NRA Supports Bump Stock Regulation

[BigRed]

There is not a single thing to be gained through appeasing calls for gun control. It eventually leads to a loss.

In the words of Churchill, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last."

 

[cmann250]

Oh, and for the record, I've been consistent in saying that, while I don't care about bump-stocks, we shouldn't give in on that point, either.

Agreed.

Is there any clarity on what exactly is potentially going to be “banned”? Is it the manufacture, transfer, or possession of this device?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sylvain]

We should not raise the age for anything to 21. We should lower everything to 18. Old enough to die for your coiintry then you are old enough to vote for or out of office who put you there. Also old enough to to drink and to buy your own damn gun since they have no problem issuing you one at 17 and 18 and teaching you to kill people.
Seriously **** these politicians and anyone else who wants to regulate or pass laws to silence others.
Go live your damn lives and leave everyone else the hell alone.

Also at 16 they are trusted to drive cars, which are far more dangerous and deadlier tha guns.
Around 3,000 Americans killed each dead in road crashes, as many as the the number of 9/11 victims each day.

I don't see why they can't be trusted with a gun at 18.

Now if you really want to save people's live maybe you could change the driving age to 18 also and potentially save thousands of lives each day.

But nobody cares about traffic-related deaths.
If the media were talking 24/7 about those deaths like they do when it comes to school shootings then people would be marching on Washington to demand a ban on cars and tougher laws.

Teenagers with guns don't kill people, teenagers with cars kill people.

But nobody cares because we all know that deaths are only horrible when they are commited with a gun.

 

[Trigger Time]

Also at 16 they are trusted to drive cars, which are far more dangerous and deadlier tha guns.
Around 3,000 Americans killed each dead in road crashes, as many as the the number of 9/11 victims each day.

I don't see why they can't be trusted with a gun at 18.

Now if you really want to save people's live maybe you could change the driving age to 18 also and potentially save thousands of lives each day.

But nobody cares about traffic-related deaths.
If the media were talking 24/7 about those deaths like they do when it comes to school shootings then people would be marching on Washington to demand a ban on cars and tougher laws.

Teenagers with guns don't kill people, teenagers with cars kill people.

But nobody cares because we all know that deaths are only horrible when they are commited with a gun.

You know sylvain this is a very valid argument in our favor. I don't know where people find statistics at that are legit but if we could find out how many teens or children too are killed per day by traffic accidents we should make a billboard and some t-shirts lol

 

[Gabriel]

You know sylvain this is a very valid argument in our favor. I don't know where people find statistics at that are legit but if we could find out how many teens or children too are killed per day by traffic accidents we should make a billboard and some t-shirts lol

The normal argument to that is that vehicles have a legitimate purpose other than killing people, but guns do not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Perhaps not in your family.

Frankly, I have no issue with folks under 18 purchasing firearms if their parents approve. I purchased a number when I was under 18. I don't see where the Second Amendment says ".... as long as you are over 18".

This is matter we simply will not agree upon.... or agree to disagree.

Well yeah, and no. I think for the most part we can agree that this, like all rights, they are contingent on maturity. Since that varies from person to person, 18 was the arbitrarily picked age.

 

[BigRed]

Well yeah, and no. I think for the most part we can agree that this, like all rights, they are contingent on maturity. Since that varies from person to person, 18 was the arbitrarily picked age.

No. I literally do not see where the Second Amendment references age 18.

Is one's right to life contingent upon maturity?

 

[actaeon277]

We should not raise the age for anything to 21. We should lower everything to 18. Old enough to die for your coiintry then you are old enough to vote for or out of office who put you there. Also old enough to to drink and to buy your own damn gun since they have no problem issuing you one at 17 and 18 and teaching you to kill people.
Seriously **** these politicians and anyone else who wants to regulate or pass laws to silence others.
Go live your damn lives and leave everyone else the hell alone.

 

[T.Lex]

No. I literally do not see where the Second Amendment references age 18.

Is one's right to life contingent upon maturity?

The law doesn't say someone under 18 CAN'T use a firearm in self defense (check local listings), it just says someone under 18 can't PURCHASE a firearm on their own.

There's a chasm between those two ideas.

 

[Fargo]

The law doesn't say someone under 18 CAN'T use a firearm in self defense (check local listings), it just says someone under 18 can't PURCHASE a firearm on their own.

There's a chasm between those two ideas.

Yes, but I'm not sure that distinction is one supported by the text of the second amendment. The word keep is about possession, not use.

Then again, at the time that the second amendment was ratified, children were barely considered even people, A parent could all but sell them into indentured servitude. I really don't think there is a historical argument against the 18-year-old rule.

 

[srad]

No. I literally do not see where the Second Amendment references age 18.

Is one's right to life contingent upon maturity?

Yes, 20-40 weeks maturity based on state. Prior to that your inalienable right to life is subject to being extinguished by someone else's choice.

