Heres what's gonna happen:
>a lot of no's
"Well, this informal poll we did just gives a very small glimpse into this hot debate"
>close % of no's and yes'
"The country is very divided on this topic!"
"Our poll shows many Americans support more gun control"
Its going to be disgusting either way
>Implying there shouldn't be background checks on all firearms sales.
I forget 90% of you fucks think everyones trying to take away your legal guns and your rights. Granted some people believe no one should have guns except military and law enforcement. Half don't know how to stop the flow of ILLEGAL firearms, and if they force background checks on private sales all weapons have to go through an FFL which increases the chance of catching "Bad people" or Illegal firearms, and if you think Full auto weapons dont exist in the public eye, go to the desert where people are openly practicing and listen/watch for the fully automatic rifles because I guarantee you will hear or see more than one.
I support proper gun control.
Should mentally Ill be able to own a fire arm?
Probably not, unless they are being seen by a doctor, or are limited to what they can own ex. Bolt action rifles.
Should felons be able to own firearms
Depends, what'd they do? If it's anything violent then no.
Should we have the bullet button? Not since we have limited mags.
I honestly don't know how I feel about 80% lowers, I feel like they should at least be registered.
aww wook at the widdle redneck scared of muh gubmint
go fuck something thats not your sister
In my country background check 'passes' are at police discretion. Even if you don't have a criminal past there is an interview and if the police officer interviewing you does not like you or you do not bribe him you will not get a permit. If he is in a bad mood then you must bribe him to forget that you tried to bribe him.
In United States it would be similar but no chance of bribing unless you're a millionaire hahaha
>In United States it would be similar
that's not how it works in the United States
If you are not a convicted felon, if you don't have a warrant for your arrest, and you don't have a history of mental illness or domestic violence, you pass.
>Implying youd find out it was actually full auto anyway.
Why is this always a valid argument, why the fuck do you need a fully automatic rifle? There is litterally no need to have one.
I dont even think law enforcement should have the fuckin things.
Background checks aren't effective against felons in the US, I still support requiring them in stores, in fact stores should do it even if they aren't required, however the only real deterrent against felons having guns is catching them and putting them in prison for having guns just like any other crime like fraud or child abuse.
Background checks in a store can actually stop someone from doing something stupid if they need a gun right that second and can't find a grey market or armslist way of getting one. It's just cheap insurance.
Forcing background checks on private transfers only helps if everyone in the community follows the law, and even then it only forces people to get grey market guns instead of armslist guns.
If it is the case, and I think it is, that almost all crime guns are grey market or bought off acquaintances than I don't see how universal background checks help.
On the other hand, universal background checks means there is no practical check on the creation of a registry other than the legal, not that I think we would make a registry in our current political climate, but being able to get guns without a background check means you are two degrees removed from registration instead of one.
This guy gets it.
I agree with you man, although some states let you take a gun home same day, I feel there should be at least a one or 2 day period before you can actually take the gun home for a would-be cool down period.
Without a gunners assistant, tripod/tracking bipod, high capacity magazine or belt etc a fully automaic gun is less effective for a mass shooting than a semi auto one.
With a true MG more death would be possible, but it would also be harder to get into position and harder to move around with.
Ultimately machineguns would only be good for spree killings on very dense crowds for killings lasting only a handful of seconds though admittedly they would be better.
Take a fully auto M16, full battle rattle, lets say 4 mags 30 rds each.
If you don't think that will do more damage than a semi auto with full battle rattle and 4 mags 30 rds each you're an imbicile.
I'm fine with cool down period as long as people with permits are allowed to circumvent it.
I would trade the ability to carry without a permit for the requirement of a cool down period though.
When you think about it though, you should be able to get around a cooling off period by showing them you already have a gun.
