Gun rights group says it will sue over bump stock ban

[PleasantValley]

The things you mention are not intended to kill.

...but they DO kill. and here i thought your premise was about saving lives.
Now i see it is not.
Just banning guns.

Therefore you have no interest in addressing the deaths caused by those items I mentioned in post number 22.
So your claim of " if it will save only a few lives " was bogus.
You are not interested in saving those lives.
Thank you for the clarification.

I kinda knew it all along, but wanted to hear the truth from you.
Now i have it.

 

[Rucker61]

The things you mention are not intended to kill.

Your desire is to impose laws to save lives. Be consistent.

 

[TurtleDude]

Then lead the charge to BAN psych drugs, water sports, Tylenol, Tide Pods, spray paint, distilled petroleum products, chemical fertilizers, Drano, and a thousand other products if you believe banning them will save only a few lives.
People get killed by all kinds of weird things every day. Some, like Tylenol and aspirin are well-known killers.
You wll have a very long list indeed if you want to save only a few lives before you get to guns. They are way down on the list.

I don't mean you, but usually people that say that have an anti-gun agenda and are not really interested in saving a few lives. They just want to ban guns.

because they don't use guns and they see gun owners as people who vote against their leftwing political interests

 

[Chillfolks]

Apples and oranges.

Ok so they you really didn't mean

Thank you for that cheerful analysis. As I see it, anything that checks the madness and saves a few lives is worth it.

Don't get me wrong I think it's a good thing that you are not an "anything is ok if it saves lives" kind of person.

 

[lwf]

The things you mention are not intended to kill.

But most of them can be used to kill large numbers of people if misused. Their proper use does not include killing people. The exact same thing can be said for bump stocks. If you are using a bump stock to kill people, then you are misusing it.

 

[Nickyjo]

Your desire is to impose laws to save lives. Be consistent.

If the bump stock ban saves lives, ok with me. Banning other things like medicine that might cause harm is absurd if the good they do outstays the bad they might do. Bump stocks are a toy.

 

[Rucker61]

If the bump stock ban saves lives, ok with me. Banning other things like medicine that might cause harm is absurd if the good they do outstays the bad they might do. Bump stocks are a toy.

Abuse of medicine has killed thousands of more people than a bump stock has.

 

[Chillfolks]

Abuse of medicine has killed thousands of more people than a bump stock has.

It's also saved more lives than bump stocks have. Medication is not a novelty item unlike a bump stock

 

[Nickyjo]

Ok so they you really didn't mean

[/b]
Don't get me wrong I think it's a good thing that you are not an "anything is ok if it saves lives" kind of person.

The topic was restrictions on weapons. That is what “anything” referred to, not skateboards or aspirin.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's also saved more lives than bump stocks have. Medication is not a novelty item unlike a bump stock

that's not the issue-the issue is the danger of political pandering and demanding bans when there is ONE case of misuse. There are millions of things people buy that perhaps people like you feel they do NOT need and banning them might save a life or two. such as banning any car that can go more than 70 MPH or hang gliders, mountain climbing and other activities that have zero practical use and are purely recreational.

 

[Nickyjo]

But most of them can be used to kill large numbers of people if misused. Their proper use does not include killing people. The exact same thing can be said for bump stocks. If you are using a bump stock to kill people, then you are misusing it.

Sophistry: “reasoning that is plausible on a superficial level.”

 

[Nickyjo]

Abuse of medicine has killed thousands of more people than a bump stock has.

The good medicine does still outweighs the bad. Bump stocks enable one to fire more rounds more quickly. The potential bad that can do outweighs the good feeling they provide a person who uses them. It is a legitimate government concern that may or may not pass court tests. The guy in Vegas wasn’t throwing antibiotics at the 58 he killed.

 

[jimbo]

The things you mention are not intended to kill.

When an auto is being driven through a crowd at high speed, like CVille, or driven off a cliff with your family aboard, it certainly is.

When my son and I are blowing up watermelons or poking holes in paper on the back 40, it certainly isn't.

It's the action, not the tool, that intends to kill.

 

[jimbo]

The topic was restrictions on weapons. That is what “anything” referred to, not skateboards or aspirin.

Banners are typically very careful when discussing the subject to not include other forms of mass killing. When they don't, guns don't look all that bad by comparison.

Bombs, box cutters, fire, airplanes all produce higher body counts/incident. The Vegas incident, at 50+ deaths, comes in at around 5th. Airplanes by far the highest.


Any one of the 3 9/11 planes had a higher body count than Vegas, without including ground casualties.

 

[TurtleDude]

The good medicine does still outweighs the bad. Bump stocks enable one to fire more rounds more quickly. The potential bad that can do outweighs the good feeling they provide a person who uses them. It is a legitimate government concern that may or may not pass court tests. The guy in Vegas wasn’t throwing antibiotics at the 58 he killed.

I guess you believe in banning anything that can be misused. defend legal alcohol

 

[TurtleDude]

Banners are typically very careful when discussing the subject to not include other forms of mass killing. When they don't, guns don't look all that bad by comparison.

Bombs, box cutters, fire, airplanes all produce higher body counts/incident. The Vegas incident, at 50+ deaths, comes in at around 5th. Airplanes by far the highest.


Any one of the 3 9/11 planes had a higher body count than Vegas, without including ground casualties.

its mainly because gun rights were collateral damage-at first-when the Democrats wanted to stave off claims they were weak on crime and adopted the facade of gun control. gun rights advocates counterattacked being made scapegoats for the Dems' schemes and since then, the Democrat party has tried to punish gun rights activists and gun owners with silly and punitive anti gun laws

 

[Nickyjo]

When an auto is being driven through a crowd at high speed, like CVille, or driven off a cliff with your family aboard, it certainly is.

When my son and I are blowing up watermelons or poking holes in paper on the back 40, it certainly isn't.

It's the action, not the tool, that intends to kill.

Very true. Have fun with your watermelons. Feel safe in your back 40. I want to feel safe in a movie theater.

 

[Nickyjo]

Banners are typically very careful when discussing the subject to not include other forms of mass killing. When they don't, guns don't look all that bad by comparison.

Bombs, box cutters, fire, airplanes all produce higher body counts/incident. The Vegas incident, at 50+ deaths, comes in at around 5th. Airplanes by far the highest.


Any one of the 3 9/11 planes had a higher body count than Vegas, without including ground casualties.

And your point is?

 

[lwf]

Sophistry: “reasoning that is plausible on a superficial level.”

What's the difference? It's plausible that bump stocks could be used to kill people. I would argue that bump stocks have been used to kill fewer people than most of the other items that have no legitimate use beyond personal enjoyment.

How about drinkable alcohol? It is not just plausible that alcohol kills. It verifiably kills 3 times as many people as firearms and has fewer legitimate uses. I would argue it has the same number of legitimate uses as bump stocks: Personal enjoyment, and kills thousands of times more people each year than bump stocks do.

 

[Nickyjo]

I guess you believe in banning anything that can be misused. defend legal alcohol

No bans. Just some controls. The battle is lost from my perspective. I just support some rules that would make it harder for certain people to obtain weapons or types of weapons. Alcohol has rules too, for some of the same type of safety reasons.

 

[Chillfolks]

that's not the issue-the issue is the danger of political pandering and demanding bans when there is ONE case of misuse.

Sometimes all it takes is one misuse, especially if it is as violent and horrific as what happened in Vegas.

There are millions of things people buy that perhaps people like you feel they do NOT need and banning them might save a life or two. such as banning any car that can go more than 70 MPH or hang gliders, mountain climbing and other activities that have zero practical use and are purely recreational.

No one is banning firearms nor are they prohibiting anyone from recreationally wasting ammo by iradicaly shooting fast. A bump stock does nothing to the performance of the gun. Its a tacky add-on that's being banned nothing more.

I don't agree with not compensating people for their property but that's a different argument than being ok with the bump stock ban

 

[Rucker61]

Sometimes all it takes is one misuse, especially if it is as violent and horrific as what happened in Vegas.


No one is banning firearms nor are they prohibiting anyone from recreationally wasting ammo by iradicaly shooting fast. A bump stock does nothing to the performance of the gun. Its a tacky add-on that's being banned nothing more.

I don't agree with not compensating people for their property but that's a different argument than being ok with the bump stock ban

If they had gone through Congress there would be less pushback.

 

[Chillfolks]

If they had gone through Congress there would be less pushback.

I can agree with that. Part of me thinks Trump did the EO simply so he can now claim he has done more about gun control in 2 years than Obama did in 8 on Twitter

 

[Nickyjo]

What's the difference? It's plausible that bump stocks could be used to kill people. I would argue that bump stocks have been used to kill fewer people than most of the other items that have no legitimate use beyond personal enjoyment.

How about drinkable alcohol? It is not just plausible that alcohol kills. It verifiably kills 3 times as many people as firearms and has fewer legitimate uses. I would argue it has the same number of legitimate uses as bump stocks: Personal enjoyment, and kills thousands of times more people each year than bump stocks do.

And alcohol is regulated four ways from Sunday, often for safety reasons. That's my point.

 

[lwf]

And alcohol is regulated four ways from Sunday, often for safety reasons. That's my point.

Regulated sure, but not banned. Banning bump stocks is akin to banning whiskey. Can they cause problems? Yes. Should children have access? No. Should a supplier be sanctioned for selling them to a law-abiding adult? No. Should a supplier be liable for damages resulting from their misuse? No. Should a law abiding adult using them properly be arrested for possession? Hell no.