COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

NRA endorses curbs on rapid-fire gun devices

103 Comments
By SCOTT OLSON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2017 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

103 Comments
Login to comment

"Snap!" (Re Pierre and LeCox, last paragraph.)

Everyone taking this slim opportunity to pass restrictive legislation may give the impression that the NRA is again calling the shots, but one opportunity is surely better than none.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's a start. I'm an NRA member and supporter and I am all for limiting sales on the Bump Stock but I do think they should either put heavy restrictions on the those Bump Stocks or just ban them outright, make it illegal subject to a very heavy penalty fines, prison or both.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Other than claiming they have a 'right' to own semi-automatic weapons, not one gun rights supporter can provide a convincing explanation why they need one, and especially why they need more than one. A defense of semi-automatic weapons I've read on this forum has been they give hunters with poor shooting skills a better chance to kill a deer or whichever animal they’re after. That doesn't seem like a good reason to allow members of the public, regardless of their sanity and stability, to own and use a weapon that can fire so many rounds so quickly. 

With regard to semi-automatic handguns, the only reason I can see to own one, or own a handgun of any kind, is to shoot another person. That doesn't seem like a good reason to allow members of the public to own a handgun.

Allow the police and military to own semi-automatic weaponry. No civilian should have a semi-automatic and should never be allowed to convert it to automatic.

Local police departments should compile a registry of members of the public owning semi-automatic guns, especially those with huge arsenals of weapons like the rich, white male who murdered so many in Las Vegas.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

The NRA is a devious bunch, and if they give an inch, you know they're doing so to get something. In this case, by specifically calling for the ATF to handle the bump stock issue, the NRA is trying to keep this issue out of the hands of Congress, which could go much further than simply restricting bump stocks. They're also trying to suck all of the air out of the debate by pretending to be reasonable.

Congress has a crucial role to play here both by legislating and by giving a platform for public debate about what kind of country America should be. Don't fall for the NRA's bait and switch.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Oh my god, why are people jumping all over this story and saying NRA is shocking the world by supporting "curbs" on these devices?

NRA said nothing of the kind. They talk about "regulations" which is both ambiguous and meaningless. These "regulations" could mean nothing more than you can only buy 5 a year or they must be painted burgundy. Who knows?

There is no way the NRA would ban anything gun related, heck, they don't support banning people on the no-fly list from buying guns.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

America, this shooting is the fault not of the gunman but of yourself for having such stupid "big business" gun laws.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Other than claiming they have a 'right' to own semi-automatic weapons

Do you even know what 'semi-automatic' means? I get the impression that a lot of people equate it to mean a machine gun.

I give credit to the NRA for opposing this bump stock gadget. It is certainly against the spirit of the automatic weapons ban of 1986 if the the letter of the law.

especially those with huge arsenals of weapons like the rich, white male who murdered so many in Las Vegas.

I am guessing that any post here going after any group other than a white (male) would be condemned as racist by those sharing this view. Substitute Middle Eastern male and heads would explode in contrived anger.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

I was listening to talk radio on the way home about bump stocks. The gun supporter said banning them won't solve anything and it won't stop anything. His comments were that if he were the shooter he would rely more on optics (scopes) to target people, which would kill more of them than random sprays. So that should answer the question as to why they don't mind banning them....they have a better replacement already on the market to use.

It makes you wonder how many of these workarounds to the law they have. Gun supporters talk about how strict the laws are but the more you read the more you learn there's an easy way around them. Fully auto is banned so just buy a bump stock. Background checks are required so just buy from a private party instead.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

In June, 2010, about 18 months into Obama’s first term, the ATF issued an opinion letter to stock manufacturer Slide Fire on the company's after-market device. The bureau gave the company approval, according to the Media Research Center.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/05/bump-stock-rifle-modifiers-green-lighted-by-obama-administration.html

The letter -

http://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf

Current BATFE regulations treat semi-automatic weapons differently than full-auto weapons (machine guns). Generally-speaking, if a firearm fires more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, it's considered a machine gun. For some reason, the U.S.  Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), under the Obama administration, chose to allow the manufacture of a device that converts a semi-auto loading firearm to a full-auto firearm. Why did Obama's BATFE chose to allow this? What was their motive? Lapse of memory? Stupidity? I guess they don't have to follow their own rules, or regulations.

Congress will now make a very public effort to create a show of bi-partisanship to show how THEY are going to solve this problem, but all that's needed is for the BATFE to rescind their letter(s) of approval. It's a simple fix.

If a modification allows a firearm to fire more than one round with each squeeze of the trigger, it should have been considered a machine gun, and regulated accordingly.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

I had a look at one of the bump stock sellers sites, and their videos are all about,

"We got to protect our freedom blah blah don't take my guns away nonsense."

Proudly claiming of hundreds of rounds per minute and so on.. but "legal" because even though its firing fast the finger has to move back and forward for each shot.

I hope this doesn't just end up in a regulation here or there, but actually gets real action in congress.

Personally think, right to bare arms of 1791, would be a fairly appropriate start.

