trump isn't perfect, but he is the President of the United States and deserves respect none the less.


How can you base an entire argument on the right to defend against a potentially tyrannical government and then follow up with this statement?


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How can you base an entire argument on the right to defend against a potentially tyrannical government and then follow up with this statement?


This thread is literally about Trump and his administration limiting gun rights, which he seems to be so much against.


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How can you base an entire argument on the right to defend against a potentially tyrannical government and then follow up with this statement?



I respect the President of the United States no matter who they may be even if I didn't vote for them. It's the right thing to do.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2018)

cots said:


> I respect the President of the United States no matter who they may be even if I didn't vote for them. It's the right thing to do.


Sorry but nah, blindly trusting people in power is how you get an authoritarian government. There need to be people to challenge policy and keep the high-level government officials in check, especially in times where all three branches are controlled by one party like they are currently


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sorry but nah, blindly trusting people in power is how you get an authoritarian government. There need to be people to challenge policy and keep the high-level government officials in check, especially in times where all three branches are controlled by one party like they are currently



Who said anything about trust?


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 20, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> This thread is literally about Trump and his administration limiting gun rights, which he seems to be so much against.



I fail to see how banning bump stocks is a bad thing. Only gun-toting testosterone-guzzling macho men would get off to this kind of stuff.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2018)

cots said:


> Who said anything about trust?





cots said:


> The anti-Trump bandwagon will criticize him no matter what he does so I do not take their point of view into much consideration as in there eyes there is nothing that he can do that will be approved. If the policies, actions, laws, etc ... limit our Constitutional Rights I will object and I do not limit my rejection based on Political Party or some Politically Correct bullshit.


I understand the meaning you meant to convey with this statement, but it also implies that any dissent against Trump is inherently from people who have already disliked him, and is therefore invalid. Trump broke constitutional law day one in the form of violating the Emoluments Clause by retaining control of his business capital while in office, yet you clearly _trust_ him enough for him to retain your respect.

On top of that, respect based solely on the rank of an individual implies trust in whatever individual holds that rank

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



the_randomizer said:


> I fail to see how banning bump stocks is a bad thing. Only gun-toting testosterone-guzzling macho men would get off to this kind of stuff.


Yes


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 20, 2018)

Blind sycophancy to the office of POTUS, or any leader of a country, while failing to think for yourself and letting the government decide for you, is never ever a good thing.


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 20, 2018)

first legalizing weed now banning bump stocks? they better keep him in office a little longer til he enacts them then kick him out


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 20, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I fail to see how banning bump stocks is a bad thing. Only gun-toting testosterone-guzzling macho men would get off to this kind of stuff.


If that was addressed directly at me, I never said it was?

I was talking about the person who was saying any restrictions on guns laws are not acceptable, yet respecting the person limiting gun rights.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 20, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> If that was addressed directly at me, I never said it was?
> 
> I was talking about the person who was saying any restrictions on guns laws are not acceptable, yet respecting the person limiting gun rights.



What? No, it was a generality towards meatheads and gun junkies.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Dec 20, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'll have to do more research, but apparently it's unconstitutional to make things illegal that were legal before. Anyway it doesn't make a difference, you can bump fire without a bump stock anyway:



I don't think you understand, that guy is destroying his shoulder lol.... Also holding a rifle like that is... weird. Should bump stocks be illegal? Yea I guess, but they're easy to make.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They're surrounded by regions that don't restrict firearms in any way. It's not exactly effective to ban weapons in a location where a person could buy them legally 50 miles away and bring them in


Every place that has banned guns has had an increase in Homicide rates. Even Island nations like Jamaica, England and Ireland. 

England and Wales firearm homicide rate almost doubled from 1996 to 2002. to after their hand gun ban in 1997.

This is from the link @Xzi gave me and all the sources in that link. He gave me a gold mine of information.

