Oregon's New Anti-gun Bill

[P.J. Denyer]

Every single other developed first world country has figured out a way to do it. Every single other developed first world country has strict gun control.

Am I missing something?

Probably coincidence.

 

[theprestige]

Every single other developed first world country has figured out a way to do it. Every single other developed first world country has strict gun control.

Am I missing something? : confused :

Charlie Hebdo.

 

[plague311]

Charlie Hebdo.

Charlie Chaplain.

Am I doing it right? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Oh, because it's literally one incident in comparison to the dozens we have a year?

Weak sauce.

 

[smartcooky]

Every single other developed first world country has figured out a way to do it. Every single other developed first world country has strict gun control.

Am I missing something?

Nope, you're not missing anything!

 

[smartcooky]

Charlie Hebdo.

The Charlie Hebdo shooters did not have legally owned firearms, Stephen Paddock did.

The country the CH shootings took place in had nothing that resembles 2A.

 

[Cain]

So stupid. Yeah, go ahead and disarm yourselves. Oregon's just making itself a target for intergalactic sociopaths.

 

[Elagabalus]

With all due respect, 20 rounds a month IS a bit on the low side* and I'm not even a gun guy.



* even when considering bump stocks will be illegal soon.

 

[Border Reiver]

In an absolutely mind blowing turn of events. Someone that overwhelmingly supports the 2A thinks that restrictions are counterproductive. In other news, Donald Trump lied today, and then denied he actually lied! More at 11.

First, not an overwhelming supporter of the 2A.

Second, Canadian. Used to and a supporter of reasonable gun control legislation.

Third, I'm criticizing it because it will not have the desired effect as it is too easy to get around. Localized prohibitions tend to only negatively effect those with limited mobility, in Oregon you could get around a state wide prohibition with a Sunday drive to Washington, Idaho or the redneck state of California and not be gone more than a couple of hours. And a sloppily worded law with loopholes big enough that an elephant could walk through isn't going to work. Unless Oregon is planning to start asking every shooter to provide proof of purchase for all their ammo, it's going to be ineffective. You want effective gun control? Draft better laws.

Require better background checks, require licensing, require insurance, restrict ammo and component purchases to those with valid licenses. Monthly limits on ammo purchases - about as effective as telling drinkers they can only buy twenty beer a month to cut down on drunk driving.

 

[mgidm86]

Well, there is a great business opportunity for shooting ranges.

Sounds like a great business opportunity for those target ranges.

You mean the black market. Watch the bullets start flowing in across the southern border! Criminals will have all the bullets they need, and probably a lot cheaper.

How can a range operator know if the person buying the shells isn't going to take some of them home with them? Provide a babysitter for each shooter? Search them on the way out? "Oh no, those bullets I brought from home I didn't buy them here"

Ya it's so easy just to build a store. I mean gun ranges make SOOO much money so pfft. Sounds like a great way to get a lot of gun ranges to shut down. If I made the bill I surely would have thought of that.

And I'd like to see a good answer to the question above about how limiting someone to twenty bullets a month will make it more difficult for criminals. Far as I can tell it is, as usual, the law abiding citizens who are affected.

Leading cause of gun death is suicide. One bullet.

Sure the Vegas shooter fired hundreds of rounds but every other murderer in US history did not. Someone used the most extreme case to make a point here.

So, once again, how many lives will be saved?

I sold my shotgun (only gun) and I'm not into guns but this law, like most gun laws introduced in California and Oregon, accomplishes little more than opening the door for future gun laws, eventually making it impossible to own a gun.

It does little to nothing to hinder gun or bullet access to criminals, but it severely affects law abiding citizens. People will still shoot each other with the same regularity - domestic squabbles, drunken fights, suicides, and accidental shootings. Twenty bullets is still plenty for ANY crime.

 

[Elagabalus]

First, not an overwhelming supporter of the 2A.

Second, Canadian. Used to and a supporter of reasonable gun control legislation.

Third, I'm criticizing it because it will not have the desired effect as it is too easy to get around. Localized prohibitions tend to only negatively effect those with limited mobility, in Oregon you could get around a state wide prohibition with a Sunday drive to Washington, Idaho or the redneck state of California and not be gone more than a couple of hours. And a sloppily worded law with loopholes big enough that an elephant could walk through isn't going to work. Unless Oregon is planning to start asking every shooter to provide proof of purchase for all their ammo, it's going to be ineffective. You want effective gun control? Draft better laws.

Require better background checks, require licensing, require insurance, restrict ammo and component purchases to those with valid licenses. Monthly limits on ammo purchases - about as effective as telling drinkers they can only buy twenty beer a month to cut down on drunk driving.

It could be though, that they stuck it on there either a) just to make it fail or b) to get the other side to agree on some kind of quantity restriction or c) something else.

 

[plague311]

With all due respect, 20 rounds a month IS a bit on the low side* and I'm not even a gun guy.

* even when considering bump stocks will be illegal soon.

If a person goes to a gun range they can pew pew pew all they want. Nothing taken away, just might take a little bit more effort.

First, not an overwhelming supporter of the 2A.

...*snipped for brevity*...

I apologize for my confusion. The only posts you've made here appear to have been supportive of no change.

Your analogy is again, lacking, but it's useless to debate it.

Every time this issue gets brought up the only reply ever is "it will never change anything. There's no point in doing this." You know how ******* sick and tired I am of hearing that?

What we have now isn't ******* working. At all. So great, you've said this won't work, now what? Yeah, you've provided other options but guess what? Those won't pass either! Why, you may ask? Because this same **** will happen if someone introduces that. The same choir of people will come naysaying any change and talking about how it won't work. It could be anything.

 

[plague311]

You mean the black market. Watch the bullets start flowing in across the southern border! Criminals will have all the bullets they need, and probably a lot cheaper.

How can a range operator know if the person buying the shells isn't going to take some of them home with them? Provide a babysitter for each shooter? Search them on the way out? "Oh no, those bullets I brought from home I didn't buy them here"

Ya it's so easy just to build a store. I mean gun ranges make SOOO much money so pfft. Sounds like a great way to get a lot of gun ranges to shut down. If I made the bill I surely would have thought of that.

And I'd like to see a good answer to the question above about how limiting someone to twenty bullets a month will make it more difficult for criminals. Far as I can tell it is, as usual, the law abiding citizens who are affected.

Leading cause of gun death is suicide. One bullet.

Sure the Vegas shooter fired hundreds of rounds but every other murderer in US history did not. Someone used the most extreme case to make a point here.

So, once again, how many lives will be saved?

I sold my shotgun (only gun) and I'm not into guns but this law, like most gun laws introduced in California and Oregon, accomplishes little more than opening the door for future gun laws, eventually making it impossible to own a gun.

It does little to nothing to hinder gun or bullet access to criminals, but it severely affects law abiding citizens. People will still shoot each other with the same regularity - domestic squabbles, drunken fights, suicides, and accidental shootings. Twenty bullets is still plenty for ANY crime.

Literally every ******* point in this entire montage of word salad has been debunked ad nauseum. I'm glad someone took the time to wrap it up into one post though. It's easier to scroll passed when that happens.

Thanks.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I agree that 20 bullets is enough for any crime though .. even mass shooting, you will just save for few months ..

 

[Ranb]

Every single other developed first world country has figured out a way to do it. Every single other developed first world country has strict gun control.

Am I missing something?

Perhaps you could tell us which countries that allow possession of ammunition also restrict a person to 20 rounds/month as part of their efforts to curb violence. I'm thinking that it is none. But you seem to be sure that this kind of nonsense is how someone is doing it.

 

[plague311]

Perhaps you could tell us which countries that allow possession of ammunition also restrict a person to 20 rounds/month as part of their efforts to curb violence. I'm thinking that it is none. But you seem to be sure that this kind of nonsense is how someone is doing it.

Didn't make that claim, and I never even said this was the proper way to go about it. I said other countries have managed to do it, and we haven't.

The 20 bullet max. doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but it's movement. As I've said what we're doing right now isn't working at all. Except for people like yourself.

I know that what's going on now is just terrible. I'm glad at least some state is taking action, and we'll see the results afterwards.

Hell, for that matter none of you know this won't work. You're just saying it won't like every other gun control legislation that's been presented. So, I say give it a shot.

Even if it eliminates mass shootings, it's worth it to me.

 

[Ranb]

The 20 bullet max. doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but it's movement.

I don't think it will move far. While it has some things in the bill that many people like, why load it down with stupid stuff like the 20round/month feature?

As I've said what we're doing right now isn't working at all. Except for people like yourself.

I don't recall ever saying I was satisfied with the state of gun control in this country.

Hell, for that matter none of you know this won't work. You're just saying it won't like every other gun control legislation that's been presented. So, I say give it a shot.

I'm not living in a vacuum here. I know stupid gun bills when I see them. Who did New Jersey think they were fooling with their smart gun bill? When even the police won't touch that crap with a ten foot pole you know the law sucks.

Even if it eliminates mass shootings, it's worth it to me.

It doesn't have a chance in hell of eliminating mass shootings. Anyone who suggests it would is trying to tell us 4 is greater than 20.

 

[plague311]

I don't think it will move far. While it has some things in the bill that many people like, why load it down with stupid stuff like the 20round/month feature?

I'd assume to initiate negotiations, or at least have a starting point. Isn't that how negotiations and stuff work? Test your limits, settle for something smaller.

I don't recall ever saying I was satisfied with the state of gun control in this country.

I've never seen a gun bill introduced that you've agreed with but, ok. I guess I'll concede the point.

I'm not living in a vacuum here. I know stupid gun bills when I see them. Who did New Jersey think they were fooling with their smart gun bill? When even the police won't touch that crap with a ten foot pole you know the law sucks.

Which so far, from what I can tell by every thread you've started, has been all of them. I don't really care about New Jersey. I'm not even sure why you brought it up unless you meant it as a red herring. Neat though, thanks for letting me know what a police force in a place I don't give a **** about does or doesn't think of smart guns. That's super helpful.

It doesn't have a chance in hell of eliminating mass shootings. Anyone who suggests it would is trying to tell us 4 is greater than 20.

LoL really? You hit with every shot? With only 5 shots you increase reload requirements that increases time between shots (cue all the gunners saying "not for me hurhurhur. Tape those ***** to my thigh, upside down with an insert_gun_words_ and I'll reload in 2 seconds!!!!), which will help slow it down.

But yeah, what you said too.

 

[The Norseman]

Or, or, or...

It's a seal!

Yeah, awesome job at proving that there are, indeed, other ways to kill a large amount of people.

Now think about that, here in North Dakota buying that much fertilizer would raise more than one eyebrow. That's in North Dakota.

Waiting 30 days in comparison to 4.5 years. LoL, yeah, that passes the sniff.

Every single other developed first world country has figured out a way to do it. Every single other developed first world country has strict gun control.

Am I missing something?

If a person goes to a gun range they can pew pew pew all they want. Nothing taken away, just might take a little bit more effort.



I apologize for my confusion. The only posts you've made here appear to have been supportive of no change.

Your analogy is again, lacking, but it's useless to debate it.

Every time this issue gets brought up the only reply ever is "it will never change anything. There's no point in doing this." You know how ******* sick and tired I am of hearing that?

What we have now isn't ******* working. At all. So great, you've said this won't work, now what? Yeah, you've provided other options but guess what? Those won't pass either! Why, you may ask? Because this same **** will happen if someone introduces that. The same choir of people will come naysaying any change and talking about how it won't work. It could be anything.

Didn't make that claim, and I never even said this was the proper way to go about it. I said other countries have managed to do it, and we haven't.

The 20 bullet max. doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but it's movement. As I've said what we're doing right now isn't working at all. Except for people like yourself.

I know that what's going on now is just terrible. I'm glad at least some state is taking action, and we'll see the results afterwards.

Hell, for that matter none of you know this won't work. You're just saying it won't like every other gun control legislation that's been presented. So, I say give it a shot.

Even if it eliminates mass shootings, it's worth it to me.

You're exactly the reason why I don't bother trying in these threads anymore.

So, thanks? I guess.

 

[Ranb]

I've never seen a gun bill introduced that you've agreed with but, ok. I guess I'll concede the point.

Then I should label you as selectively blind.

Which so far, from what I can tell by every thread you've started, has been all of them.

Again with the selective blindness.

I don't really care about New Jersey.

But you care enough about Oregon to argue?

I'm not even sure why you brought it up unless you meant it as a red herring.

It was an example of a stupid bill that became a stupid law.

LoL really?....

Yes, you would be one of those people who don't understand how 4<20.

 

[plague311]

Then I should label you as selectively blind.

Cool.

Again with the selective blindness.

But you care enough about Oregon to argue?

It is the topic of the thread, is it not? What, seriously, was the ideal conversation this thread would raise? Where was this ever going to end up? Overall, to me, it's a good bill that could definitely leave a few parts out. That's the case with almost every bill.

It was an example of a stupid bill that became a stupid law.

Ok? So do or do not police support this law? I feel like you just "shamed" that law, but didn't make it relevant to this law at all. They certainly aren't the same thing, other than being stupid in your opinion.

Yes, you would be one of those people who don't understand how 4<20.

Noting that instead of actually explain it, you're going for...what exactly? I mean, I get I'm confrontational, and possess a fairly aggressive posting style. Does that mean I should get left in the dark on this mathematical problem? I'm nothing, if not eager to learn.

You're exactly the reason why I don't bother trying in these threads anymore.

So, thanks? I guess.

Glad I could help.