• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yeah, about those bump-stocks....

Hawkeye10 said:
I am the guy who has never touched a gun, nor do I plan too......my gun expertise tends to run thin.....but I keep my ears open!

:2wave:
Click to expand...
A very long time ago,I'm gonna add another very. I hadn't either but yet I didn't fear them either I remember seeing them in the house from 4-5 years old. Than at about 12-13 a friend got me into it. Give it a shot.Give it a shot. Pun intended.
 
Maccabee said:
Why does it matter what an object is designed for? Bumpstocks are desugned for an expensive fun time at the range. Any firearms expert will tell you that.
Click to expand...

the more expert you are in this subject, the less likely anti gun advocates will listen to you
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
Hook your thumb on your trigger hand into your belt loop, and push forward on the rifle while you fire, and with a bit of practice you just made your own bump stock. What a waste of ammunition however...
Click to expand...

Blkdirt Farmer...I do not remember the exact time, but I know it does not take any time at all to empty an AR magazine of all 30 rounds "bump" firing.
However, you are spraying all over God's Green Acres and not hitting a damned thing unless it is 10 feet in front of you.
...and there are no helos bring you any extra ammo.
At roughly 50 cents a round, it gets pretty expensive pretty quick. I can think of more pleasureable ways to make noise than that.

The whole "shoot fast and be a badass" thing is plain silly and ineffective to me.

HYPOTHETICAL: Open desert country, wooded forest, or dense swamp...matters not. Me with an old MkIII Enfield and only one magazine of 10 rounds. Bubba with a bump stocked AR and three magazines of 30 rounds. Distance 500 yards. GO!
 
Last edited:
Maccabee said:
Why does it matter what an object is designed for? Bumpstocks are desugned for an expensive fun time at the range. Any firearms expert will tell you that.
Click to expand...

Mm-hmm...I'm sure there's a few hundred families whose members were killed or wounded in Las Vegas who might have something to say about that.

Besides, your point is illogical. Any historian would tell you that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite for peaceful purposes...but it - and its chemical cousins since developed - has killed well over a hundred million ever since. The original intent of any invention does not excuse the actual uses of that invention.
 
TurtleDude said:
when civilian cops and the men guarding gun banning politicians start carrying phosgene, your argument might have some merit
Click to expand...

And that's a strawman argument. The issue was that bump stocks should be legal because they're very cheap and easy to make, and I shot down that excuse. Your comment addressed my point not at all, but instead argued against a point that I never tried to make.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Pressure cookers aren't specifically designed to kill people. Firearms are...and bump stocks are designed to increase the effectiveness of those firearms being used to kill people.
Click to expand...

No they are not. You display an extraordinary lack of understanding of firearms.
 
JLee1977 said:
Vast majority of law enforcement were indeed good guys with guns before they became police officers. I worked in a gun shop / shooting range before I became a cop. Alot of police officers are NRA members. The argument that a police officer receives better firearms training than what a civilian would seek out on their own is utter nonsense. There is not a police academy that can prepare an officer for an actual gun fight. The firearms training we receive is all shot standing or kneeling shooting at a stationary target that turns, and edges at the command of the instructor. The only force on force training we receive is with simunition guns which is nothing more than a version of paintball. Police officers are human and can become victim to personal fear level which causes people to freeze up. No officer is immune to it. Keep in mind that some police only carry a firearm because they have to, and only practice enough to pass the qualifications twice a year. Civilians carry a firearm because they want to!


View attachment 67228993
Click to expand...

But that is NOT THE SAME as saying that EVERYONE is a "good guy with a gun".
Why is this SO difficult for people to get?
Stop pushing the "noble vigilante" theme.
Are you trying to say that police officers are totally unnecessary because the entire US can just revert to "Wild West" status and just anyone can pretend they are John Law?

Are you insane?
 
Maccabee said:
I'm actually an auxiliary member with my local sheriff's office. Your average cop doesn't get that much training. We qualify once every year. You can get more firearms training as a civilian than you can in your entire career as a street cop. In fact the tactics used can be researched online with just a google/YouTube search. Once you learn how to move as a group, identify yourself to law enforcement, clear corners and rooms, and hold a choke point, all is left is fine tuning.
Click to expand...

Again, you are attempting to claim that we can really just depend on every average joe with a gun to be trusted as a "noble vigilante", and that's crazy talk. USA 2018 isn't the Wild West, nor would you want it to be, trust me.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Mm-hmm...I'm sure there's a few hundred families whose members were killed or wounded in Las Vegas who might have something to say about that.
Click to expand...

You stated that the bump stock was designed to mow down multiple people. You are wrong with that premise.

Besides, your point is illogical. Any historian would tell you that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite for peaceful purposes...but it - and its chemical cousins since developed - has killed well over a hundred million ever since. The original intent of any invention does not excuse the actual uses of that invention.
Click to expand...

Now you're arguing my point. It doesn't matter what an object is designed for. If it doesn't matter that a bump stock was designed for the range then it doesn't matter if a pressure cooker is designed to cook things. My question still stands. Why ban something over one incident?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Again, you are attempting to claim that we can really just depend on every average joe with a gun to be trusted as a "noble vigilante", and that's crazy talk. USA 2018 isn't the Wild West, nor would you want it to be, trust me.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that either. However training school staff to respond to a mass shooting and have the option to carry is far more practical than hiring a standby SWAT team to every school.
 