Again, this isn't an argument of constitutional rights.. because you can be sure the vast majority of people going on about the second amendment aren't so keen on separation of church and state, ideals of equality and so on...

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@wolfpack Do you even know what 'semi-automatic' means? I

I know full well what it means, and also how to use both semi- and fully-automatic weapons. My experience and knowledge of them has led me to believe that NO CIVILIAN should ever be allowed to possess one.

The 'right' to own semi-automatic weapons continues to harm public safety, especially when these weapons are in the hands of unstable people - who can easily acquire them.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

If America prohibits owning guns by individuals, America will not be America. America will lose steam after individuals becoming tame like in Japan.

-16 ( +2 / -18 )

Perhaps I should have declared my interests before posting at the top here. I am not anti guns per se. In fact I collect guns of the variety that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect ownership of.

The present situation however, is just plain wrong, and sensible people need to get their heads together and figure something out. Even Wayne LaPierre's out-of-balance and uncomfortable body language shouts that.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

For me America is a country "HAVE GUN - WILL TRAVEL"

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Don’t just “look into”, DO!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I am all for limiting sales on the Bump Stock

That's liberal. That's against 2A. This is happening under Trump. Another broken promise. Obama never never did anything to restrict gun rights. He is chipping away at your gun rights.a

I get the impression that a lot of people equate it to mean a machine gun.

The Vegas shooting was fully automatic. Sounded like a popcorn maker if you check the video. Trump wants to chip away at these capabilities and Trump voters have nothing to say about it? That would be considered an infringement.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The NRA can go to hell.

Things will only change when Democrats become the party that advocates for, proposes, passes and enforces gun regulation.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

The 'right' to own semi-automatic weapons continues to harm public safety, especially when these weapons are in the hands of unstable people - who can easily acquire them.

There are a lot of things in the hands of unstable people that harm the public - cars being by far the most dangerous. Semi-automatics are nothing but self chambering weapons - they allow firing only marginally faster than a revolver. They are not some high-tech special ops technology.

Although the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, the right is not unlimited. Rights groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum often take their interests to extremes. That's why I am surprised that the NRA are agreeing with regulating this rapid firing device. It's akin to NARAL agreeing to support restrictions on partial birth abortion.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Any "militia" in which one of its members can accumulate 2 dozen military grade rifles over a year without raising a flag is not very "well regulated".

6 ( +9 / -3 )

cars being by far the most dangerous

You can't bring a car to a hotel room on a high floor. And this implies that buying military grade weaponry should be as legal as buying cars.

NRA are agreeing with regulating this rapid firing device

That's a Liberal stance. I would not stand for that if I were a Trump voter.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Other than claiming they have a 'right' to own semi-automatic weapons, not one gun rights supporter can provide a convincing explanation why they need one, and especially why they need more than one.

Because I can. I don’t need a reason, I could be a gun collector or a hunter depending on the animal, I don’t need to give anyone a reason, the 2nd amendment allows me he right to own one.

A defense of semi-automatic weapons I've read on this forum has been they give hunters with poor shooting skills a better chance to kill a deer or whichever animal they’re after. That doesn't seem like a good reason to allow members of the public, regardless of their sanity and stability, to own and use a weapon that can fire so many rounds so quickly. 

I understand your point, your bringing forth a one-sided opinion, but there is another opinion and for people to comment that have never been on a hunt and decide to make accusations without knowing anything about guns is pure ignorance. People that don’t have the slightest idea about guns, I would urge them to go to a firing range and see for themselves, talk to a gun owner, it might not be for everyone, but it helps to understand everything about firearms and then people can approach the topic from a logical and informed approach rather than an emotional one without knowing any facts.

With regard to semi-automatic handguns, the only reason I can see to own one, or own a handgun of any kind, is to shoot another person. That doesn't seem like a good reason to allow members of the public to own a handgun.

I own 2 AR-15 and I have never went on a killing spree, I do enjoy my freedom, the last thing I want is to spend the rest of my life behind bars. I know quite a few people that own semi-automatics and none of these people engaged in anything sinister or nefarious. You guys really don’t know what you’re talking about and this is how the entire issue gets blown out of proportion.

Allow the police and military to own semi-automatic weaponry. No civilian should have a semi-automatic and should never be allowed to convert it to automatic.

I believe if you are law-abiding you should have every right if you so choose to.

Local police departments should compile a registry of members of the public owning semi-automatic guns, especially those with huge arsenals of weapons like the rich, white male who murdered so many in Las Vegas.

What about the gangs of Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit and NYC? Should the minorities in those cities register as well?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

I own 2 AR-15

In what situation do you imagine needing them?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Question for those who say that banning guns will just stop innocent people getting them, while criminals will continue to own them without concern for silly laws...

I understand fully automatic machine guns are all-but illegal, and that they are properly regulated in the US. Going by that same logic, does this mean that criminals have a ready supply of these machine guns and often use them in crimes?

