http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.html
Americans Don't Have the Right to Bear Just Any Arms

7/17/2015 2:18:36 PM

the only problem i saw in that article is the author not understanding other benefits of "silencers", otherwise it was very good

[Edited on July 17, 2015 at 2:51 PM. Reason : added quotes before someone responds "BUT OMG THEY ARE NOT SILENCERS, GOSH!"]

7/17/2015 2:37:46 PM

suppressors are encouraged in Europe. they pretty much think you're a douche if you don't use one.

7/17/2015 9:18:22 PM

Quote :

"Outlaw the public display of weapons."

that's dumb.

i do agree with some of the common sense stuff, like enforcing laws about felons having guns, and I absolutely think the mental health system needs to be overhauled and beefed up. One of the roots of the problem with mental health is that there is such a stigma attached to it, causing many people refuse to get help they really need.

7/17/2015 9:24:52 PM

The hoops I have to jump through and waiting period to get a suppressor is absolutely absurd. Also the fact that they are trying to alter the law so that I have to get my CLEO to sign off on me getting one is even more absurd. The ATF already has to approve it, they should be able to run an adequate background check in the extended period it takes for my stamp to be approved so I'm not sure what a CLEO sign off is designed for except to deny people for no reason.

7/18/2015 10:23:53 AM

Sorry life is so hard for you bro.

7/18/2015 10:25:50 AM

What's funny to me is all of the red tape surrounding getting a suppressor. The people that want one are probably the furthest from criminal you could get.

7/18/2015 10:29:21 AM

^^ life is pretty good for me but that doesn't really make a stupid rule less stupid

7/18/2015 12:36:20 PM

^ it's not stupid, it's just trying to account for layers of possible failure in the process.

Charleston shooter got his gun because the way the law was written was too lax, it wasn't failsafe. The illegal immigrant in california was allowed to happen because of multiple failures in our immigration laws-- he should have never been deported, he should have been in an American jail. He shouldn't have been able to steal a cop's gun. If the local PD knew he had a violent criminal history, they shouldn't have let him go.

Until humans are perfect, there should be multiple layers and a fail-safe mechanism when it comes to safety issues.

7/18/2015 3:20:15 PM

That's not how it works. There are CLEO's who won't sign off for anyone. They aren't doing a background check, they aren't ensuring the person should be able to legally possess such an item, they are stamping deny on every piece of paper that comes across their desk. If it was used as an extra precaution that would be one thing and while it would be annoying it wouldn't be a total road block so I wouldn't really care. Problem is that isn't the reality of the situation.

7/18/2015 3:56:33 PM

[Edited on July 19, 2015 at 1:16 AM. Reason : ]

7/19/2015 1:15:33 AM

Quote :

"That's not how it works. There are CLEO's who won't sign off for anyone. "

one of the things the article calls for is for making "shall issue" mandatory and getting rid of the places that are still "may issue"

fucking read the link before arguing about it

7/19/2015 1:37:10 PM

Quote :

"Until humans are perfect, there should be multiple layers and a fail-safe mechanism when it comes to safety issues."

What safety issue is there with someone owning a suppressor? I'd argue there are more safety issues from hearing loss caused by not encouraging suppressor use. you already have to jump through all the hoops to purchase the firearm the suppressor attaches to. Suppressor laws won't keep criminals from obtaining suppressors, as they are incredibly easy to manufacture compared to a firearm.

7/19/2015 1:40:12 PM

are there any significant crimes where suppressors were used?

7/19/2015 1:43:20 PM

of course there are. you see them in the movies all the time!

7/19/2015 1:48:52 PM

Sammy Gravano had a blip in his book about how they disliked silencers because the loud shooting would scare off bystanders. In the few instances where they did use them, I doubt they came by them through legal means.

7/19/2015 4:14:15 PM

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/guns-nra-national-rifle-association-wants-states-legalize-silencers-supressors

7/19/2015 5:10:44 PM

Quote :

"one of the things the article calls for is for making "shall issue" mandatory and getting rid of the places that are still "may issue" fucking read the link before arguing about it"

I wasn't discussing the article you fucking dolt

7/19/2015 5:18:24 PM

Quote :

"What safety issue is there with someone owning a suppressor? I'd argue there are more safety issues from hearing loss caused by not encouraging suppressor use. you already have to jump through all the hoops to purchase the firearm the suppressor attaches to. Suppressor laws won't keep criminals from obtaining suppressors, as they are incredibly easy to manufacture compared to a firearm. "

I agree, but i wasn't talking about suppressors in my post...

7/20/2015 1:25:44 PM

Of course silencers should be hard as fuck to obtain. They serve no other purpose except to stealthily murder another human being. You're not hunting with a silencer, and having anything quiet for home defense makes no sense. I don't understand how this is even debatable.