And when it comes per capita casualty rate the European Union during the Obama Administration was 27% higher then the U.S. And European countries that has gun control laws like France, Netherlands and Belgium which is where @Taleweaver is from, has mass public shooting rates that are about as high as the U.S.

https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Every place that has banned guns has had an increase in Homicide rates. Even Island nations like Jamaica, England and Ireland.
> 
> England and Wales firearm homicide rate almost doubled from 1996 to 2002. to after their hand gun ban in 1997.
> 
> ...









Calling this an increase is slightly disingenuous, considering that since 2003 there's been a downward trend that terminates to less than the rate at the time of the ban






And you'd also be ignoring this statistic, that shows that it was in fact effective at dramatically reducing firearm related homicides. The ban did what it was aiming to. Yes, there are other methods of killing, but all of them are more easily preventable. If anything I'd say that part of the reason the UK is doing so poorly in homicide prevention is that police officers have been kneecapped



Plus, part of the reason for regulating firearms more harshly is to prevent suicides and accidental injuries/deaths. Even if homicide rates stay the same, I'd consider restrictions/bans effective if they reduce those other forms of death


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 20, 2018)

Kigiru said:


> Ayy, that's actualy very reasonable. Automatic weapon has no recreational or self-defense purpose and attachment that can turn non- or semi- automatic weapon into automatic one should be logically in the same category.


It has no self-defense purpose? How about a tyrannical government hell bent on destroying your country and freedom while sending their own military after innocent citizens that are carrying the same thing they banned the citizens from having? These things have been shown to happen throughout history time and time again.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 20, 2018)

cots said:


> Sorry. I edited the original post, but here is the rest of what I said.
> 
> Most people respect the law. Limiting our Constitutional Rights with laws is not acceptable.
> 
> ...


Expect gun regulation isn't a limitation of our Constitutional rights, in fact, it's literally how The Second Amendment starts
"A well regulated Militia,"
Additionally, we already have regulations in place, such as felons being barred from owning guns. you can't own a fully automatic weapon, and several other laws are already in place that apparently doesn't conflict with the Constitution. If your entire argument is, "These laws don't work because crime still happens," then all laws should be abolished because they don't work either. But that's not the point of laws, as I stressed before, laws are not put into place to stop crime, they are there to define what a crime is.


cots said:


> I never assumed how such an incident would play out.


You quoted the argument that the right to own guns was for the use of a militia and or resistance, I explained why that argument is pointless these days. When the Second Amendment was written, it was during a time when the government was much smaller and our military was basically just a couple of militias. It was made when the people actually had a fighting chance on the off chance that our government at that time got a little cocky and needed to put in their place. That's not how things work anymore and the notion that some militias have a fighting chance against our government is just wishful thinking.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Dec 20, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Expect gun regulation isn't a limitation of our Constitutional rights, in fact, it's literally how The Second Amendment starts
> "A well regulated Militia,"
> Additionally, we already have regulations in place, such as felons being barred from owning guns. you can't own a fully automatic weapon, and several other laws are already in place that apparently doesn't conflict with the Constitution. If your entire argument is, "These laws don't work because crime still happens," then all laws should be abolished because they don't work either. But that's not the point of laws, as I stressed before, laws are not put into place to stop crime, they are there to define what a crime is.
> 
> You quote the argument that the right to own guns was for the use of a militia and or resistance, I explained why that argument is pointless these days. When the Second Amendment was written, it was during a time when the government was much smaller and our military was basically just a couple of militias. It was made when the people actually had a fighting chance on the off chance that our government at that time got a little cocky and needed to put in their place. That's not how things work anymore and the notion that some militias have a fighting chance against our government is just wishful thinking.


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."- George Mason
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee
“Free men have arms; slaves do not.” - William Blackstone


Pointless you say? You do realize when we Americans won our independence we did so with a huge disadvantage of men and weaponry, correct? Nothing is pointless or impossible. I am one man but I'll tell you right now that I would do my best to protect my family, freedom, and country whether that be that I'm outnumbered or out gunned.


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I understand the meaning you meant to convey with this statement, but it also implies that any dissent against Trump is inherently from people who have already disliked him, and is therefore invalid. Trump broke constitutional law day one in the form of violating the Emoluments Clause by retaining control of his business capital while in office, yet you clearly _trust_ him enough for him to retain your respect.