Because from what i have read, the older automatic weapons, the ones that you can buy, cost up to $20k, which is something that not every criminal has readily available. Same thing in Australia, sure you could buy a gun illegally, but they are very expensive, and therefore its not a criminal free-for-all that people say the USA would become. Some criminals have guns, but it isnt common enough that you would need one to protect yourself.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And what would you tell Brandon Laird, one of NPB's most popular players, who had to cut his season short to go back to the states for a cousin's funeral as a result of a fellow weapons hoarder?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@bass You guys really don’t know what you’re talking about and this is how the entire issue gets blown out of proportion.

People who don't know how rounds of any caliber fired from just about any weapon can affect the human body most likely cannot have much of an understanding of the issue. They probably cannot understand the reasons some want to see greater limits placed on gun ownership, especially on the ownership of semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The National Rifle Association called on U.S. authorities to "immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," NRA leaders Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox said in a statement.

In other words, if people are going to be shot, the NRA wants them shot legally with the correct equipment.... as always, the NRA is only interested in itself....

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

People who don't know how rounds of any caliber fired from just about any weapon can affect the human body most likely cannot have much of an understanding of the issue.

I understand, but your argument is not with me, I don’t use it on humans, I use it on animals.

They probably cannot understand the reasons some want to see greater limits placed on gun ownership, especially on the ownership of semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons.

That may be. But many of us can’t understand why some people are afreaid of guns, want to demonize them, comment on them, but know nothing about them. I’m not trying to persuade gun haters into seeing everything from my point of view, but equally, I can’t see as a gun enthusiast the lefts argument which I find very weak.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

First time in a long time, if ever at all, have I seen the NRA talking about anything positive about gun control change.. Would be nice if something is done. Most of us here in Japan probably can not understand WHY there are not legislated control changes, so I see this article as simply 'a breath of fresh air'.

/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I think we can all agree that this tragedy was way over the top and the usage of Bump stocks should be either heavily regulated or just banned. Doesn’t matter if you are a NRA supporter or not.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Amendments have been repealed before. Gun ownership should be a well-regulated privilege, not a right.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Bump stocks are selling like hotcakes since the shooting. The poor gun industry was going through a Trump slump, so this could help those execs win their fat Christmas bonuses.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Bump stocks are selling like hotcakes since the shooting. The poor gun industry was going through a Trump slump, so this could help those execs win their fat Christmas bonuses.

The gun industry is never in a slump.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

But many of us can’t understand why some people are afreaid of guns, want to demonize them, comment on them, but know nothing about them. I’m not trying to persuade gun haters into seeing everything from my point of view, but equally, I can’t see as a gun enthusiast the lefts argument which I find very weak.

I don't think people are necessarily afraid of guns. They are afriad of getting shot. Holding a gun in your hand doesn't change this. Guns are made to hurt/kill things. That is their purpose and they are very effective at doing so. The problem is not the fact that they are able to hurt/kill thing- they don't kill without a person holding the trigger. The problem lies in the fact that people can get hold of them relatively easily and use them for that exact purpose.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"The gun industry is never in a slump."

Neither is your ability to detect sarcasm. Were you exposed to any in your first 20 years in Germany?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I don't think people are necessarily afraid of guns. They are afriad of getting shot. Holding a gun in your hand doesn't change this. Guns are made to hurt/kill things. That is their purpose and they are very effective at doing so. The problem is not the fact that they are able to hurt/kill thing- they don't kill without a person holding the trigger. The problem lies in the fact that people can get hold of them relatively easily and use them for that exact purpose.

Unless you live in the cities I previously mentioned, your chances of getting shot are extremely low. I don’t live in those cities with high crime, so I never experienced violence of any kind, on the other hand, you live in a city like South Chicago or Compton, the chances of you encountering violence is going up 10 fold.

Neither is your ability to detect sarcasm. Were you exposed to any in your first 20 years in Germany?

No, just telling the truth. No guns, but a lot of knives and skin heads and a lot of steel- toed Docs.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sounds like a good tale. Tell us about one of your encounters with German skinheads in the 1970s. Why were they bothering teenage you? Is that the genesis of wanting to own lots of guns?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The NRA can go to hell.

80% of Americans and 2/3 of conservative gun owners support stricter gun laws. Background checks, magazine limits, etc.

But the corrupt NRA blocks it all. Because it is a single issue lobby group with lots and lots of cash.

Nothing will change until we have an equally powerful ($$) lobby group.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Other than claiming they have a 'right' to own semi-automatic weapons, not one gun rights supporter can provide a convincing explanation why they need one, and especially why they need more than one. 

Ptownsend - They don't need to have a "need" in order to own one. Unless you are claiming that people should only be allowed to own "needs" and that "wants" should be prohibited then "need" test is meaningless. It is nothing more than a euphemism for saying "I just don't approve this therefore you shouldn't be allowed to own the product"

If you are claiming that people should only be allowed own "needs" and that "wants" should be prohibited in that case I can't say that I agree.

For some reason, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), under the Obama administration, chose to allow the manufacture of a device that converts a semi-auto loading firearm to a full-auto firearm. Why did Obama's BATFE chose to allow this? What was their motive? Lapse of memory? Stupidity? I guess they don't have to follow their own rules, or regulations.