[Edited on July 20, 2015 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2015 2:34:05 PM

not sure if serious

7/20/2015 5:15:17 PM

^^ they do have other uses...but some people like to act like nobody uses them for what you describe.

Quote :

"Sammy Gravano had a blip in his book about how they disliked silencers because the loud shooting would scare off bystanders"

Quote :

"Sammy brought Gotti's discussion to Paruta who did not accept the answer. He begged Sammy and prevailed on him that the friendship between them was above everything and that the only way he could prove his friendship was by carrying out the murder. Sammy ordered his brother-in-law Edward Garofalo to get a gun with a silencer"

Quote :

"Gravano said he told an associate to get up and get a cup of coffee during the meeting. That was the signal. He said the man went to a cabinet, removed a gun with a silencer and shot DiBernardo twice in the back of the head."

Quote :

"At 7pm, Milito walked into Vallario's bar Gene Gotti, Squitieri and Gravano were playing a card game at the table. John Carneglia was watching TV on the couch and Vallario was behind the bar. Milito asked Vallario for some coffee and While Milito was drinking some espresso, Carneglia got up from the couch and came up behind him with a .380 caliber handgun with silencer"

[Edited on July 20, 2015 at 5:30 PM. Reason : man i woulda imagined mobsters would be more honest]

7/20/2015 5:25:21 PM

hunting with suppressors was recently legalized in NC

7/20/2015 5:31:08 PM

While I am sure he is trolling, hunting and home defense are the reasons I am getting mine (along with not need hearing protection while plinking). It is a whole lot nicer to not need hearing protection while hunting and at the same time not having your ears ring for the rest of the day if you aren't wearing any. Also, a gun is going to be much louder in doors so it would be very useful for home defense seeing as one shot in a home without hearing protection would basically ruin your hearing for a while. Long enough to make it difficult to keep your bearings, identify if there are other intruders, etc.

Even if you wanted noise in a HD situation you will still have plenty, this isn't the movies.

[Edited on July 20, 2015 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2015 5:31:12 PM

dude, everyone knows that a silencer makes a gun make a quiet little "pew" with each shot. even on large rifles. haven't you ever seen them use silencers in the movies????

7/20/2015 5:34:38 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhdXly6jT4E

7/20/2015 5:36:16 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't understand a "suppressor" for home defense. Maybe if I lived somewhere where Bruce Willis was breaking into my house every week, I'd consider it, but otherwise I want a gun that makes the loudest and most terrifying sound imaginable. I want people from two block over to hear it and call the police. Short term hearing loss would be the least of my concerns if I'm shooting at intruder. Seriously, where do you live where a silenced assault rifle makes sense for home defense? Baghdad?

As for hunting, that's even more laughable considering how ridiculously simple it is to kill large animals at range with modern rifles, but I guess wearing ear protectors doesn't look cool.

7/20/2015 5:49:48 PM

Yep, definitely trolling

7/20/2015 5:57:29 PM

the muzzle flash from a firearm discharged in a dimly lit home during a home defense situation would severely affect your low-light vision, temporarily blinding you. This situation is much worse if a carbine is used for home defense. a suppressor would minimize this issue.

7/20/2015 6:22:02 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, but I don't understand"

You should have just stopped there, and asked questions instead of offering opinions.

7/20/2015 6:36:43 PM

People like Shrike are why reasonable gun control can't happen

[Edited on July 20, 2015 at 9:20 PM. Reason : also why gun enthusiasts should stop following the NRA lobby and take the lead on gun control]

7/20/2015 9:19:32 PM

absolutely to your first statement. unfortunately, the second one is kind of cut off at the knees by the first. people like me aren't really interested in coming to the table, let alone calling everyone to the table, due to all the "people like Shrike" (and there are shitloads).

7/20/2015 9:55:54 PM

Quote :

"due to all the "people like Shrike" (and there are shitloads)."

I don't think Shrike is calling for banning all guns, which at least one idiot has on here, but even if so, wouldn't the natural opposite of that position be the NRA/NRA members/people who identify as pro-gun/people on this site whose mission seems to be fighting for absolutely no gun control whatsoever? Like we currently have shittly disjointed gun control currently, and the NRA probably disagrees with all of those provisions out of principle.

Even *if* Shrike was advocating for the complete ban of gun ownership by private citizens, wouldn't the NRA etc be equally to blame for fighting for absolutely zero gun control? They're both incredibly stupid positions, but to blame just one seems pretty hacky.

7/20/2015 10:49:38 PM

My point was about him being happy with basing his position on being misinformed that's how you end up with things that don't make sense, like AWB, that prevent any real progress from happening

Quote :

" people like me aren't really interested in coming to the table, let alone calling everyone to the table, due to all the "people like Shrike" (and there are shitloads)."

this is just as shitty of a position as Shrike's is

even among NRA members, sensible steps like universal background checks have strong support. since these people are more informed about guns and the buying experience, they should propose a solution and offer up a draft.