No. Other factors come into play when I decide who is simply bashing Trump because it's the popular thing to do. Additionally, I do not invalidate their opinions - I just don't give them much thought.

I do not blindly trust people. I had and still have respect for Obama and every President before him. Trump could be guilty of of what you accuse him of, but I'm not a Judge so until he's actually tried and found guilty in a court of law for something he has done I am no position to claim otherwise. I am not personally involved in any of these affairs. I don't care that certain groups of people in their own "public opinion courts" ignore this process. Just because you respect someone due to being the right thing to do doesn't mean you trust them to any given extent.



KingVamp said:


> I was talking about the person who was saying any restrictions on guns laws are not acceptable, yet respecting the person limiting gun rights.



It seems people have a hard time differentiating between respect and trust. I'll give an example. People involved in the Judicial System, while in the Court Room, are supposed to give the Judge and the Law respect. Does that mean they trust the process, the judge or the lawyers? No it doesn't, but it's what is expected of us as citizens. I don't trust President Trump as he's a politician and everyone lies (especially politicians). I respect the President of the United States and do not limit that based on any factors. I did not like or trust President Obama, but I respected his position. How you "feel" about the person doesn't justify your lack of respect for the position.



Lilith Valentine said:


> Expect gun regulation isn't a limitation of our Constitutional rights, in fact, it's literally how The Second Amendment starts
> "A well regulated Militia," Additionally, we already have regulations in place, such as felons being barred from owning guns. you can't own a fully automatic weapon, and several other laws are already in place that apparently doesn't conflict with the Constitution. If your entire argument is, "These laws don't work because crime still happens," then all laws should be abolished because they don't work either. But that's not the point of laws, as I stressed before, laws are not put into place to stop crime, they are there to define what a crime is.



Who do you think regulates the Militia? Do you think it would be the same Government that they would be trying to stand up against? That's hilarious! Well-regulated meant proficient in use or practiced in the expertise of a given skill. It did not mean over-seen and managed by the government, nor does it mean so now, though it is often intentionally misinterpreted as such.

I am also aware of such unconstitutional regulations and the same logic applies to them as they do to anything that limits our rights - there are no exceptions.

On your second point that's it's useless to stand up for our rights because the people doing so would be outnumbered and outgunned (the latter being what an oppressive Government would want). Using that logic the LGBTQ community would have had no chance and should not have stood up for their rights (rights which are provided by the United States Constitution).


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Calling this an increase is slightly disingenuous, considering that since 2003 there's been a downward trend that terminates to less than the rate at the time of the ban
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The article explains it. It became so bad that they had to increase police just to contain the violence. And the decrease is attributed to better policing not the ban. The ban just made the situation worse. And then it went down but still slightly higher then before the ban. Basically the ban did nothing to make it better.

Also if you look at Ireland and Jamaica murder rates didn’t go down after the ban, they increased and stayed up, they didn’t get better policing so murder rates stayed up.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Calling this an increase is slightly disingenuous, considering that since 2003 there's been a downward trend that terminates to less than the rate at the time of the ban
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Japan and Korea hardly have gun violence but have way higher suicide rates. There’s also examples of other countries where suicide rates remained still the same even after the ban. If they don’t use guns they’ll use other means.


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> The article explains it. It became so bad that they had to increase police just to contain the violence. And the decrease is attributed to better policing not the ban. The ban just made the situation worse. And then it went down but still slightly higher then before the ban. Basically the ban did nothing to make it better.



I already stated that the Laws didn't work. It's been long enough to since they passed that see the results and instead of admitting the fact that they (the people who passed the laws) were wrong and that the laws aren't working and therefor need to be removed they only want to pass more Laws.

It is also irrelevant if these laws worked or not. What people should be more concerned about is whether or not the laws limit our Constitution freedom.