Arrestpaul - By definition in the law in order for a gun to be a machine gun it has to fire more than one round per squeeze of the trigger. Slidefire/bump fire stocks don't cause a gun to fire more than one round each time the trigger is squeezed. Hence why they are not at the moment considered machine guns or fully automatics because every time a round is discharged while bump firing the trigger was squeezed and released. Bump firing basically results in you squeezing and releasing the trigger much faster than humanly possible and can achieve rates of cyclic fire as those of machine guns. It is important to note that you don't need a special stock to be able to bump fire semi-automatics. All semi-automatics designs and manufactured in human history can be bump fired right out of the box, if you will, with no special after-market accessories.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sorry, but that looks like one boring slab of "gunsplaining." Not going to even bother reading it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Sorry, but that looks like one boring slab of "gunsplaining." Not going to even bother reading it.

TorafusuTorasan - Is this comment directed at me? I was simply informing ArrestPaul that the reason why bump fire stocks were allowed is due to how the laws were written and therefore they had no choice but to approve of them. If that is "gunsplaining" to you then so be it.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Mmm, got it, carry on with your lecture about the special role of guns in human history. Alternately, try studying how Japan went from gun users to gun free in the Edo era.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Mmm, got it, carry on with your lecture about the special role of guns in human history. Alternately, try studying how Japan went from gun users to gun free in the Edo era.

What lecture are you referring too? I don't believe I have made a comment on here about the special role of guns in human history.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Unless you live in the cities I previously mentioned, your chances of getting shot are extremely low. I don’t live in those cities with high crime, so I never experienced violence of any kind, on the other hand, you live in a city like South Chicago or Compton, the chances of you encountering violence is going up 10 fold.

Exactly. Let's get the guns off the streets then these places won't be renowned for their gun crime and common citizens wouldn't need to carry them around in defense. Just imagine for a second, a place where nobody had a gun. There wouldn't be these high levels of gun crimes and mass murders by maniacs armed with semi-automatic guns. I'm not against guns, I just don't seen any reason why normal citizens need one. If there was a way to program all guns by technology that they were physically unable to be shot at humans, then I think your arguments would hold much more weight and 'taking your guns from you' would be unreasonable. But the fact remains that they are advanced murder devices and even one life lost be one is a mistake we could prevent.

And these people who murder with their guns are not a 'well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state'. Neither are you when you go hunting. The interpretation of the 2nd commandment needs rethinking for a developed society with the well being of everyone under consideration. I understand you like guns and everyone has their own fetishes, but the fact remains that guns in the hands of the wrong people cause unprecedented damage to life and society so something needs to be done to help prevent that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan never went gun-free in the Edo era, although usage probably sank below the radar. There were periodic roundups for destruction or registration. Ownership was allowed but strictly regulated; there were hundreds of schools of gunnery throughout Japan during the Tokugawa/Edo period.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

All Democratics should now campaign on only one issue: Repeal the second amendment!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@nanda, that's fair enough. Surely rebel militia didn't want to give up their arms completely. But it is fascinating to consider factors for why civilian ownership of weapons in Japan never caught on.

@noliving, maybe I'm being too harsh, but you were the one using the pompous phrase "human history" which obviously has no comparison to the timeline for semi-automatic gun production--a century or two perhaps?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I just don't seen any reason why normal citizens need one.

Lomae - Because 1st world living standards isn't about needs, it is about wants. Seriously unless you are claiming that people should only be allowed to own "needs" and that "wants" should be prohibited there really is no point to the statement/question: I don't see any reason why a citizen need one/why does any civilian need one. From my view it is nothing more than a euphemism for saying: "I just don't approve of this therefore you shouldn't be allowed own the product/purchase a service".

But the fact remains that they are advanced murder devices and even one life lost be one is a mistake we could prevent.

If the only acceptable cost to being able to own a product, enjoy a service, enjoy a cultural activity, engage in a recreational behavior, etc. is zero injured and or dead we are all going to live very boring lives. It can't be zero. Plus you also have the issue of diminishing returns.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Sounds like a good tale. Tell us about one of your encounters with German skinheads in the 1970s.

More like 80’s and 90’s

Why were they bothering teenage you? Is that the genesis of wanting to own lots of guns?

Maybe because they hated my long hair.

All Democratics should now campaign on only one issue: Repeal the second amendment!

And that would explode in their face like Napalm.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@noliving, maybe I'm being too harsh, but you were the one using the pompous phrase "human history" which obviously has no comparison to the timeline for semi-automatic gun production--a century or two perhaps?

TorafusuTorasan - What? I'm simply pointing out that every single semi-automatic firearm, no matter what time period or design of semi-automatic firearm, can be bump fired out of the box without any special accessories. I really don't know where you are going with this.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Because 1st world living standards isn't about needs, it is about wants. Seriously unless you are claiming that people should only be allowed to own "needs" and that "wants" should be prohibited there really is no point to the statement/question: I don't see any reason why a citizen need one/why does any civilian need one. From my view it is nothing more than a euphemism for saying: "I just don't approve of this therefore you shouldn't be allowed own the product/purchase a service".

True. Just as some people want to steal, want to rape, etc, but I'm sure you'd agree these things are unacceptable in any society. My belief is that giving people an easy way to mass murder others is also unacceptable. Which I hope you would agree on.

If the only acceptable cost to being able to own a product, enjoy a service, enjoy a cultural activity, engage in a recreational behavior, etc. is zero injured and or dead we are all going to live very boring lives. It can't be zero. Plus you also have the issue of diminishing returns.

That's obviously not the case and the point clearly missed you. Cars kill people. Alcohol kills people. I don't want people to die by these means either, but they do. But they are not designed with the purpose of specifically causing harm to others.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How about banning or at least regulating the weapons that these bump stocks modify from semi-automatic to automatic so easily. Uh, that won't happen because the GOP "leadership" has found its low hanging fruit to use as a diversion and a sop to public opinion.

How long is this country going to allow a minority group, composed of fanatics and lobbyists from the gun industry, to prevent us from placing reasonable constraints on gun ownership? Who in their right mind needs to own a bump stock, a silencer, armor piercing bullets or an assault rifle? This is mass idiocy, not a reasonable constitutional discussion.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ah, good old times when you could order an Al Capone tommy gun straight out of the Sears catalog. Every single one could be bump fired fresh out of the box. Thank goodness we've moved past those nightmare days.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How long is this country going to allow a minority group,

With million of supporters, please continue....

composed of fanatics and lobbyists from the gun industry, to prevent us from placing reasonable constraints on gun ownership?

The NRA are only as power as its supporters and that would be a lot of angry people.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

True. Just as some people want to steal, want to rape, etc, but I'm sure you'd agree these things are unacceptable in any society. My belief is that giving people an easy way to mass murder others is also unacceptable. Which I hope you would agree on.

lomae - They are unacceptable because they do not have the victims approval and if they do have the consent of the victim then has a crime really occurred? Personal ownership/possession of property and or purchasing of services has the consent of the seller and the purchaser. On the surface I would say yes to your second part but I can't say that I agree considering a lot of products are legal and relative easy to get a hold off and can be used either directly or indirectly to commit mass homicide, at that point simply regulating because it has potential really gets into the issue of diminishing returns.

That's obviously not the case and the point clearly missed you. Cars kill people. Alcohol kills people. I don't want people to die by these means either, but they do. But they are not designed with the purpose of specifically causing harm to others.

I disagree, to me the quote in your previous post is basically another way of saying "If it saves one life it is worth it". It is neither a trade-off nor a solution to the problem. It's just a retarded denial of reality. Saving lives costs money, money that could be used to save lives. Spending billions of dollars, if not trillions, saving unfortunate people of one sort of another sounds admirable - Prohibition! Drug war! War on Terror! Tough on crime! Free Food! Free Healthcare!- but where you gonna get that money from? You're gonna bankrupt the entire damn country in the name of saving unfortunate people? How the hell is creating 300 million poor unfortunates a solution to the problem of poor unfortunates? The drug war has led to poverty and thus led to increase crime, especially gun crime. In fact the biggest thing you can do to reduce gun crime is to end the drug war. The war on terror has only created more terrorists, not less. The tough on crime has only led the USA to have basically the largest prison population as well as one of the highest recidivism rates in the world. All of this in the name of savings lives and that those lives should be prioritized because their deaths were caused by malicious reasons.

To address your point in this quote about they are not designed with the purpose of causing harm to others, well if your goal is to save lives then it is irrelevant if the product or services is designed to harm others as a premature death is a premature death regardless of its cause. Furthermore it also implies that you believe that the lives of people who die from non-malicious causes are not worth as much as those who do die from malicious causes. I can't say that I agree with that.

This further suggests you would prioritize spending and allocation of other resources to prevent homicides to the detriment of other causes of death and that it would be done to such an extent that you end up with an overall higher mortality rate because of the mis-allocation of resources. A perfect example of this is the insane allocation of money and resources to preventing deaths caused by foreign terrorists under the guise of doing it to save life. Imagine if all that money instead was spent on programs like "Cease Fire", you could save a hell of a lot more lives that way.

Finally I believe that how a product is primarily used is more important than what the product was intended for or designed for. Just because a product is designed to do X doesn't mean a new use won't be found for it and that new use won't become its predominate usage. We know that literally 99%+ of gun owners in the USA don't kill or injure anyone, much less themselves, each year. Harping on about how a product is designed to do X when you know that 99%+ use it for Y purposes is really disingenuous/a waste of everyone's time. If you still don't agree with that then do the inverse, say product X usage is not to kill but lets say a new malicious use is found and that use is the predominate usage for that product. Are you really going to be the one standing up there stating this product can't be banned/heavily restricted or that efforts to reduce the impacts on society should be deprioritized because it isn't designed to be used for harming others?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks," Mr Paddock was a law abiding citizen until he went on his massacre, so how do you constantly monitor the mental health of millions of gun owners to prevent future attacks? Or do you restrict what type of guns people can own or purchase?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The NRA are only as power as its supporters and that would be a lot of angry people. and that same anger is indirectly responsible for future massacres and thousands of homicides in the US every year.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

How long is this country going to allow a minority group,

With million of supporters

Let's see...the NRA claims 5 million members out of a population of about 325 million.