7/21/2015 8:43:55 AM

Quote :

"even among NRA members, sensible steps like universal background checks have strong support."

That doesn't mean the NRA doesn't fight against background checks every chance they get.


[Edited on July 21, 2015 at 9:37 AM. Reason : http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/donohue-background-checks]

7/21/2015 9:35:55 AM

thats my point

7/21/2015 9:40:30 AM

The difference between me and the NRA/gun nuts is that my position (ban or severe restrictions on gun ownership) is actually supported by facts and statistics from around the world where such laws have proven to be extremely effective at alleviating gun violence. If you actually care about preventing people from killing each other with guns, you have to either make obtaining one extremely difficult, or make ammo basically non-existent. You can have your guns, but the ammo stays at the range or with a hunting licensing department that divvies it out to actual hunters.

On the flip side, the NRA position boils down to insecure assholes overcompensating for their small penises is worth a mass shooting every couple months. I mean, you guys can continue living in a fantasy land where gun owners have a legitimate justification for their personal arsenals, but I'm not gonna sugar coat it.

[Edited on July 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM. Reason : .]

7/21/2015 10:39:33 AM

lol, this guy

7/21/2015 10:49:15 AM

^^ there are no facts that support your position on suppressors, there are no facts that support something like a barrel shroud puts anyone in danger

also, you do understand that this:

Quote :

"You can have your guns, but the ammo stays at the range or with a hunting licensing department that divvies it out to actual hunters. "

is not constitutional, correct?

7/21/2015 10:57:43 AM

I never claimed my position on suppressors was supported by anything but own opinion, which by the way, was only refuted by someone else's opinion. Is there some peer reviewed research I can read that argues a suppressed weapon is more effective for home defense than a mini-gun that shoots blanks? There is plenty of research and evidence supporting my position on gun control though.

Quote :

"also, you do understand that this: Quote : "You can have your guns, but the ammo stays at the range or with a hunting licensing department that divvies it out to actual hunters. " is not constitutional, correct?"

Really? Who gives a fuck. The constitution has 27 amendments, including the one protecting the right to bear arms.

[Edited on July 21, 2015 at 11:13 AM. Reason : .]

7/21/2015 11:12:15 AM

Wow. I knew Shrike to be nutty, but I think today is the first time I've read his opinions on gun control. Jesus Christ.

Why don't you leave your kitchen knives at the restaurant, leave your cars at the dealerships, and then maybe no one will die an unnatural death, except from open drug use, which you probably support.

7/21/2015 11:18:35 AM

I only support open drug use for gun owners. Maybe they'll shoot themselves in the fucking face.

By the way, this is a question for Democrats/liberals, where exactly has the party platform's detente on gun ownership gotten us exactly? It's been over a decade since the AWB expired and longer than that since Democrats made gun control a major part of their platform. This fear of speaking out against psychos like ^ , ^^^ and ^^^^ has only gotten us further behind the rest of the developed world on gun violence and totally complacent towards mass killings. It's time to start calling a spade a spade, or a gun nut a nut in this case.

[Edited on July 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

7/21/2015 11:21:01 AM

Quote :

" Is there some peer reviewed research I can read that argues a suppressed weapon is more effective for home defense than a mini-gun that shoots blanks?"

did you just go full retard? what does this even mean?

Quote :

"There is plenty of research and evidence supporting my position on gun control though."

but that's the fucking point, those things that are real will never happen as long as you are telling people they can't have bullets and that a suppressed handgun is equivalent to a mini-gun with blanks

Quote :

"Really? Who gives a fuck. The constitution has 27 amendments, including the one protecting the right to bear arms."

yeah, you can't use a gun for protection if you don't have bullets

7/21/2015 12:21:15 PM

The fact that you consider me a psycho only cements your insanity when it comes to gun control. It is people like you that has caused an AR-15 type rifle to end up in the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry, due to panics of absolute gun control. Many people now own guns who really shouldn't be owning guns, because they were all like "shit, Shrike wants to ban all guns, I better go out and get me a few before the hammer drops."

You call me a psyhco. I have a 12 gauge, a .22 lever, a Mosin Nagant that can't hit the broadside of a barn, and a .22 pistol. 4 guns does not a psycho make.

And what is the point of leaving your ammo at the range, or at whatever wildlife place you think exists? That completely circumvents the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

7/21/2015 12:51:07 PM

^^We know that the statistics gun nuts have been espousing on defensive gun use since the 90s are mostly bullshit though. The actual number of DGU per year is so absurdly small to be statistically insignificant when discussing legal or illegal gun use in general. We know now, for example, that guns in the home are used more often to threaten and intimidate SOs or family members than to prevent any crime from occurring. So yeah, I talk about miniguns with blanks because DGU is an absurd and totally illogical argument for defending the status quo on gun ownership. It shouldn't even be part of the conversation.

The bottom line is that most gun owners, like ^, don't own a gun because they actually ever foresee themselves shooting or threatening an intruder, they own them because they think they are cool. That's simply not a good enough reason to maintain the absurd levels of gun ownership in this country driving tens of thousands of homicides/suicides per year.

7/21/2015 1:03:00 PM

Quote :

"^^We know that the statistics gun nuts have been espousing on defensive gun use since the 90s are mostly bullshit though. The actual number of DGU per year is so absurdly small to be statistically insignificant when discussing legal or illegal gun use in general. We know now, for example, that guns in the home are used more often to threaten and intimidate SOs or family members than to prevent any crime from occurring. So yeah, I talk about miniguns with blanks because DGU is an absurd and totally illogical argument for defending the status quo on gun ownership. It shouldn't even be part of the conversation."

the 2nd amendment already protects an individuals right to own a gun, so it's not the responsibility of a gun owner to justify that. you apparently want a new amendment (and are so unaware that you don't realize that this is an absolute non-starter), so the responsibility is on you to justify your position.

the first step that you need to take to come back to reality is to accept that a new amendment to overturn the 2nd amendment (or do substantially change it) is not going to happen. so in the reality that the 2nd amendment exists, you have to work within the framework that only reasonable limitations are okay. banning bullets is not reasonable because it does not allow someone to use a gun for defense, not allowing someone to have bullets goes well beyond requiring someone to keep a gun disassembled and trigger lock and that has already been found to be unconstitutional.

i agree that we have too many guns and that we have a gun violence problem, but none of the things you are discussing make any sense and it makes it impossible to pass anything that might actually reduce the number of guns and keep them away from the people who shouldn't have them.

you are part of the problem.

7/21/2015 1:11:16 PM

Nope, it sounds like what needs to happen is a Democrat President needs to appoint enough liberal SCOTUS justices who won't overturn laws banning bullets or mandating trigger locks. The only way that happens is if we discuss the actual problem, and not try to coddle the gun fetishists who've been allowed to run amok for the past two decades. What you're talking about is the gun control equivalent of DADT. Half measures won't fix this problem.

[Edited on July 21, 2015 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2015 1:15:31 PM

so then lets talk about your unrealistic plan

what is supposed to prevent a black/grey market for bullets? what prevents someone from using hunting bullets for crime? what prevents someone from stockpiling hunting bullets?

a much better solution would be to require a background check (or equivalent permit) for purchasing bullets

7/21/2015 1:22:41 PM

I don't know enough about the manufacturing of bullets to answer that question, but restricting them to a black/grey market will at least make them much harder and more expensive to obtain than they are now, which is a good start. I would imagine that mass production of bullets that reliably load and fire is much harder than say, growing weed or cooking meth.

There's nothing wrong with universal background checks or licensing for firearm owners, but it doesn't do a damn thing about the extreme numbers of guns and ammo out there. The only way to do that is to put severe restrictions on their sales and manufacturing.

[Edited on July 21, 2015 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2015 1:30:38 PM

Quote :

"The difference between me and the NRA/gun nuts is that my position (ban or severe restrictions on gun ownership) is actually supported by facts and statistics from around the world where such laws have proven to be extremely effective at alleviating gun violence. If you actually care about preventing people from killing each other with guns, you have to either make obtaining one extremely difficult, or make ammo basically non-existent."

The problem is you're focused entirely on gun violence, and not on violence in general. Yes, if the number of guns goes down far enough, the number of crimes committed with those guns goes down. But it does not follow at all that the amount of violent crime also falls.

Quote :

"Is there some peer reviewed research I can read that argues a suppressed weapon is more effective for home defense than a mini-gun that shoots blanks? "

There's the fact that we don't equip our police with mini-guns that shoot blanks. That's a good indicator that a gun shooting blanks isn't a very effective self defense weapon. There's also the fact that they're quite heavy and rather bulky, neither of which are good traits for a close quarters self defense weapon.

Quote :

"By the way, this is a question for Democrats/liberals, where exactly has the party platform's detente on gun ownership gotten us exactly? It's been over a decade since the AWB expired and longer than that since Democrats made gun control a major part of their platform. "

Over a decade of continual declines in violence country wide?

Quote :

"only gotten us further behind the rest of the developed world on gun violence and totally complacent towards mass killings."

I assume you have that peer reviewed research to back that up right? Because our gun violence has and continues to fall (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says) and we're pretty near the bottom for violent crime overall (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-19/gun-violence-america-6-uncomfortable-charts).

So I'm assuming you have some statistics showing a widening gap in gun violence rates between the US and other first world nations. Equally I'm assuming you have something to show acceptance of mass killings is on the rise?

7/21/2015 1:40:48 PM