What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Or you could take the realistic approach and acknowledge that hand guns and semi-autos will require separate legislation.
 
Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

aparch said:
The assault rifle looking weapon the Dayton shooter used? Technically a pistol per federal law.
Click to expand...

This is a key component of any gun law that comes on the books. You have to define everything. Doing that will allow people to exploit any loopholes or variances that are left. It comes down to a situation similar to the definition of "pornogrophy". It becomes very difficult to call things what they are.

A good example of this would be to look at the common "potato gun" teens have been building forever. It's all components that are technically made for other purposes: PVC Pipe, pipe endcaps, pipe glue, a grill ignitor, hair spray, and a potato. All very useful and harmless on their own. Well now you combine them in the correct manner and you have a "weapon".

Take things a step further: Someone starts selling 24" long section of 1.5" PVC pipes that are have rifling on the inside. At that point it's useless to function as plumbing, but can you define that as a law? Can you refute a manufacturer that claims that the rifling is to speed up the flow of water or something along those lines? How do you define the intended use of the pipe?

That is what you are up against in this battle. How do we define things so that they can only be applied to people with horrible intentions and not have them harm "good" innovation? This is a question that rabid anti-firearm people always balk at. But it's an area that if not thought out can have serious, non-intended consequences. These are questions that need to be answered before we start taking giant leaps forward.
 
Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Is there anything wrong with 6 bullets yes, more than that no?
 
Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Kepler said:
Nothing will happen until we get control of the government.

So let's get control of the government.
Click to expand...

Is that before or after I send every scientist somewhere else because this country just isn't interested?
 
Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

ScoobyDoo said:
Is that before or after I send every scientist somewhere else because this country just isn't interested?
Click to expand...

That's before. However if you feel that way I wouldn't be opposed to you booking a flight.

Your constant defeatism is bullsh-t, Scoob. It's part of the problem.
 
Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Kepler said:
That's before. However if you feel that way I wouldn't be opposed to you booking a flight.

Your constant defeatism is bullsh-t, Scoob. It's part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's not constant. You just think it's constant. I have my moments of pure optimism too. Rare? Sure.
 
Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

ScoobyDoo said:
Yeah, but it's not constant. You just think it's constant. I have my moments of pure optimism too. Rare? Sure.
Click to expand...

If you say so. Just do me a solid and leave the "nothing we can do we're all gonna die" unsaid. I'll be sure to take it as read.
 
Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Drew S. said:
Don’t see that working.
Click to expand...

Politically? Logically? Morally?

My question to voters is are you willing to give up your right to a weapon that shoots >6 bullets in exchange for gun violence rates of every other major western democracy (say, 1/100th of ours now).

I'll bet you 99% of women would take that deal right off, so I see it as highly politically plausible.

If 50% of men oppose it, well, I don't really care.
 
Kepler said:
Politically? Logically? Morally?

My question to voters is are you willing to give up your right to a weapon that shoots >6 bullets in exchange for gun violence rates of every other major western democracy (say, 1/100th of ours now).

I'll bet you 99% of women would take that deal right off, so I see it as highly politically plausible.

If 50% of men oppose it, well, I don't really care.
Click to expand...

I guess I see it mostly as a war not worth fighting. Even after last weekend there have only been around 60 people die this year in mass shootings where the shooter was unrelated to them. The resources would be better used elsewhere and I think it would cause even more angst/unrest/whatever you want to call it in the country. At some point we need to move on from the partisan nonsense and diviseness that has reigned for the past however many years.
 
Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Drew S. said:
I guess I see it mostly as a war not worth fighting. Even after last weekend there have only been around 60 people die this year in mass shootings where the shooter was unrelated to them. The resources would be better used elsewhere and I think it would cause even more angst/unrest/whatever you want to call it in the country. At some point we need to move on from the partisan nonsense and diviseness that has reigned for the past however many years.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to compromise but you're going to have to give me something good. Right now the President wants his immigration BS just for background checks and red flag laws. No thank you. For those two you don't deserve anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top