Yep, that's a minority according to any definition of the word I've ever seen.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

They are unacceptable because they do not have the victims approval and if they do have the consent of the victim then has a crime really occurred?

Are you suggesting that the people who get shot by the nutters with guns give their approval to being shot?

these people who murder with their guns are not a 'well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state'. Neither are you when you go hunting.

Exactly.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

in order for a gun to be a machine gun it has to fire more than one round per squeeze of the trigger.

OK, and Trump voters want machine guns to be legal. What if some of the people in the Las Vegas concert had them? They could have shot back at the hotel room and the eliminated the threat. If you are a Trump voter please don't say machine guns should be restricted considering what happened in Las Vegas - That would be Liberal.

We the people.....shall not be infringed (including machine guns)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Let's see...the NRA claims 5 million members out of a population of about 325 million. 

Yep, that's a minority according to any definition of the word I've ever seen.

I think there’s more than that

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The NTA has made a paltry gesture that will have no effect on mass shootings.

It reminds me of cigarette companies denying they design their products to be addictive and that they kill. Or saying they will make cigarettes "light".

One industry pushed products that killed by using cowboys and cartoon camels to push their products. The other industry is using a cowboy ideal and some loose form of patriotism to push their products.

At the end of the day, there is a business making money off of sales of products that kill.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let's see...the NRA claims 5 million members out of a population of about 325 million. 

Yep, that's a minority according to any definition of the word I've ever seen.

I think there’s more than that

I'm going on what the NRA claim.

On what basis do you think there are more? Would it be enough to stop calling them a minority?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The NRA are only as power as its supporters and that would be a lot of angry people.

A lot of angry people with guns. Yup. What could possibly go wrong?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

On what basis do you think there are more? Would it be enough to stop calling them a minority?

As far as membership is concerned, could be, but contributors and supporters, way more.

A lot of angry people with guns. Yup. What could possibly go wrong?

I have guns and I’m not angry, take them away and I will be.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

On what basis do you think there are more? Would it be enough to stop calling them a minority?

As far as membership is concerned, could be, but contributors and supporters, way more.

Oh, I was talking about members I agree with the 'could be' - it seems more logical that the NRA are exaggerating rather than playing their numbers down.

As for your change of argument regarding contributors and supporters, let's add those people to the members.

You are still talking about a minority, right?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I never thought they were a minority.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

This is good to see--not support of a ban, but of regulation. As a human being, I'm first an animal, a creature of this earth, a product of nature; second, I am property of the state of which I was born. As such, I have the right--not privilege--to preserve my own life first. I'm already 99% a slave of the state; I'm not going to give up the 1% of my humanity that's left to the state by putting the safety and preservation of my life completely in the state's hands. Especially when the enforcement arm of the state--police, military--are killing unarmed civilians regularly in the USA and abroad. Throughout human history, men have had a weapon to preserve their own lives. This is not a privilege, and it's not something up for debate all of a sudden just because I happen to have been born the property of a modern nation state.

There does need to be regulation, however, since we are living not in isolation but in a society. Certain freedoms we give up by living in a nation state. No one needs a stockpile of fully automatic rifles. This shouldn't be allowed. But every human being has the right to preserve their own life. Anti-gun advocates, especially, of the European variety, argue and bleat like sheep, who, through centuries of conditioning, have forgotten they are property of the state--the recent story in England about that baby on life support proves that your children are born property of the state, and the masses and state functionaries dictate how you raise and deal with your own children.

The 2nd amendment is about so much more than a "militia". It's about being a human being.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What's wrong with the US ?

money.cnn.com/2017/10/05/smallbusiness/bump-fire-stocks/index.html

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In Trump speak, the US appears to lack the "Balls" to fix itself. And so, this argument over gun control, will fall to the wayside, along with arguments against its continued support for extremist groups by "private" organizations... private organizations are also Lobbyists too... within US Politics.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bill Murphy - All Democratics should now campaign on only one issue: Repeal the second amendment!

I agree. That would guarantee that the Democrat Party will never again regain control of the U.S. Congress. A majority of voters in the U.S. support the 2nd Amendment and it's guaranteed right to self-defense. Or maybe you haven't notice how quiet on gun-banning the remaining elected Democrats have been since the voters reduced them to the minority party?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@arrestpaul

You should read the whole of UlsterBoy’s post again... slowly.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

TorafusuTorasan - Sorry, but that looks like one boring slab of "gunsplaining." Not going to even bother reading it.

That's a very interesting position to hold. Especially in a thread about firearms, and how firearms operate. I can't say it was unexpected.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I have guns and I’m not angry, take them away and I will be.

