New normal?

[Spider-Dan]

So are you saying that the 1934 and 1986 laws stopped the black market and crime relating to fully automatic weapons because it limited their availability?

Yes.

Not when you take into account that 99%+ of privately owned firearms in the US never kill anyone. That stat alone says that there is no serious epidemic.

Good news, everyone!  Since it turns out that over 99.99% of radical Muslims will never destroy a single building in America (much less a pair of skyscrapers), the War On Terror has been cancelled and all troops are coming home, effective immediately!

[pondwater]

Yes.

Maybe you're not aware, but if people wanted fully auto firearms. With a small amount of effort, they could illegally convert semi auto firearms to fully auto rather easily. There is no black market or demand for fully auto firearms simply because no one wants or needs them. If they did, you would see people converting them. And more importantly you would see it in the stats.

Good news, everyone!  Since it turns out that over 99.99% of radical Muslims will never destroy a single building in America (much less a pair of skyscrapers), the War On Terror has been cancelled and all troops are coming home, effective immediately!

Don't change the subject, we're not talking about Muslims. OVER 99% of privately owned firearms in the US never kill anyone. That stat alone says that there is no serious epidemic, only a left wing agenda.

[SCFinfan]

I have never met a "pro-lifer" that can look past their own personal practice and consider another view.

Then you should get off your keyboard and go out and meet some, rather than living with this prejudicial and dim-witted caricature.

[SCFinfan]

Similarly, conservatives don't consider black people accused of crimes by the police to be full humans with a constitutionally protected right-to-life.

As a conservative who successfully defended, in the past month, two black women criminally charged with DUI and other criminal/traffic violations: you are totally ignorant of the reality of our court system - at least as it exists in my state - and I would invite/challenge you to come with me for a month to see how things actually work.

[Tenshot13]

How you like the Kimber in 9mm? Been looking for a commander length 1911 in 9mm.

Buddy of mine has a CZ75, those are really good shooters.

I had a buddy that had one.  It was nice, but way too expensive for my taste.

Funny, I have that same exact CZ-75 stainless.  My first purchase.

[VidKid]

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

[CF DolFan]

Again we are back to good old "What about black on black crime?"  This is always the worst counterexample, because "black on black homicides" are murder, and everyone agrees that we should stop murder.  However, you don't believe a few unarmed blacks being killed by cops are also victims of murder, and so you DON'T think we should take significant action to stop it.

The ultimate irony is that Chicago liberals have TRIED to stop "black on black gun crime" by enacting tough gun control laws, but local gun control laws can't work when it's a 10 minute drive to the wild west of Indiana, where a 13-year-old can legally buy an AR-15.  Only a federal gun control law can have the kind of effect needed to drive down gun homicides in places like Chicago.

And while we're on the subject of disagreements of what constitutes murder:
Obviously, you know exactly what it is like when an act that you consider murder is considered a necessary transaction by someone else.  Liberals don't consider zygotes or fetuses incapable of surviving outside the womb to be full humans with a constitutionally protected right-to-life.  Similarly, conservatives don't consider black people accused of crimes by the police to be full humans with a constitutionally protected right-to-life.

So I think that, not gun control, is the better analogy to draw.

Your example proves gun laws do not work. On Monday of this week a kid brought a homemade bomb (that he learned how to make from an Isis video) to school but got caught before he could detonate it. They were very lucky. This had nothing to do with guns and had it gone off ... would have been one of the worst school disasters.

It's only a matter of time before it happens again because society is evil and not the items being used. It pisses me off that media has been silent on this. I saw this on multiple conservative sites but had a problem finding anything on a liberal news source.

This gentlemen ... is our new normal!!

http://6abc.com/student-allegedly-brought-bomb-to-school-in-backpack-tried-to-detonate-it/3185564/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teen-charged-bringing-homemade-bomb-utah-school-53561605

[Phishfan]

Even if you have a "system" for doing it on your own there is still a charge to maintain and operate said system. Nothing is free or hidden.

I fully expect there to be a fee and I fully expect it to be considered as part of the price of buying a gun. I have gotten all of mine from private owners but I know not everyone can be trusted as much as me.

[pondwater]

I fully expect there to be a fee and I fully expect it to be considered as part of the price of buying a gun. I have gotten all of mine from private owners but I know not everyone can be trusted as much as me.

Given the number of people killed by firearms in the US compared to the total number of firearms in the US. Yes, statistically almost everyone can be trusted.

[Spider-Dan]

Maybe you're not aware, but if people wanted fully auto firearms. With a small amount of effort, they could illegally convert semi auto firearms to fully auto rather easily. There is no black market or demand for fully auto firearms simply because no one wants or needs them. If they did, you would see people converting them. And more importantly you would see it in the stats.

So it seems that your argument here is that gun control laws don't work, but everyone Just Happened To Stop Wanting these weapons at the exact same moment the laws were passed.  There was plenty of demand for fully-automatic weapons prior to 1934, but according to you the NFA didn't actually do anything and everyone just decided they no longer want them for reasons that had nothing to do with changing legislation.  From this viewpoint, it would be impossible to show that ANY gun control law IS CAPABLE of working, because either:

1) crimes with these weapons are (successfully!) reduced and you claim it's not because of the law, but because people just don't feel like getting/making these newly restricted weapons

OR

2) crimes with these weapons are NOT reduced, at which point you declare the law a failure because criminals obviously won't obey laws

All bases covered!

Don't change the subject, we're not talking about Muslims. OVER 99% of privately owned firearms in the US never kill anyone. That stat alone says that there is no serious epidemic, only a left wing agenda.

YOU just changed the subject to "If the majority of [x] is not the source of a crime, [x] must therefore be OK."

But you wouldn't extend this ridiculous goldfish logic to anything besides guns (or maybe cops killing unarmed black people).  Are we going to talk about black-on-black murders in Chicago?  In 2017, there were 650 murders in Chicago.  2010 census says there are approximately 862,000 black people in Chicago.  Therefore, if EVERY Chicagoan murdered last year was black, and EVERY perpetrator was another black Chicagoan, that means over 99.9% of blacks in Chicago are not committing black-on-black murders! So by your logic, what's the problem?

[pondwater]

There was plenty of demand for fully-automatic weapons prior to 1934

I'm pretty sure that you just made that up. There was no mass epidemic of fully automatic firearms killing people before or after. But I'd love to see your stats showing thousands upon thousands of people running around killing other people with fully auto firearms before either of those laws were passed. Do you come up with all this non sense by yourself or is there some private MOD thread somewhere where all you lefty guys sit around and make shit up?

YOU just changed the subject to "If the majority of [x] is not the source of a crime, [x] must therefore be OK."

But you wouldn't extend this ridiculous goldfish logic to anything besides guns (or maybe cops killing unarmed black people).  Are we going to talk about black-on-black murders in Chicago?  In 2017, there were 650 murders in Chicago.  2010 census says there are approximately 862,000 black people in Chicago.  Therefore, if EVERY Chicagoan murdered last year was black, and EVERY perpetrator was another black Chicagoan, that means over 99.9% of blacks in Chicago are not committing black-on-black murders! So by your logic, what's the problem?

No problem with me whatsoever. I don't live in Chicago so I don't care either way. People killing each other with guns is the same in Chicago or a school in Florida. It just points to your hypocrisy and now you're trying to deflect.

[Phishfan]

Then you should get off your keyboard and go out and meet some, rather than living with this prejudicial and dim-witted caricature.

That is rather funny. You still think that you can convince me of some gray area. Pro-lifers have no other stance than abolishing abortion except for the rare instances of health to the mother and sometimes rape. Some don't even make those exceptions. Anything else means you are pro-choice. There is no middle ground and no bargaining. You are undeniably smart but naive if you think there is any bargaining on the definition of those positions.

[CF DolFan]

That is rather funny. You still think that you can convince me of some gray area. Pro-lifers have no other stance than abolishing abortion except for the rare instances of health to the mother and sometimes rape. Some don't even make those exceptions. Anything else means you are pro-choice. There is no middle ground and no bargaining. You are undeniably smart but naive if you think there is any bargaining on the definition of those positions.

I disagree. Most people on both sides would rather abortions not happen. That's common ground and a great place to start. Next the conversation goes in a direction that would work towards that goal and so on.

There is almost always a common ground to which disagreeing parties can agree if they actually talk to each other instead of AT each other.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I disagree. Most people on both sides would rather abortions not happen. That's common ground and a great place to start. Next the conversation goes in a direction that would work towards that goal and so on.

There is almost always a common ground to which disagreeing parties can agree if they actually talk to each other instead of AT each other.

Okay let's run with that...if you want to minimize abortion then decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.  Most effective way to do that is make contraceptives more accessible. 

If Hobby Lobby wants to reduce the number of abortions ......

[CF DolFan]

Okay let's run with that...if you want to minimize abortion then decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.  Most effective way to do that is make contraceptives more accessible. 

If Hobby Lobby wants to reduce the number of abortions ......

They are a private company and I wouldn't expect them to be forced into doing anything outside of pay taxes and their employees. Education, contraceptives, adoption and other ways people could compromise.