 

[jamil]

Also at 16 they are trusted to drive cars, which are far more dangerous and deadlier tha guns.
Around 3,000 Americans killed each dead in road crashes, as many as the the number of 9/11 victims each day.

I don't see why they can't be trusted with a gun at 18.

Now if you really want to save people's live maybe you could change the driving age to 18 also and potentially save thousands of lives each day.

But nobody cares about traffic-related deaths.
If the media were talking 24/7 about those deaths like they do when it comes to school shootings then people would be marching on Washington to demand a ban on cars and tougher laws.

Teenagers with guns don't kill people, teenagers with cars kill people.

But nobody cares because we all know that deaths are only horrible when they are commited with a gun.

You're an order of magnitude off. There are typically > 30K fatal crashes/year in the US.

My SIL is an anti-gun zealot. I've brought that up. She said, it's different because cars weren't designed to kill people.

So it's okay not to give a **** about fatal car crashes as long as you're sufficiently virtuous about gun deaths.

 

[bwframe]

How many lives would it save if we pushed back the driving age to 21?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You're an order of magnitude off. There are typically > 30K fatal crashes/year in the US.

My SIL is an anti-gun zealot. I've brought that up. She said, it's different because cars weren't designed to kill people.

So it's okay not to give a **** about fatal car crashes as long as you're sufficiently virtuous about gun deaths.

I've been told this a number of times this past week. Dead is dead. It doesn't matter if the guy did it with a gun or with a rental truck.

 

[jamil]

I've been told this a number of times this past week. Dead is dead. It doesn't matter if the guy did it with a gun or with a rental truck.

I told her that there are ~320 million people in the US. About 100 million of them combined own ~350 million guns. That means 99.97% of those people manage to find purposes for their guns that don't involve people dying, by accident, or on purpose.

There are 263 million cars registered in the US to about 115K people. A little more than the number of gun owners kill about the same number of people with fewer cars than guns. And I'm not trying to justify gun deaths by excusing them away with car deaths. I'm just saying that I think if you stand on a soapbox waving real or imaginary signs in the faces of people you disagree with about guns, and you don't stand on a soapbox waving signs in the faces of drunk, careless, and distracted drivers, I think you're at least a little ideologically possessed.

 

[Sylvain]

You're an order of magnitude off. There are typically > 30K fatal crashes/year in the US.

My SIL is an anti-gun zealot. I've brought that up. She said, it's different because cars weren't designed to kill people.

So it's okay not to give a **** about fatal car crashes as long as you're sufficiently virtuous about gun deaths.

You're right.I read too fast.
The 3K a day number is for all countries combined.

[FONT=&quot]Annual Global Road Crash Statistics[/FONT]

• Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
• An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.
• More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.

That's the US ones.

[FONT=&quot]Annual United States Road Crash Statistics[/FONT]

• Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
• An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
• Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
• Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20

So apparently you could virtually save 8,000 kids each year if you raise the driving age from 16 to 21.
I think the question was asked earlier in that thread.

 

[bwframe]

Not to mention the adults you would save the kids from killing while driving.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

First, "with parents permission" is the same as 21. The parents can buy and gift. That isn't a straw man purchase.

Second, the millenials with my DNA are high achieving. Would I be ok with them buying a gun (even a handgun)? Sure.

But that's a bad way to make policy. At a policy level, I think 18 has been too young for some decisions for a long time. Certain brain development studies tend to confirm that, too.



At the risk of earning TT points, I have long felt like a mandatory service period (similar to the Israeli model) would be fantastic. I'm not sure how you accomplish it in a constitutional way (the 14A shudders at the thought of forcing people to do stuff).

The issue is that we DON'T live in that world. We live in a world where most of them do not have to make adult decisions until after they are 18.

As a fellow GenXer, I think we were the last ones who really were, on a large scale.

Well, except for buying health insurance and being penalized if you don't.

 

[actaeon277]

As to the cars killing people, but "not on purpose".
I look incredulously at the speaker, then tell them.. That's even worse. Cars kill more people ACCIDENTALLY. They ACCIDENTALLY kill more than these things being called "killing machines" do on purpose. We NEED to ban cars TODAY.

Then the say, That's different.

Of course it is.
People are fine when it affects SOMEONE ELSE.
But when it affects them, then they're not big fans.

 

[jamil]

I’ve been thinking that the next time the subject comes up, and my SIL or BIL pull the “that’s different” I’m going to tell them that the thing they say is different about it doesn’t doesn’t follow. It’s nonsense. It’s an excuse so that they don’t have to face the fact that their strong feelings about the one and not the other is inconsistent with the reasons they claim they’re against guns.

But I’d stop there. I wouldn’t claim that the real difference is that if we implement the same car control that they want for guns, it’d affect them. That’s true, but it’s not true enough. Banning cars would have a much bigger impact on more individuals in society. More than 85% of families have at least one car, which they depend on for their livelihoods.