Like a spoilt child.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Bill Murphy - All Democratics should now campaign on only one issue: Repeal the second amendment!

I remember a long time ago Washington DC mayor Marion Barry was mugged.  Barry was a staunch gun control advocate.  After the mugging, he bought himself a gun "for self protection."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass4funkOct. 6  09:21 am JST

Because I can. I don’t need a reason, I could be a gun collector or a hunter depending on the animal, I don’t need to give anyone a reason, the 2nd amendment allows me he right to own one.

You guys never seem to realise what the word 'amendment' actually means...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I remember a long time ago Washington DC mayor Marion Barry was mugged. Barry was a staunch gun control advocate. After the mugging, he bought himself a gun "for self protection."

I’m very anti-fun, but If I lived in the states, there’s a good chance I’d own one too.

There is always an ideal and a reality. The ideal is that the second amendment gets amended, and people stop owning guns. The reality is that the US is a war zone of sorts, and not being armed in a place of war is maybe not the best idea.

But the gun issue is the number one reason I’ll never live in the US again. It wouldn’t be fair to raise my kids there. Having a gun around the house increases the likelihood of them getting killed by guns. So I couldn’t morally justify moving there.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks," LaPierre and Cox said.

LaPierre and Cox may well be the stupidest most delusional people on the planet!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland's got it right....."No place For Old Men" No place to raise kids!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Heard someone argue that "The second amendment is about a person's right to defend their life" Something about since cavemen have been around! Men have always carried a weapon! The fallacy of this argument lies in .....what about those 59 people who just got shot dead! Didn't they have a "Right" To live! Or maybe he could argue that if those 600 people or so who were injured, shot and killed! All had guns, then they could of returned fire in the general direction of where the shots were coming from! That would have solved the problem right there!!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

NRA endorses curbs on rapid-fire gun devices

The left wing is becoming Liberal now. These people were attacked with fully automatic weapons. That means people should have the right to defend against that with (at least) machine guns - the same the military has. Now the NRA has become anti-2A and so has the Republican party. If there are more fully auto attacks like this it's the NRA and Republicans' fault.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Until a country becomes as multicultural and free as America is, please, pretty please, with sugar on top, SU about guns. Australias population is around 24 million compared to

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

(cont)

32 million in the US. Spare us your easypeezi population control measures. Pretty sure Australia is around 70+% white as well so not a lot of multiculturalism going on either.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Correction

323 mill

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What does multi-culturalism have to do with guns?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Fizzbit! Nut cases should be free to amass an horrifically deadly arsenal and unleash it on fun loving children, men and women!! FREEDOM at its finest!!! So SU about guns?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Cosmetic changes by the NRA.Over their dead bodies as Heston would say.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

THAT is the foot in the door! Now PRESS ON!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

don-in-japan - You guys never seem to realise what the word 'amendment' actually means...

Do you realize how many votes need to take place before you can amend the U.S. Constitution? Do you realize how many votes you'll need in Congress? Do you realize how many states you'll need ratify such an amendment? How many votes do you actually have?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Lil Pappy - Oct. 7 08:25 pm JST "Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks," LaPierre and Cox said.

LaPierre and Cox may well be the stupidest most delusional people on the planet!

The mass murderer in Las Vegas built a 90lb bomb, which was found in his vehicle. I suppose it would never have occurred to him to build more, or bigger, bombs if firearms had not been available. It seems that the banning of guns from law-abiding Americans, based on the criminal act of a madman, probably wouldn't have stopped this monster from committing mass murder.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"Having a gun around the house increases the likelihood of them getting killed by guns. So I couldn’t morally justify moving there."

Neither could I, having lived in Manhattan. Until I visited my son in Fort Leonard Wood.

The Great U.S.A. has many places where police officers are more than an hour away, even if you call 9-1-1. We may not need automatic weapons, but we need to "stand our ground" and protect family.

Thank God for the Second Amendment!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Are you suggesting that the people who get shot by the nutters with guns give their approval to being shot?

Cleo - Is this suppose to be a serious question? Do I seriously need to repeat myself here? It is unacceptable because the victims did not give their approval/consent. If the victims of said crime did in fact give their consent/approval then did a crime really occur?

Seeing as victims of gun shots generally don't give their approval to being shot beforehand means that a crime, at a minimum assault with a deadly weapon, occurred. If the victims say beforehand that yes you can shoot me then did a crime really occur? I would say no.

It is a little obvious that the victims of this shooting did not give their consent so yes Cleo a crime occurred.

What foolish question.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The NRA has come out, publicly, against banning things like bump-stocks, that allow assault rifles to be used as machine guns. Saying that they are OK with curbs, while coming out against bans, is just a public relations stunt.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

1glenn - The NRA has come out, publicly, against banning things like bump-stocks, that allow assault rifles to be used as machine guns. Saying that they are OK with curbs, while coming out against bans, is just a public relations stunt.

Obama's BATFE approved the use of this "bump stock" device in 2010. At that point in time, Obama's BATFE, and Obama's DOJ, were involved in the 2009 thru 2010 Fast and Furious scandal during Project Gunrunner. That involved the illegal sales, illegal purchases, illegal firearms trafficking, and the refusal to inform the Mexican government that these firearms were entering Mexico. What could Obama's BATFE have been thinking when they approved "bump stocks" and Fast and Furious?

The NRA supports increased (proper?/impartial?/unbiased?) regulation of these devices. The NRA, it's members, and it's many supporters do not intend to allow the Democrat Party legislators to create any gun-banning legislation that would not have stopped this mass-murdering monster from committing mass-murder.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks," LaPierre and Cox said. yet 30% of all mass shooting in the world are done in America, a country with just 5% of the worlds population. IS it because Americans are far more mentally unstable and violent than other nationalities!? or is it because of the huge amount of firearms that are available to the American public. Approximately 300million firearms in the US, vast majority owned by average citizens. Australias banning of auto/ semi auto guns in the 90s is clear proof that less guns means less gun related crimes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

wtfjapan - "Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks," LaPierre and Cox said.

This madman built a 90lb car bomb. He certainly was very determined to murder a great number of people. With, or without, using a gun. The question is, why would he chose to commit mass-murder?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The question is, why would he chose to commit mass-murder?

The other question is why would he use automatic weapons when he had equally murderous vehicles to use?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Strangerland - The other question is why would he use automatic weapons when he had equally murderous vehicles to use?

Would a gun ban have prevented this monster from committing mass-murder?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Who knows. I don't know what was in this mans mind or what his limitations were. What I do know is that countries with strict gun regulations don't have anywhere near the same frequency of mass-murders as the US, and definitely not with guns.

But you still didn't answer the question, although I'll change it. What possible reason would there be for anyone to use a gun when they have equally murderous vehicles to use? Guns draw attention, vehicles blend in. If vehicles are so equally murderous, then there is literally no reason whatsoever to use guns, and therefore we should get rid of them because they are unnecessary.

Of course, those who are afraid (aka gun lovers) don't want to answer my above question, because we all know vehicles are not even remotely as deadly as guns (ignoring the fact that society requires vehicles). But what they don't like to admit is that either way we should get rid of guns. Either they are efficient killing machines, and therefore detrimental to society, or they are no better than anything else for killing, and therefore they serve no purpose to society since their only purpose is killing and therefore detrimental to society.

Disclaimer: Rifles for hunting are ok. Hunting is ok. Handguns are not. Semi-automatics are not. Conversion kits are not.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Strangerland - Who knows. I don't know what was in this mans mind or what his limitations were.

But you still didn't answer the question, although I'll change it. What possible reason would there be for anyone to use a gun when they have equally murderous vehicles to use? Guns draw attention, vehicles blend in. If vehicles are so equally murderous, then there is literally no reason whatsoever to use guns, and therefore we should get rid of them because they are unnecessary.

Who knows? You should be asking them. I don't know what was in this monster's mind any more than I know what is in the mind of any of these mass-murdering monsters. 

OTOH, the 2nd Amendment is about self-defense, and you do not have the votes to change that fact. And that's a fact.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Who knows?

Well, it's irrelevant, because as I showed, guns are useless either way.

OTOH, the 2nd Amendment is about self-defense, and you do not have the votes to change that fact. And that's a fact.

This argument boils down to this:

Q: Why should we have the second ammendment

A: Because it's part of the constitution

Q: Why's it part of the constitution

A: Because we should have it

You're justifying its existence by its existence. It's a logical fallacy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You are entitled to your opinion on arms, firearms, the 2nd Amendment, and what is useless or not. You consider guns to be useless. What you don't have is the votes to change the status quo. Is it possible that your argument isn't very convincing as far as the actual voters are concerned?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is common sense as rapid fire weapons have only one purpose.

It is always interesting to listen to arguments related to the U.S. 2nd Amendment by both sides. The skeleton in the closet is that there are so many unregistered weapons in the U.S. (especially handguns) that it would not be possible to confiscate all weapons. Also the process of weapons confiscation would require violation of the 4th Amendment as I am sure many Americans would not voluntarily relinquish their weapons.

Personally I would be against a repeal of the 2nd Amendment but in favor of further restrictions on gun ownership and definitely in favor of what the NRA is proposing.

Obviously the U.S. has a problem with gun violence (even the staunchest of gun supporters cannot deny this) and this has become such a polarizing issue (for example this issue caused George Clooney to say Charlton Heston deserved alzheimers for his support of the NRA).

Due to the amount of weapons in circulation in the U.S., both legal and illegal, this is a problem for which there is no longer any easy solution.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tokyo-Engr - Oct. 14 12:08 pm JSTThis is common sense as rapid fire weapons have only one purpose.

It is always interesting to listen to arguments related to the U.S. 2nd Amendment by both sides. The skeleton in the closet is that there are so many unregistered weapons in the U.S. (especially handguns) that it would not be possible to confiscate all weapons.

Many voters believe that any Democrat Party plan for registration would lead to confiscation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites