Gun control vs Entrpreneurialism

CA bans magazines, someone invents the 'bullet button.'
New York bans 'pistol grips', someone invents the 'AR "hunting" stock'
Feds ban full-auto, we get 'bump-stocks' and 'trigger cranks.'

The black market is always an option for those who refuse to follow gun laws. But for the rest of us law-abiders, inventors and entrepreneurs are always coming up with new technologies (or new applications of old technologies) that allow us to skirt the 'spirit' of gun laws while adhering to their naively imprecise technicalities.

High-capacity double-action revolvers have been around for more than a century, with huge drums capable of holding 30+ rounds. They werent popular because of the advent of detatchable magazines. Maybe they'll make a comeback to fill the void?

Perhaps an entirely new feeding mechanism or an entirely new propellent system will emerge? Or even an old one... air rifles can acheive similar ballistics to firearms and are almost entirely unregulated. It wouldnt take much to make an AR equivalent air rifle with swappable gas chambers, for example.

The only limitation to man-portable gauss-guns is power storage. But electric cars are driving that technology ahead full-steam.

The possibilities are endless.

What do you expect to see coming out should the left succeed in their crusade against semi-auto rifles?

 

Tech developed to overcome mag limits... see below and their YouTube video.
https://www.meanarms.com/products/detail/ma-loader-for-ar15

 

I predict continued massacres and right wingers crowing about innovative ways of achieving it.

 

First as a Registered Democrat, the Right is neither murdering anyone, nor responsible for anyone getting murdered.

You really should desist from telling falsehoods as far as Republicans wanting to engage in illegal acts.

Do you actually know of the terms, Slander and libel ?

Liberals killed off the highly successful
C.A.P. program, its high rate of drug flight interdiction, and at only the nominal cost of fuel.

 

If you wanna make effective gun laws, learn about guns. Until then, folks are just gonna take advantage of the loopholes inherent in the left's hasty, ill-conceived, 'do anything' legislation.

 

The rest of the developed world has figured this out already. Gun control saves lives

 

All for evidence based policy. Shame most people aren't

 

Just make it illegal for the possession of any weapon capable of propelling more than a single projectile at a time. Any modifications to a weapon making it capable of firing multiple projectiles or any modification that utilizes multiple weapons to achieve the same effect would also be illegal. Anyone in possession of a modified weapon or even attempting to make such a modification to a weapon would serve a mandatory minimum 10 year sentence and have a lifetime ban on ever owning a weapon.

 

So you would ban nail guns? That alone is going to substantially increase the cost of building housing.

How about airsoft and paintball guns?

 

Are nail guns firearms or do they need to be MODIFIED in order to fire projectiles at someone?

Are paintball guns firearms capable of killing someone or would they have to be MODIFIED in order to do so?

 

I've heard the point expressed thusly: "Every time there is a new gun law banning hardware, a engineer somewhere says 'Hold my beer'".

 

Neither of them are 'firearms', they're all potentially lethal, and modification is generally a moot point given how easy it is.

A nail gun can be 'modified' to project nails with a small amount of duct tape.

A paintball gun can be 'modified' easily by freezing the paintballs for a slight increase in 'lethality', or by turning the pressure way up and firing home-made sabo rounds. (note: paintball guns require a gun liscence in Australia).

But my POINT was that the wording of your proposition banned a number of common tools/toys. This is a common breakdown in the gun control debate- where 'reasonable' restrictions are typically so UNreasoned as to either not restrict all the intended items, or they restrict far more than is reasonable, and in either case are easily 'loopholed' by innovation.
The bottom line is Americans love guns. Just like how they love weed and alcohol. Trying to restrict something that is so culturally embraced is a fools errend, just as prohibition was and the war on drugs still is. You simply can't force a culture shift with bureaucracy and regulation without a lot of authoritarianism, corruption and state-sanctioned violence.

 

The united state supreme court has already declared such an approach to be unconstitutional under any standard of review that may be utilized.

 

Thank you for proving my point that MODIFICATIONS were ESSENTIAL and therefore would be ILLEGAL under the wording that I proposed.

There is nothing unreasonable about banning such modifications because there is NO "reasonable" justification for INCREASING lethality.

The rest of your post did not address the point and was therefore ignored as irrelevant.

 

But only biased and incomplete evidence. Kinda like AGW.

 

This made me laugh. Not sure pro-gunners will be pleased with the comparison to AGW deniers mind you . You'll be saying they're on a par with 'we never went to the moon' conspiracy theorists next

 

Deniers apply to anyone, including scientists, that do not toe the line on the dogma. I bet you are not aware of actual inconvenient science for AGW. Such is the tunnel vision based on your emotions and not intellect.

 

All firearms are lethal in all instances, no exception. No supposed modification exists that can render a firearm more lethal than it already is.

 

So your AGW denial is the same as your gun control denial? Or is one denial more exotic than the other?

 

It’s called your confirmation bias. Not my problem.

 

You didn't answer the questions! Tut tut

 

A smarmy and arrogant statement disguised as a question requires no response.

 

Global warming concerns are secondary almost tertiary to true concerns over Global ambient environmental contamination.

 

The military obviously knows a great deal more about the topic of INCREASING the lethality of firearms since it makes them a great deal more effective at killing more people.

 

You're the one that brought up AGW denial. I've merely asked if you apply the same 'logic' to gun control. You seem to lack confidence in your own viewpoint.