Antigun groups once again display ignorance

No I have not. All I have done is respond to you.

 

OK fine. That distraction is over on this thread then..correct?

 

So now you want we should go back to Newgate rules. We either hang everybody convicted of of anything or we make all sentences life. We kill 7 year old shoplifters or we end up with more people in prison than free, but hey, everybody who somehow never gets a traffic ticket can still get a gun.

Isn't that like saying that an accountant who was a very good embezzler should be given a job in a bank? Or a former child molester should be hired to teach elementary school? Yes, they are rehabbed for all intents and purposes but isn't there a bible passage about placing a stumbling block in the way of a blind person?

Jeebus Wept, are you guys THAT enamored of your firearms, that you think life is just not worth living without them? I haven't owned so much as an air rifle throughout the entirety of an not uneventful life and never felt I was missing anything

 

Ok. But lets then just start out by saying that. In other words, there are zero added common sense gun regs that can be added for the reasons you and orhers have specified. Those reasons including

All existing regs must be perfectly enforced before adding new regs

Pretty much any new regs would either/or be unconstitional or not completely solve the problem

And, in addition there are all sorts of other problems that must be effectively addressed before adding new gun regs. Issues such as prison management, no war on drugs, welfare reform, no private prisons, etc etc etc

These guns are used for terrorism and mass killing. But not typically to facilitate ordinary crime

I think what you mean to say is that gun regs have proven themselves ineffective

 

It isn't that they don't completely solve the problem but that they don't impact it at all. To date since the beginning of assault weapons in the late 1940's, less than 8 percent of mass shooting have involved assault weapons many of those used were stolen or acquired illegally such as the lunatics who shot up LA back in the 90s. Another thing back during the Assault weapons ban at least eight felons tried to purchase weapons and were stop by background checks. None were prosecuted for any crime associated with doing so.

 

You realize vman and I are two separate people, yes?

 

Pure nonsense. It has already been shown to you that countries that have lower gun ownership have lower violence rates per capita.

The response was that "Americans are more violent as a people".

That's bullshit but were it true, it's an argument for fewer guns not more...

 

And you both called it a silencer...I did not.

Which illustrates the fallacy of the OP

 

Because I used the colloquialism, and the brand name for the particular suppressor (silencerco), you think you know more about arms than I do?

Are you the same personality that claimed those hunting air rifles wouldn' stop a man or shoot last 30 yards? Amongst other hilarity?

 

Not playing "my schwanze is bigger than yours".

Just pointing out that gun "afficianados" are pretty full of it...and themselves.

They clearly stepped on their schwanzes in this thread...you included.

 

You realize silencer is the brand name of the product, right?

Stepped on my don't eh?
This from the guy that thought air rifles couldn' take a man sized target or shoot past 30 yards? Amongst other fun faux pas?

 

Christ dude...you and both your friends made fools of yourselves.

I'm still trying to figure out how air rifles even GOT into the discussion. WHy did you bring it up?

Do you want them regulated? Great

Oh and by the way...the VAST majority of air rifles are .177 and .22 caliber and DO have a range of about 30 yards.

You managed to find one oddball air rifle that has a range of what? 80 yards? Good for you. How long did you have to search for that and who cares?

Do I have a complete knowledge of every gun ever made? Nope. Nor did I ever claim to but I sure as shyt know what a suppressor is . And THAT was the point of this thread

Troll on

 

Bank can hire embezzler or not if they want. Thats private business. If a gun store doesnt WANT to sell to a felon, Im cool with that too.

If someone is demonstrably untrustworthy of access to firearms, knives, flammable chemicals, etc, then they shouldnt be in public where all those things are easy to get. Trying to make it harder for everyone to get weapons just because a we wont keep criminals locked up is bass ackward. What we need is longer prison sentences and more rigorous parole hearings for violent crimes, and less penalties for nonviolent crimes (we dont need prisons full of pot heads and tax evaders while shooters, batterers and rapists walk the street).

I would also find felon colonies for violence-prone individuals an acceptible option. They can live and work and travel freely within the colony, while still being restricted access to weapons and innocent victims.

Suffice to say, restricting everyone because of a few criminals is not the answer. Not only is it inneficient and dangerous, but its not fair to those who follow the rules and its decidedly unfree.

 

Actually air rifles can acheive the same ballistic properties as firearms. The lethal ones are prohibitively expensive and, I presume, not very durable... but require no powder, brass or primer, have no muzzle flash and are (afaik) completely unregulated.

They've been used as weapons as far back as the Napoleanic wars. Napolean himself wrote about his troops being sniped from rooftops by bellows-powered air guns.

 

I guess reality was right. They need to be regulated then

 

Bows and arrows too?

 

And none of those countries is even remotely comparable to the United States. And why on earth would more violence seem to you to be a sound reason for reducing one's ability to defend one's self?

 

OK... After looking into this more closely...
The rifle in question is indeed not a firearm.
Not sure why there's suddenly such a uproar about a 50-yr old law that has nothing to do with firearms, felons, or felons having access to firearms.
If the best you have is an argument revolving around felons legally having access to a $1000 non-firearm rifle that shoots 3 round per minute with a suppressor that reduces the retort of said non-firearm rifle to that of a jackhammer, the anti-gun left has finally reached the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

 

You've already been shown this is a post hoc fallacy.

 

I'm amazed that you how your face on this thread after the fool you made of yourself.

 

Wrong.

 

Except he wasn't wrong.

An integrally suppressed flintlock is no more NFA controlled than an integrally suppressed air rifle.

 

It got into the discussion because the flintlock you're wringing your hands over is no more deadly than the air rifle.

You tried to say it wasn't dangerous, then I destroyed that argument, then you tried to avoid further discussion by claiming it wasn't part of the discussion.

 

Claiming that people from England and Australia are intrinsically different than Americans is absurd. Somehow they are less violent by nature even though we share a common heritage?
You're making that claim because there's no other way you can explain the fact that they have far less violence than we do other than their lack of guns.

 

No more deadly than an air rifle?

A. It can take a deer at 200 yards. Kill it. With a .50 caliber bullet.That's pretty friggin deadly
B. The vast majority of air rifles are not even deadly at 30 friggin yards. The fact that you found one that has an 80 yard range does not change that fact. That particular air rifle is no toy and ALSO probably should be regulated
C. If you are calling this a "flintlock" you obviously have no clue what YOU are talking about