Maccabee said:
I'm not saying that either. However training school staff to respond to a mass shooting and have the option to carry is far more practical than hiring a standby SWAT team to every school.
Click to expand...

As if those are the only two solutions.
Figures...
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
As if those are the only two solutions.
Figures...
Click to expand...

nope... he never even intimated that those were the only two solutions.

but.. they ARE things that would make schools safer.

As opposed to expecting a person who is willing to commit murder.... to follow a gun law.
 
Goshin said:
This one was made for 5 bucks in parts from the hardware store... with a little padding on the butt plate it would work about as well as store-bought.

Another example of the futility of gun control. An AK47 can be made in any small machine shop...
Click to expand...

This is not the point.

- The roads are full of people who ignore the speed limits.
- The population is full of people who shoot heroine in their veins and ignore drug laws.
- The population is full of pedophiles who ignore age laws.

These facts do not mean that our attempts to define our society and "control" the madness is futile. The point is to make declarations about what is and is not acceptable and then define the criminal. Don't want to be a criminal? Don't break the law. "Banning" automatic weapons was a declaration. Saying "oh well" when people figure out a loop hole or a work around to achieve that automatic ability after a semi-automatic purchase should come with another declaration. You may not turn your semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon. And if people wish to argue that they have the right to do whatever they wa t to their property, we should remind them that after they buy a car, they will obey the street laws that limit their alterations...and wear a seat belt.
 
jaeger19 said:
nope... he never even intimated that those were the only two solutions.

but.. they ARE things that would make schools safer.

As opposed to expecting a person who is willing to commit murder.... to follow a gun law.
Click to expand...

I've already expressed several ideas, numerous times here on DP.
I don't say that gun bans are the solution, but neither are armed teachers.
Even most law enforcement isn't keen on the idea.
Most teachers definitely aren't.
 
Maccabee said:
Did I said they were the only two options? No.
Click to expand...

I already outlined several ideas in THIS THREAD.
I notice that both you and jaeger have ignored them.

So clearly, you're not even serious about this issue at all, you just enjoy trolling anyone who doesn't bow in fealty to the NRA position.
 
MSgt said:
This is not the point.

- The roads are full of people who ignore the speed limits.
- The population is full of people who shoot heroine in their veins and ignore drug laws.
- The population is full of pedophiles who ignore age laws.

These facts do not mean that our attempts to define our society and "control" the madness is futile. The point is to make declarations about what is and is not acceptable and then define the criminal. Don't want to be a criminal? Don't break the law. "Banning" automatic weapons was a declaration. Saying "oh well" when people figure out a loop hole or a work around to achieve that automatic ability after a semi-automatic purchase should come with another declaration. You may not turn your semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon. And if people wish to argue that they have the right to do whatever they wa t to their property, we should remind them that after they buy a car, they will obey the street laws that limit their alterations...and wear a seat belt.
Click to expand...


yeah it isn't the same.

In one case you're punishing people who did something wrong. In this case you're punishing/restricting the law abiding for the actions of a few psychos, with an unenforceable law.
 
People with enough ingenuity, willpower, resources, and wit can do a lot of damage in this world.

I am not sure why we should make it easy for them.
 
Goshin said:
yeah it isn't the same.

In one case you're punishing people who did something wrong. In this case you're punishing/restricting the law abiding for the actions of a few psychos, with an unenforceable law.
Click to expand...

That answer is borderline tautology. You are law abiding until you are not.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I've already expressed several ideas, numerous times here on DP.
I don't say that gun bans are the solution, but neither are armed teachers.
Even most law enforcement isn't keen on the idea.
Most teachers definitely aren't.
Click to expand...

Why isn't an armed and trained teacher a potential solution? If a teacher is willing, and has the training... why cannot they be armed and why would this not be helpful in a shooter situation?
 
Bok_Tukalo said:
That answer is borderline tautology. You are law abiding until you are not.
Click to expand...

There is nothing tautological about not punishing innocents for the actions of guilty men. Especially in a system where you have the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty.

Of course you are law abiding until you are not, no one is born guilty. Do you have a point? Is that supposed to be profound to you? Or a justification for punishing those who still remain law abiding?

How is that a justification for ANY ineffective law that violates our rights?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I already outlined several ideas in THIS THREAD.
I notice that both you and jaeger have ignored them.

So clearly, you're not even serious about this issue at all, you just enjoy trolling anyone who doesn't bow in fealty to the NRA position.
Click to expand...


Stop lying. I ignored nothing.... I RESPONDED TO THE POST WHERE YOU ACTED AS IF THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS WERE ARMING STAFF OR SWAT.

I pointed out that the nowhere did the poster state that there was only two options... Which you tried to imply.

Clearly .. you are not serious about this issues at all.. and are just trolling.
 
Bok_Tukalo said:
People with enough ingenuity, willpower, resources, and wit can do a lot of damage in this world.

I am not sure why we should make it easy for them.
Click to expand...


Exactly why gun advocates are against gun regulations.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
There is nothing tautological about not punishing innocents for the actions of guilty men. Especially in a system where you have the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty.

Of course you are law abiding until you are not, no one is born guilty. Do you have a point? Is that supposed to be profound to you? Or a justification for punishing those who still remain law abiding?
Click to expand...

Yes. I have a point. Those that drive 70 mph on a road are law abiding until the speed limit is changed to 65 mph. Changing the speed limit does not punish those who are law abiding. If they were law abiding after the change, they would not be driving 70 mph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom