If you are caught (filmed, witnessed, proven) using a firearm during the commission of a crime (any crime) it is an automatic death penalty but has to be proven without a doubt. Life without Parole if you admit to the crime.
Because of this, there is no wait times, no bans or limitations, and no licensing or registration of non-military grade weapons (meaning artillery, tanks, bazookas, anti-aircraft, SAW style or automatic fire).
What about the negligent parent who leaves their gun out and available for their kid to grab and shoot someone? What would the punishment be for both of them?
What about the negligent parent who leaves their gun out and available for their kid to grab and shoot someone? What would the punishment be for both of them?
Parent didn't use the gun in a crime. Better teach the kids the rules.
If you are caught (filmed, witnessed, proven) using a firearm during the commission of a crime (any crime) it is an automatic death penalty but has to be proven without a doubt. Life without Parole if you admit to the crime.
One thing I'd add to that. Anybody convicted of any kind of acid attack should be publicly impaled, skinned, salted, and burned. Again guilt would have to be established beyond any doubt whatsoever.
Parent didn't use the gun in a crime. Better teach the kids the rules.
Yeah but then you'd have the gun control crowd saying that it isn't enough that the kid be killed because the parent is an accessory to the crime and should pay a price for not keeping the gun in safe storage.
Ya know, it might be a good idea to also make the executions a public affair. In fact, if it's a kid, maybe even have the parent have to pull the switch to the electric chair. That would serve as a sufficient punishment for the parent's negligence in the case, and it would set an example for all parents to consider so that they'll be less inclined to leave their guns just layin' around.
0 Replies
Glennn
0
Reply
Wed 30 May, 2018 09:14 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Anybody convicted of any kind of acid attack should be publicly impaled, skinned, salted, and burned.
I don't know. I think the salting might be going a bit too far. Of course, that would be up to the legislators to decide.
Plus, after the skinning, the salting would be so painful that it would take away from the pain of the burning.
Also, you might want to reconsider the impaling because a person doesn't live very long after an impaling (at least that's been my experience), and there might not be enough time for a decent skinning, salting, and burning.
I've got it! First you skin them, then you salt them, and THEN you impale them, and just when it looks like they've got about fifteen minutes of life left in them (a doctor could serve in that capacity), you burn them.
Lets keep to the gun topic here. I don't want anyone's fantasies lain out on a public forum like this.
0 Replies
Blickers
2
Reply
Wed 30 May, 2018 10:58 pm
@Glennn,
Quote Glennn:
Quote:
And that's when you jumped in and said that she [revellette] was technically right since the rate of fire from a semiautomatic AR-15 with a bump-stock was equal to a machine gun from 1919.
No, I said the rate of fire from a semiauto AR-15/bumpstock combo was equal to a machine gun used in WWII and Korea. And it was.
Quote:
For some reason, you quibbled about the date as if that had any bearing on the issue.
Inaccurate. You were the one who was crying a river post after post about how dare I use a machine gun from 70 years ago. Which then became 90 years ago in your subsequent posts. The only guy droning on about dates was you.
Quote:
So I asked you to cite something that would show that the rate of fire of that machine gun had changed in all those years. You failed to provide anything to that effect.
Damned right I didn't. The M1919 was a gin-yoo-wine machine gun from the first year of manufacture, it didn't need to upgrade its rate of fire to qualify. So there was no point in doing that, and I didn't. Nor will I now.
Quote:
Instead, you accused me of not believing in the fire power of that machine gun, which was a lie.
You were insinuating that the M1919, due to its age, did not qualify as an automatic firing weapon. I simply posted a video of the gun being used as a testament to the M1919's speed and firing power. Somehow, you took the video demonstration and interpreted it as a personal attack.
WARNING: I am about to post the video of the M1919 again. Those who react with dread, fear, or trauma to such an exhibition are invited to take whatever emotional restoratives they find necessary before viewing.
The Browning M1919 weighed 31lbs and required at least two men, (usually four), to properly operate it. So the Las Vegas shooter had a firearm capable of firing as fast as the two man machine guns of WWII and Korea.
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:
The only reason for that many people to operate was because of how big the gun was and how large the bullets were, it was a crew served weapon, it fired 30 cal bullets and was a belt fed machine gun. Those are already illegal, you don't like scary looking guns. You don't understand the first thing about their operation or ballistics.
With all respect, what was the purpose of your post? We were discussing firing rates which qualify as automatic rate. A machine gun is an automatic weapon and since the AR-15/bumpstock combo fires as fast as a M1919, I used it to illustrate that the bumpstock turns the semiauto AR-15 into a gun which shoots as fast as an automatic weapon. Perhaps not quite as fast as an AR-15 automatic straight from the factory, but still as fast as other automatic weapons. Since I already said the M1919 weighed 31 lbs and required at least two men to operate it, I was well aware of its large size. My point was simply that the M1919 was surely an automatic weapon by any definition, and that the AR-15/bumpstock combo shot as fast as it did, it also qualifies as the equivalent of an automatic weapon, which obviously is very impressive for the AR-15/bumpstock combo.
Bad news Glenn. Turns out the AR-15/bumpstock combo is actually faster than 7.5 rounds per second. Check out the video from SlideFire.
From the 10.5 second mark to the 18 second mark the AR-15/bumpstock combo fires 70 rounds in 7.5 seconds. That's 9.3 rounds per second. To double check, simply click the round settings button on the video and set it at 0.25 speed. Then count the number of rounds shot between the 10.5 second mark and the 18 second mark. I counted 70 rounds.