Well if you have a permit you already gave more than the required info to federal agencys and what not so I like this idea. But I what I don't like about what you mentioned was being able to carry without a permit, UNLESS its open carry. If you OC you still need the wait, but if you CC then no wait, unless they created a voluntary permit for OC that voids the waiting period.
Compares a full auto M16 rifle to an acutal MG. You getting it yet?
Can you prove this?
I can't prove mine right now because on mobile but I seriously believe someone could become so angry they would go buy a small caliber handgun to shoot someone. I truly believe cool down periods help. But thats honestly opinionated.
In the desert? I'm pretty sure California is the only state with desert that doesn't allow MGs. Also you might be hearing the military firing machine guns. 29 Palms is in cali and I'm sure there are other bases where they do live fire. Just saying.
As a side note, we don't think people are trying to take our guns, we know they are. Might we overreact at times? Sure. But I think if someone kept stabbing you you'd start flinching the next time they came around.
Most states dont allow automatic firearms.
Not to be an asshole, but I know where I'm shooting and whats around me, where I shoot there are military bases.
And about the other half, that is what I meant, half are trying to outright ban guns but the other half doesnt really know what to do about the illegal firearms.
I've always said, the day they ban black guns I'm selling everything I own and buy as many as I can.
>that's not how it works in the United States
I didn't say that is how it works now. The poll says US should expand background checks and I said it would be similar if they did.
I was replying to somebody who said they voted yes because they aren't a criminal and I gave an example of how expanded background checks are used to enforce gun control against non-criminals.
I know most states don't allow full auto, I'm talking about states with desert. As in Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc. The Mojave area I guess. My understanding was that they do allow full auto.
Honestly, the only thing wrong with universal background checks is the threat of a registry. If there was an exception for close friends/family, and we got something in return (NFA, national CC, etc) I'd be fine with it. However, there's not enough variety in the answers to qualify my opinion, so I'll vote no.
Im pretty sure full auto is illegal in all of US....
although vegas has a company where they are allowed to take customers out with full automatic firearms.
>Using wiki as a reliable source.
Machine guns have to be registered, and the registries been closed since 1986.
This means that you have to buy a pre-1986 machine gun, which means that the machine guns on the legal market cost 10 times their actual market value.
Other than that, if you're in a free state, you just apply for a tax stamp and buy that shit.
>I dont even think law enforcement should have the fuckin things.
Hey, as long as Johnny Law can own it, I think I should be able to own it. If your delineation is "Automatic weapons for absolutely nobody, including the police" then I can appreciate that. I don't agree, but I appreciate where you're coming from.
>mfw I'd never use an Automatic weapon for anything other than fun because they're awful impractical
I totally agree, if law enforcement can own it, I should be able to as well, I just dont think anyone but the military should own full auto anything. Give us all 50 bmg like utah and I'll take that trade.
>full battle rattle
>4 mags 30 rds
You mean imbecile, you mean imbecile?
Because it's obvious to anyone who knows what they're talking about that you are retarded and making shit up using buzzwords
>full battle rattle
Stop watching discovery channel reruns faggot.
Because it's obvious you're retarded. 120 rounds of 5.56 fired in 3 round bursts would do exactly as much damage as the same amount fired in semi-automatic, at best. Realistically it would result in a lot of wild rounds going nowhere.
>full battle rattle
Stop watching discovery channel re runs faggot.
Using semi auto fire is more efficient in a fire fight compared to going full auto for even burst fire.
I'm sure a lot of soldiers use Semi over Full auto or burst(if they are using the M16A4.)
Took another gander at their poll, and they put in a new question, and it's completely loaded as fuck.
>Is tightening gun-sale requirements too tough a change?
Yeah I can't exactly telling they are asking if it's too tough to accomplish or if that is too tough on law abiding citizens.
It'll be interesting to see exactly how it's spun
Considering it's CNN, I interpret that they want to spin it as:
The NRA and republicans make it too hard to make common sense laws (bad). We need to change this.
Americans support tightening gun-sale requirements
That's exactly how I took it. We know they aren't neutral on firearms.
It's too bad CNN removed disqus and our ability to discus anything on their site. They can say anything and no one can question them.
and what was the original question?
they changed the question and flipped the responses.
everyone should sage this thread and instead move to this thread so that newfags don't get confused.
i hope at least one person did or still has it open. i realise this started out as a highly unscientific poll but this changing the question halfway through bullshit really pisses me off because you know they just did it and hoped no one would notice. then they will write a story or some shit on it and claim it's a totally unbiased, highly scientific poll that everyone should believe.
People are upset that they changed the question. Doesn't the current question make it seem like people are against gun control?
>Is tightening gun-sale requirements too tough a change?
The post I was linking to was this picture. It got deleted. Hmm.
now let's add this >>28455025 to one of those.
It's pretty bad when you have to watch out for the government pulling shit and watch out for the press pulling shit.
>people practicing their rights to bear arms
>the government persecutes them for it so they have to do so in secret
I'll give you this one compromise. And it's actually a compromise, not me giving up something for you.
Give us full auto, suppressors and sbr's/sbs's at the same status as any normal gun.
No records may be kept of any BGC. 4473s and the like are banned. Any govt official caught keeping or using BGC data is banned from holding any governmental position.
In exchange we'll give you increased requirements for BGC including private sales, and mandatory safety/legal training for gun ownership, to be offered at high schools for students and by private companies for adults.
this! dos someone have the original question screen capped?
The m16 has a semi auto mode for a reason
Show me a SINGLE clip of afghanistan or iraq battle footage where any US soldier uses his m16 in full auto for more than just suppressive fire. You'll be hard pressed to even find suppressive fire with an m16 because they use lmgs for that.
as has already been said, You dumb.
thanks based bras
I'm going to /r/ requesting the newer and older question be put together in single pic, ill offer pics of smexy girls, if this thread is still up ill post it here for you guys.
wish me luck
you are going to CNN, asking /k/ to go there as well, have no understanding of what you are seeing or voting on. it's fucking embarrassing. overzealous retards ruin the integrity of the whole gun community.
>i voted no on the second one
son of a bitch i can't read can't i
The question doesn't make any sense.
It has no goal.
It serves no purpose.
It's nonsense sprinkled with misunderstood buzzwords.
>Half don't know how to stop the flow of ILLEGAL firearms, and if they force background checks on private sales all weapons have to go through an FFL which increases the chance of catching "Bad people" or Illegal firearms
Here's the thing, though: if someone is buying a gun illegally, they can just find someone who is selling a gun illegally and not need to worry about extra background checks being mandated by law. Someone buying a gun illegally almost certainly knows what they're up to, and so aren't going to walk into a gun store for a background check. Making it illegal to sell without jumping through extra hoops doesn't do anything to stop people from being lazy except for punishing them after the fact, if ever. The prohibited person still has the damn gun.
that is why the EO is calling for new tech like micro printing that would help identify a weapon better than a sn that could be scratched off. it also is calling for mandatory reporting of lost or stolen weapons.
microstamping doesn't last through firing, let alone deliberate destruction or even just replacing the firing pin. Scratching off a serial number is already a felony. Mandatory reporting is unenforceable: "I don't shoot very often, I had no idea it was missing!" or "I had it in my bag on a fishing trip, didn't even think to look for it after I got the bag back into the boat!"
>microstamping doesn't last through firing, let alone deliberate destruction or even just replacing the firing pin.
that is why it is calling for research into 'new' technology 'like' micro stamping...
All of that "forensics" shit is fantasy television garbage. It's so rarely used as to be laughable. There is a small amount of use at the federal level, but NO small police can do that kind of work, no states or agencies can afford to or be reasonably assured of accurate results.
It's pipe dream buzzwords that mean nothing to people in the know. You don't catch people with striations, you catch them with their own stupidity.