Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, those of you who are opposed to gun regulation, would you approve of banning the so-called “bump stock” modification, and the sale of kits and parts to accomplish this mod?

If not, why not?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Not at all. “By my logic” having laws against drunk driving don’t stop drunk driving by law-breakers. Having laws against gun ownership won’t prevent law-breakers from having them.
Click to expand...
But if the costs are high enough, that is, if you can face serious criminal time for selling a firearm to someone who shouldn’t have one and/or you get rid of loopholes like private sales and strong registration, you will have fewer people willing to sell a weapon to someone who shouldn’t have one.
 
Jig_Saw said:
But if the costs are high enough, that is, if you can face serious criminal time for selling a firearm to someone who shouldn’t have one and/or you get rid of loopholes like private sales and strong registration, you will have fewer people willing to sell a weapon to someone who shouldn’t have one.
Click to expand...
You can pull a lot of time selling heroin or meth too, but a lot of people do, and by the ton. And many of them are in danger of being killed by other sellers when they do it. There is not the slightest reason to doubt such people would also hazard selling guns, and every reason to believe they would.

But you think it would somehow prevent killing if I went to jail for giving my son my father’s old WWI Mauser? They’re semi-automatic, you know and significantly more accurate and powerful than an AR-15.
 
Last edited:
No, wrongful use of a gun may cause an additional cost on society, but that is not the only use for guns.
 
Sure, if the anti-gunners went away and then promised to never pass another gun restriction ever again.

Paddock could have obtained the same results without a bumpstock. Firing in very short controlled bursts is the most effective way to use a modern firearm.

Sustained fire like that scene in Commando featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger gunning down the entire military of some banana republic will give you a lot of bullets fired into the air and a melted barrel.

Mass shootings are an anomaly when it comes to gun violence and using a full auto weapon during one even more so.
 
Ridgerunner said:
And if criminals can bring in tons of heroin each year, which they do, they can sure bring in guns as well. So you’ll only be disarming the innocent.
Click to expand...
What if we were only able to reduce the number of deaths from domestic arguments, suicides, and accidents. Wouldn’t that be enough of a payback, even if we didn’t stop Al Capone and his ilk?
 
Jig_Saw said:
I am saying that gunowners should hold insurance that would cover these expenses.
Click to expand...
That seems like an excellent idea. I like it. When you buy a car, you have to purchase insurance, whether or not you will have an accident in the future which injures someone or destroys their property. So when you buy a gun, you should also have to purchase insurance whether or not your gun will be used to kill someone and deprive her of her right to life. In case your gun is used by you or by someone else, and it results in people being hurt, then your insurance company will have to pay the damages. Anyone who owns a gun should be required to hold death or injury insurance which would cover any damages caused by that gun. You have to have some sort of a safety net for those people who could be injured by your gun.
i realize that gun lovers believe they have a right to own a gun. But the Declaration of Independence says that man has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How are the young women killed in the Las Vegas massacre going to enjoy their inalienable right to life and the ;pursuit of happiness, after being gunned down by someone who owns several guns? Her rights have been violated and society should require some mechanism, such as insurance payment to her relatives, to redress that serious grievance. Anyone who owns a gun should be required to hold such insurance, say in the amount of 10 million dollars for each gun owned.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What if we were only able to reduce the number of deaths from domestic arguments, suicides, and accidents. Wouldn’t that be enough of a payback, even if we didn’t stop Al Capone and his ilk?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Apparently some people are not able to distinguish between reducing violence and stopping violence.
 
Ridgerunner said:
You can pull a lot of time selling heroin or meth too, but a lot of people do, and by the ton. And many of them are in danger of being killed by other sellers when they do it. There is not the slightest reason to doubt such people would also hazard selling guns, and every reason to believe they would.

But you think it would somehow prevent killing if I went to jail for giving my son my father’s old WWI Mauser? They’re semi-automatic, you know and significantly more accurate and powerful than an AR-15.
Click to expand...
There would be many more people selling heroin or meth if it is legal to do so. As far as your Mauser, I feel it should be registered, you should pay the appropriate insurance on it and if you wanted to pass it to your son, I don’t see a problem with that as long as the law following proper registration of the weapon are followed and the weapon remained legal for private ownership.
 