So the case for the AR-15/bumpstock combo as being equivalent to an assault rifle becomes even more absolute.
Since they did have genuine machine guns in WWII and Korea, a semiautomatic handheld rifle outfitted with a device which enables it to shoot as fast as a genuine machine gun in use by the US in WWII and Korea counts as the functional equivalent of an assault rifle.
That is incorrect. The term assault rifle refers to harmless cosmetics, and has nothing to do with function.
Blickers wrote:
Semiauto AR-15 + bumpstock = assault weapon.
That is incorrect. The term assault weapon refers to harmless cosmetics, and has nothing to do with rate of fire.
Blickers wrote:
Fact remains, the AR-15 comes in semiauto versions and automatic versions, the automatic is an assault weapon because of its greater rate of fire.
That is incorrect. Both full- and semi-auto are assault weapons. This is due to certain harmless cosmetics. Rate of fire has nothing to do with it.
0 Replies
oralloy
-4
Reply
Thu 31 May, 2018 12:46 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
The semiauto AR-15 + bumpstock shoots as fast as this M1919, and that M1919 is an automatic weapon, and therefore so is the bumpstock + AR-15 combo.
That is incorrect. The bump stock may give it a high rate of fire, but it does not make it become an automatic weapon.
Blickers wrote:
Our nation's school children are being shot in school by deranged people who mostly got their hands on semiauto versions of assault weapons
That isn't true. Most of the shootings are done with handguns.
But even if it had been true, the cosmetic features of the gun have no impact on the severity of the massacre.
Blickers wrote:
Semiautomatic versions of assault weapons have got to go, period.
Can you provide a good reason to justify banning a gun that resembles a military assault rifle even when all of its functions meet with your approval? Or is this just an effort to violate people's rights for fun?
Blickers wrote:
No other developed country has them,
I really doubt that all other developed countries pointlessly outlaw cosmetic features for no reason.
Blickers wrote:
and no other developed country has our school shootings.
Non sequitur. Our school shootings are not due to harmless cosmetic features on guns.
0 Replies
oralloy
-4
Reply
Thu 31 May, 2018 12:48 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
I'll leave it to the readers to decide if a semiauto rifle which can shoot this fast qualifies as an assault rifle
Rate of fire has nothing to do with whether it qualifies as an assault rifle. That is strictly a matter of cosmetic features.
Blickers wrote:
And here you go again, our schoolchildren are getting shot by deranged kids who got their hands on their parents' semiauto version of assault rifles,
Except most of the shootings are done with handguns and not rifles.
And the cosmetic features on the gun have nothing to do with the severity of the massacre in any case.
Blickers wrote:
Assault rifles manufactured in semiauto mode but convertible afterward to automatic rates of fire, (legally or illegally), should be banned.
But rifles with other cosmetic features are OK if they can be converted?
Blickers wrote:
Too many dead schoolchildren already, too many dead schoolchildren to come if we don't get rid of these semiauto versions of assault weapons.
That is incorrect. Banning harmless cosmetic features will not save any lives.
0 Replies
oralloy
-3
Reply
Thu 31 May, 2018 12:49 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point that you don't understand the stakes.
I understand completely. When it comes to a measure that will have no effect other than violating people's rights, the only stakes are the rights that are under threat.
0 Replies
oralloy
-3
Reply
Thu 31 May, 2018 12:51 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
You desire to make the claim that nobody has ever modified a semiauto rifle up to automatic fire rate and performed mass murder with it, but the fact that the modification enabled the rifle to shoot as fast as those machine guns knocks out your claim.
Not really. A bump stock isn't nearly the same as a true conversion to full auto.
Blickers wrote:
But the overarching reason that these automatic assault weapons sold in semiauto mode need to be banned is that they have become the gun of choice for the deranged shooter who has convinced himself that the only way to end the pain is to go out and blast as many people as possible.
Except they haven't. Most massacres are carried out with handguns.
And even if that had been true, harmless cosmetic features do nothing to increase the severity of massacres.
Blickers wrote:
And that image of the hero waving his assault rifle around they see in the movies is what they're copying. Sane people want to put as many steps as possible between the deranged shooter and his attempt to turn his violent fantasies into reality as possible, and that means getting rid of the assault rifles in the country, even those sold in semiauto mode.
Banning cosmetic features will do nothing to prevent people from choosing to commit massacres.
Blickers wrote:
Other advanced countries don't have assault rifles for sale to the public in automatic or semiautomatic mode.
I really doubt that all advanced countries ban these cosmetic features.
Blickers wrote:
Surprise, other advanced countries don't have people walking into schools and other public places and blasting away anywhere near as much as we do.
Non sequitur. Our school shootings are not due to harmless cosmetic features on guns.
0 Replies
oralloy
-4
Reply
Thu 31 May, 2018 01:16 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:
A .380 auto doesn't kick a lot and the rounds, hollow points, have enough stopping power without putting a lot of strain on the shooter.
I've never really associated the .380 with stopping power.
0 Replies
oralloy
-4
Reply
Thu 31 May, 2018 01:17 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
So the case for the AR-15/bumpstock combo as being equivalent to an assault rifle becomes even more absolute.
That is incorrect. The term "assault rifle" refers only to the question of cosmetic features.