----------



## leon315 (Dec 20, 2018)

MadonnaProject said:


> Haha, americans. Would'nt know a good thing if it hit them in the face. You are so lucky to have probably the greatest president in your history. Someone who is not a bullshitting typical politician spouting meangingless and nothing politically correct garbage. He is as businessman who understands how things are run.
> 
> I have american friends and they dont shut up about bad mouthing trump. The ironic thing is these are people who suddenly dont like trump because he is supposedly against women and immigrants. When the same people spent the last 20 years destroying countries and killing countless children.
> 
> Oh well, americans. I wish Britain had Trump. We'd get things done.


if u still think the war shall be fight in conventional way, like missiles and bullets, dude, u are very wrong:

Trump the king of moron is fighting a war which he can NOT win. the Murica vs. East.

Lemme grab my popcorn!


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> And when it comes per capita casualty rate the European Union during the Obama Administration was 27% higher then the U.S. And European countries that has gun control laws like France, Netherlands and Belgium which is where @Taleweaver is from, has mass public shooting rates that are about as high as the U.S.


I'll be short : lies.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I'll be short : lies.


Well with the way they did the study it makes some nations look worse than they really are.  It's per million citizens, so if you have a much lower population than the US, and a much lower mass shooting rate, it can still be the same as America _per million citizens.
_
If we're looking at the flat _number_ of mass shootings without taking population or other factors into account, it skews quite a bit more how you would expect it to.



			
				WaPo said:
			
		

> In a paper that had not yet been published, Lankford conducted a statistical analysis of the total number of public mass shooters per country from 1966 to 2012 in 171 countries and controlled for the national population size. He said his data showed the United States had significantly more mass shooters, with 90 between 1966 and 2012, compared with 202 in the rest of the world.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-world-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.bc1f2b79030a

There is some dispute with these numbers because of the way the FBI classifies mass shootings (or doesn't), but if you just count up the incidents then this is pretty close to accurate.


----------



## Ratatattat (Dec 20, 2018)

MadonnaProject said:


> Haha, americans. Would'nt know a good thing if it hit them in the face. You are so lucky to have probably the greatest president in your history. Someone who is not a bullshitting typical politician spouting meangingless and nothing politically correct garbage. He is as businessman who understands how things are run.
> 
> I have american friends and they dont shut up about bad mouthing trump. The ironic thing is these are people who suddenly dont like trump because he is supposedly against women and immigrants. When the same people spent the last 20 years destroying countries and killing countless children.
> 
> Oh well, americans. I wish Britain had Trump. We'd get things done.



Check the stock market lately?


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

Ratatattat said:


> Check the stock market lately?



What's wrong with the Stock Market?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/trump-dow-jones-interactive/index.html

If you base it solely on today's values you might have a point, but that's not how it works.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I understand the meaning you meant to convey with this statement, but it also implies that any dissent against Trump is inherently from people who have already disliked him, and is therefore invalid. Trump broke constitutional law day one in the form of violating the Emoluments Clause by retaining control of his business capital while in office, yet you clearly _trust_ him enough for him to retain your respect.
> 
> On top of that, respect based solely on the rank of an individual implies trust in whatever individual holds that rank
> 
> ...


He’s not violating the emoluments clause. Before he became president he handed over management all of his companies to Allen Weisselberg, and his sons Eric and Donald Jr. 

When they wrote the constitution they never thought that paying your hotel bill was an emolument. And it’s ridiculous to think that paying your hotel bill corrupts the president.

And Trump isn’t keeping the money, which is the main concern in the lawsuits. The Trump orginization has vowed to donate all profits from foreign governments to the U.S. treasury. And if he’s not keeping the emoluments then he is not gaining or profiting from foreign interests.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2018)

cots said:


> What's wrong with the Stock Market?
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/trump-dow-jones-interactive/index.html
> 
> If you base it solely on today's values you might have a point, but that's not how it works.


It's down like 2000 points for the year.  It's gonna drop like 500-600 today alone because Trump said the shutdown would be averted and then changed his mind.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I'll be short : lies.


Here’s the information.

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's down like 2000 points for the year.  It's gonna drop like 500-600 today alone because Trump said the shutdown would be averted and then changed his mind.



This is solely Trump's fault? No one else contributes to this (the point drop not the border wall decision)?


----------



## Ratatattat (Dec 20, 2018)

cots said:


> What's wrong with the Stock Market?
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/trump-dow-jones-interactive/index.html
> 
> If you base it solely on today's values you might have a point, but that's not how it works.



Using old info to make a point soon fails


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2018)

cots said:


> This is solely Trump's fault? No one else contributes to this (the point drop not the border wall decision)?


The president doesn't have an iron grip on what happens to the stock market, but the market hates uncertainty more than anything, and the uncertainty over the shutdown is definitely responsible for today's losses.  Trump is basically condensed uncertainty in human form.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I'll be short : lies.


And if you want information on mass shooting rate on Belgium being on par with U.S. it’s here.

Belgium also has bombing attacks that killed 31 people and wounded in 180. Which is worse then any U.S. public mass shooting in terms of fatalities and woundings.

They under count the shooting rates in other countries, or they collect data differently then the U.S., like the U.K. collect data differently that it reduces mass shooting homicide rates by 15%. They are comparing apples to oranges. If the U.S. did the same then they can reduce numbers too.

Sometimes countries try to hide their mass shooting numbers. U.S. is very detailed in their data collection and other countries are not the same which can overplay U.S. numbers in comparison.


----------



## AkGBA (Dec 20, 2018)

The CPRC isn't impartial. John Lott is an advocate for Gun Ownership. Do not trust blindly those stats.

About your Constitution... How can you be guided by a 300 years old document ? I'm puzzled. The world and your people ain't the same anymore. Write a new one.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> He’s not violating the emoluments clause. Before he became president he handed over management all of his companies to Allen Weisselberg, and his sons Eric and Donald Jr.


He's very much still in charge of his businesses, Eric and Don Jr couldn't run a lemonade stand properly and nor would Trump trust them to.  The emoluments lawsuits against him have been allowed to proceed by federal judges, so there's obviously enough there to be convincing.  They're currently in the discovery phase.


----------



## AkGBA (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Sometimes countries try to hide their mass shooting numbers. U.S. is very detailed in their data collection and other countries are not the same which can overplay U.S. numbers in comparison.


 Can't wait for the CDC to be able to study this and gun violence again.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

AkGBA said:


> The CPRC isn't impartial. John Lott is an advocate for Gun Ownership. Do not trust blindly those stats.
> 
> About your Constitution... How can you be guided by a 300 years old document ? I'm puzzled. The world and your people ain't the same anymore. Write a new one.


That’s a non argument. Everytime when somebody hears something they don’t like it’s he’s a gun advocate. Ok? So?

Maybe he’s a gun advocate because data shows guns ownership not to be as bad as people make them out to be.

And his work is peer reviewed and provides his data. He also counted more mass shooting murders then what Lankford counted. So it’s obvious Lankford is missing a lot of relevant data.


----------



## AkGBA (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> And his work is peer reviewed and provides his data. He also counted more mass shooting murders then what Lankford counted. So it’s obvious Lankford is missing a lot of relevant data.



Wait, isn't he that guy who lied about the "peer-reviewed" study ?


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

AkGBA said:


> Wait, isn't he that guy who lied about the "peer-reviewed" study ?


What? You’re just making up stuff now.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2018)

AkGBA said:


> About your Constitution... How can you be guided by a 300 years old document ? I'm puzzled. The world and your people ain't the same anymore. Write a new one.


I don't think we need to write a new one, but the constitution was meant to be a living document that had changes and additions made to it over time.  People viewing it as some sort of infallible and complete religious doctrine that was written in stone are way off base.


----------



## AkGBA (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> What? You’re just making up stuff now.





> Last fall, Lott’s website proudly declared it published a study in a peer-reviewed journal. “CPRC Has New Refereed Publication in Econ Journal Watch: Explaining a Bias in Recent Studies on Right-to-Carry Laws” blared the headline on his website. A link to a downloadable copy of the paper also touts its place in the economic journal.
> 
> Having a study accepted in a peer-reviewed journal was a big win for Lott, boosting both his own reputation and that of the CPRC. After all, this would be one of the few publications in recent history that Lott dared subject to peer-review.
> 
> ...



Source : https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2018)

AkGBA said:


> Source : https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/


Thanks for the info.  It's just dumb that we haven't allowed studies on gun violence from the CDC or other groups for so long.  If we had more data from more sources to compare, then it would be obvious who was bullshitting.  Thankfully the NRA is starting to lose its grip on Washington as they face corruption scandals and financial ruin, so the CDC was re-authorized to study gun violence some time back.  In a year or two we should have some more solid data.


----------



## dimmidice (Dec 20, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> but apparently it's unconstitutional to make things illegal that were legal before.


That doesn't sound right at all.


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> That doesn't sound right at all.



It's perfectly within in bounds of the Constitution to make things illegal that were once legal. However, outlawing guns specifically violates the Right to Bare Arms so it is unconstitutional. So you're correct, it isn't right.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Here’s the information.
> 
> https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/





SG854 said:


> And if you want information on mass shooting rate on Belgium being on par with U.S. it’s here.
> 
> Belgium also has bombing attacks that killed 31 people and wounded in 180. Which is worse then any U.S. public mass shooting in terms of fatalities and woundings.
> 
> ...


I'll repeat: lies.

Okay: statistics. Same difference.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

AkGBA said:


> Source : https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/





AkGBA said:


> Source : https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/


Wow I’m impressed. He is the most believable snake oil salesman I seen. He travels to college campusus he debates people, he wins debates, he uses data, playing with definitions, using false equivalences. A lot of people are using his research in debates. You really have to dig deep to find flaws in his research. He even try to sue people for saying things about his work.

@Xzi was using his research to try to counter points I said. And me and @TotalInsanity4 we’re debating his data as if it means anything. GG John Lott. You had us fooled.

I’m not even mad he lied. I’m impressed. People should learn from John Lott on how to be a snake oil salesmen.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I’m not even mad he lied. I’m impressed. People should learn from John Lott on how to be a snake oil salesmen.


Please.  We already idolize con-men in this country enough as it is.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Please.  We already idolize con-men in this country enough as it is.


I was mad at first. I hate being lied too.
But then reading this article and all the stuff he goes through to be believable, I’m very impressed.

And people using him as a role model for being a con man was joke.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag....-the-mind-of-americas-favorite-gun-researcher


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I’m not even mad he lied. I’m impressed. People should learn from John Lott on how to be a snake oil salesmen.


I kinda am. It's bad enough I hear enough BS whenever I pop on talk radio in the car from people with no credentials whatsoever, I'm slightly irritated that someone publishing what outwardly looks to be legitimate studies is managing to fool a much grander audience. Granted, I didn't sit down and properly vet the source, I just read through the statistics the page showed, but that's realistically more than most people would do


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I kinda am. It's bad enough I hear enough BS whenever I pop on talk radio in the car from people with no credentials whatsoever, I'm slightly irritated that someone publishing what outwardly looks to be legitimate studies is managing to fool a much grander audience. Granted, I didn't sit down and properly vet the source, I just read through the statistics the page showed, but that's realistically more than most people would do


This is such a problem from both sides of the debate it’s hard to tell who’s actually telling the truth. Sometimes I just don’t know who you to believe anymore. I have caught the left and the right doing stuff like this. It’s really annoying.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> This is such a problem from both sides of the debate it’s hard to tell who’s actually telling the truth. Sometimes I just don’t know who you to believe anymore. I have caught the left and the right doing stuff like this. It’s really annoying.


Oh, I don't deny that. It just personally frustrates me how easy it appears to be to completely falsify information these days, as someone who's studying in the journalism field and has been strictly taught to vet  _e v e r y t h i n g_


----------



## cots (Dec 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> This is such a problem from both sides of the debate it’s hard to tell who’s actually telling the truth. Sometimes I just don’t know who you to believe anymore. I have caught the left and the right doing stuff like this. It’s really annoying.



We need a category for "junk research". Oh, wait ...


----------