Ridgerunner said:
So whose insurance going to pay for a killing in Chicago by an uninsured gang member? You can be certain he won’t have insurance. Or are you, instead, proposing a tax on the gun owners who actually comply with the law?
Click to expand...
the whole gun insurance idea is simply to make it more expensive to own a gun to make less people able to afford it.
 
Jig_Saw said:
40.png
exnihilo:
here is no clear risk from mere gun owners. There is no more risk than from owners of frying pans. Just today I saw a story about a woman who killed a man with a frying pan. So we should, under your reasoning, all have liability insurance to cover any damage we could possibly cause.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. Let’s look at data:

Murder weapons in 2012:
  1. Firearms (8855)
  2. Knives (1589)
  3. Personal Weapons (678)
  4. Blunt Objects (518)
  5. Strangulation (194)
  6. Fire (84)
  7. Narcotic (35)
  8. Drowning (13)
  9. Poison (12)
  10. Explosions (8)
So murder by firearm is about 16x more prevalent than by blunt object (which I suppose a frying pan would be). Given that more households have frying pans, I feel pretty safe saying that there is much less risk from owners of frying pans.

Gun owners should bare the cost of their ownership and not put that burden on the rest of society. Why is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s hard to understand. It’s just not realistic. As someone already mentioned, most insurance policies cover accidents, not intentional acts of destruction.

I can’t imagine insurance companies being the answer here.

And don’t you think the high cost of owning guns would lead to just keeping buying, selling, and keeping guns illegally?
 
rcwitness said:
And don’t you think the high cost of owning guns would lead to just keeping buying, selling, and keeping guns illegally?
Click to expand...
The goal is not to eliminate illegal possession of guns. The goal is to reduce the number of guns. And a high cost of owning guns will do that.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
rcwitness:
And don’t you think the high cost of owning guns would lead to just keeping buying, selling, and keeping guns illegally?
Click to expand...
The goal is not to eliminate illegal possession of guns. The goal is to reduce the number of guns. And a high cost of owning guns will do that.
Click to expand...
I think it would more likely cause many to resort to buying illegally, and not registering.

Kinda like the prohibition of alcohol. It would be so expensive for the few who pay these incredibly high insurance costs, that an entire industry would grow and be unable to be enforced.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
rcwitness:
And don’t you think the high cost of owning guns would lead to just keeping buying, selling, and keeping guns illegally?
Click to expand...
The goal is not to eliminate illegal possession of guns. The goal is to reduce the number of guns. And a high cost of owning guns will do that.
Click to expand...
I think it would more likely cause many to resort to buying illegally, and not registering.
Click to expand...
The requirements for registration can be placed on the manufacturers, not the buyers, so that even if a buyer wants to skirt the law, the manufacturers and their distributors won’t let them.
 
That’s actually a good idea.

Still, trying to require gun owners to pay insurance for the cost of mass murders doesn’t sound like it would work.

I’m not a fan of guns, and I have never owned one.

But the United States does and should allow the right to have them. And personal protection and hunting are legitimate reasons to own guns.

But something does need to change. The number of mass killings with guns is becoming increasingly common. It’s basically two or three major instances every year. And that is becoming more important to avoid than the ease and privileged of owning guns.

So there needs to be a balance. Private protection, and hunting must be respected. But many restrictions and requirements should be put into place.

A serious reform and regulation is definitely in order.

Maybe even gun “renting” should be considered…

All guns must be rented for set periods. What do you think?
 
If all guns needed to be rented, then I think it might be a good way to establish and regulate all of the requirements and regulations for gun use.
 
So disarmament, but just by a different name. Why do you want to disarm the law-abiding?
 
Only if you call gunning down several scores of people “law-abiding”.

What really interests me is the overlap between the people who hawk the myth of white privilege, deliberately encourage the mass invasion into my country by third-world nonwhites, and demand disarmament which would primarily affect legal gun-owners who are predominantly white.

That clearly will not have a bad ending.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top