Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   One of Holmes' guns was "an AK-47-type weapon." And you thought that "Journalist's Guide to Firearms" poster was a joke   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 425
    More: Fail, mass shootings, Ruby Ridge, Miss Manners, Action News, human events, The Daily Beast, journalists, gun laws  
•       •       •

14279 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2012 at 11:28 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



425 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 01:32:21 PM  

i^2: So how would you classify the M16A2?


The M16A2 is an assault rifle, because it's a select-fire carbine in a medium caliber.

It would also be an assault weapon because it can accept high-capacity magazines, has a bayonet lug, is in scary black, has an adjustable stock, a barrel shroud, and looks scary...if it weren't capable of fully-automatic fire, rather than being solely semi-automatic.
 
2012-07-23 01:32:48 PM  

mjohnson71: Can someone also please explain why almost every other 1st world county has heavy restrictions on guns, yet America doesn't? What's special about us? Why does someone in America need to be armed to the teeth, yet other "top" countries like Canada or England do just fine without a heavily armed civilian population?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment was written 220+ years ago. That was when the only guns available were single shot muskets that took 30 to 60 seconds to load, fire and reload. That same gun that you used to hunt and feed your family was also used to defend the country from the British. Who the hell are we going to defend ourselves from in 2012 with an AR-15 that can kill/wound almost a hundred people in a minute or two?


Then amend the constitution. it has been done before, even going so far as to ban booze. Slavery was popular and it was overturned. Women couldn't vote for a few hundred years and they have the right now thanks to the Constitution. Firearms in our society are the equalizer. They put the 120lb woman on a level playing field with a 260lb man

If we ban guns, what do we do about the individuals who mean ill? Jim Holmes used firearms but he just as easily could have gone into a hardware store and made pipe bombs. The will to destroy is stronger than the ability of government to control unless we all toil in the fields with basic tools.
 
2012-07-23 01:32:56 PM  

ladyhawk: Don't quite get how "the right to bear arms" translates into "the right to bear the kind of arms that will allow you to injure/kill 60 people in 10 minutes". I get that people need to defend themselves or go hunting and so on, but you don't need assault rifles to do that.


I have a really scary looking AK-47 in my gun safe at the house, locked up except when I occasionally take it to the range. Last time I checked, it hasnt jumped up of its own accord and done something bad.

Put a five round magazine in it, and it's not that much different than the typical semi-auto hunting rifle. Except it's scary looking
 
2012-07-23 01:33:10 PM  

mjohnson71: Can someone also please explain why almost every other 1st world county has heavy restrictions on guns, yet America doesn't? What's special about us? Why does someone in America need to be armed to the teeth, yet other "top" countries like Canada or England do just fine without a heavily armed civilian population?


We're just that much better than they are.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment was written 220+ years ago. That was when the only guns available were single shot muskets that took 30 to 60 seconds to load, fire and reload. That same gun that you used to hunt and feed your family was also used to defend the country from the British. Who the hell are we going to defend ourselves from in 2012 with an AR-15 that can kill/wound almost a hundred people in a minute or two?


When the second amendment was written it applied to state-of-the-art military-style weapons. Often better than the military issued weapons of the time in fact.

Do I need to haul out the old counter argument that the First Amendment should only apply to quill pens, hand operated printing presses, and shouting from a soapbox in the town square?

/BTW, Canada has more guns per capita than the US
 
2012-07-23 01:33:30 PM  
For those who think gun control is the answer, please read about Chicago. Chicago has some of the most strict gun control laws in the U.S., yet suffers from some of the highest rates of homicide and hand-gun violence. For instance, as of July 13th, there have been 1409 people shot (245 of which were killed, 34 on one weekend). Why is this not being discussed?

Refs:
Link
Link
Link
 
2012-07-23 01:34:22 PM  

ou_fan222: For those who think gun control is the answer, please read about Chicago. Chicago has some of the most strict gun control laws in the U.S., yet suffers from some of the highest rates of homicide and hand-gun violence. For instance, as of July 13th, there have been 1409 people shot (245 of which were killed, 34 on one weekend). Why is this not being discussed?

Refs:
Link
Link
Link


Because 99% of the shooters and shootees are black.
 
2012-07-23 01:34:41 PM  

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.


As one of the most popular firearms in America, it's useful for any number of purposes that other small-caliber rifles are useful for: target shooting, pest control (.223 is remarkably effective on prairie dogs and coyotes), recreational and competitive shooting, and so on. I'm not sure how popular it is for hunting, but .223 caliber ammo is suitable for deer-sized and smaller game, and .223 rifles are certainly not uncommonly used for hunting.

The AR is quite popular as it's pretty accurate from the factory (and can be made much more accurate with various aftermarket modifications), moderately priced, there's a lot of accessories/mods available (e.g. optics, different hand grips, etc.), it has good ergonomics, it's widely compatible with common mil-spec components, magazines are available for cheap, ammo is reasonably affordable, etc. Quite a few of the AR owners I know are former military: they already have training on the M16/M4 and the AR-15 is essentially the same gun without the full-auto bits, so they're already familiar with its operation and maintenance.

Since the AR-15 is a relative of the full-auto/select-fire M16/M4 military rifles, it shares many of the beneficial properties: it's quite durable, rugged, and (with proper maintenance) reliable. Replacement parts, when needed, are widely available and modestly priced. Unfortunately, this also leads to the AR's major "sin": some people think it looks scary, even though it's functionally identical to other common .223/5.56mm rifles like the Ruger Mini-14.

The regulated, serial-numbered lower receiver (legally the "gun") can be mated to any number of compatible upper receivers (which are considered accessories). The standard uppers are in .223/5.56mm NATO but one can get uppers chambered in anything from .22 LR to .50 BMG. I've seen quite a few people with ARs with an upper chambered in 9mm using commonly-available Glock pistol magazines, as 9mm is quite a bit cheaper than .223/5.56mm and allows them to practice for less money -- same thing with .22LR. This sort of flexibility is a major advantage compared to other common semi-auto rifles: a new upper is usually only a few hundred dollars while a completely new rifle in a different caliber can range from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.

I personally have two: a heavy-barreled 20"-barrel rifle for medium-distance shooting (out to ~500 yards but it's hard to find a lot of ranges with ranges that long, so I mostly use it at 300 yards and less). This rifle has a scope and a fixed stock. The second is a smaller, 16"-barrel version with an adjustable stock that's more convenient for run-and-gun competitions due to its smaller size and weight. When teaching new shooters, the adjustable stock is nice because people can adjust it so that it's comfortable for them.

In short, the AR-15 is popular because it's essentially a universal, jack-of-all-trades rifle. It's difficult to find any particular reason why a civilian gun-owner wouldn't want one.

/For recreational shooting I prefer my suppressed Ruger 10/22, though: it's a lot of fun, quiet, and cheap. It's fantastic for taking new shooters to the range.
//My M1 Garand is nice too. Extremely well-balanced. Heavy, though. While the weight sucks if you're lugging it around, it helps soak up recoil.
 
2012-07-23 01:35:15 PM  

Kit Fister: Wendy's Chili: cirby: Chummer45:
So you're saying that your right to own small arms is super important, because without it you wouldn't be able to defend yourself against the tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers in our multibillion dollar military?

Not really. That's the nice thing about having a professional military that swears an oath to the Constitution instead of to a politician. When you go through basic training, they make a HUGE point about that, and what to do in case of unlawful orders - which is to refuse them.

In case of an insurrection like that, civilians wouldn't be fighting the military - they'd be fighting the police. Or, if the government tried to use the military through deception ("they're bad guys, we're the good guys"), enough of the rest of the military would be sympathetic to the insurrectionists that those billion-dollar toys wouldn't be effective. Any President - Democrat or Republican - who tried to use the military like that would have many other problems to deal with, like a revolt from the military itself.

THIS IS WHAT GUN NUTS REALLY BELIEVE

Because, if you talk to any number of people in the military, it's true.


If the government gunmen are already on the side of the gun nuts, who are the gun nuts so afraid of that they feel the need to stock pile guns?
 
2012-07-23 01:36:20 PM  

hasty ambush: Most of the "mainstream" media has a high level of ignorance about things like firearms, military equipment and the military in general.


Except for a few clueless idiots, I'm not inclined to belive that. They have an agenda. They count on the fact that most of the public is ignorant of such things.
 
2012-07-23 01:36:44 PM  

Chummer45: What is so goddamned "precious" about the "right" to own an assault rifle?


Real assault rifles (selectable fire) were essentially banned back in the 30's because of the excesses of the Al Capone era*. The versions on the market now may look like their military cousins and do share some parts, but the real defining feature of an assault rifle -- the ability to select fully-automatic fire -- has been effectively banned for a very long time.

...so if there was anything precious about that right, it was done-away with long ago.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
 
2012-07-23 01:37:46 PM  

ou_fan222: For those who think gun control is the answer, please read about Chicago. Chicago has some of the most strict gun control laws in the U.S., yet suffers from some of the highest rates of homicide and hand-gun violence. For instance, as of July 13th, there have been 1409 people shot (245 of which were killed, 34 on one weekend). Why is this not being discussed?

Refs:
Link
Link
Link


To be fair, gun violence in Chicago is clearly the fault of the NRA and downstate voters, not the thugs and criminals who occupy the neighborhoods where the shootings take place. It's certainly not the fault of our drug policy, or our education system. That's why Mayor Emanuel is courageously standing up to the gun owners after disbanding the city's gang units and diverting resources to restaurants and liquor stores with code violations, by pushing for all residents of Illinois to register and pay a fee for each handgun they have the privilege of owning.
 
2012-07-23 01:38:01 PM  

HeadLever: Nonsense? No, it was the repurcussions of knowingly allowing guns to be illeagly purchased in the first place that was the issue and had us 'righ-wingers' upset.


So you're saying that, if not for Fast and Furious, the drug runner who shot the border agent would have been unarmed?
 
2012-07-23 01:38:17 PM  

Wendy's Chili: Chummer45: Seriously. gun nuts will defend indefinite detention before acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, some gun accessories shouldn't be available to the general public.

Open question to the gun lovers...

Where should the line be drawn (if anywhere)? Machine guns? Rotary cannons? Rocket launchers? Guided missiles? Nukes?

When does one cross over from being a patriot to a bed-wetting liberal?


Where is stands now is pretty good. Without a Federal collector's/dealer's license, civilians can't get automatic weapons. Civilians can't get artilery, crew-served weapons, anti-armor rockets, or grenades.

They can get semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
 
2012-07-23 01:38:19 PM  

Void_Beavis: Big Man On Campus: mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

Could someone please explain why any average person would need a monster truck and a turbine-propelled powerboat. I'm not looking for a "because it's a free country". I'm looking for an explanation of what on earth you could possibly need with that kind of extravagance.

/if you question a freedom, prepare to question all freedoms.

I'm no gun control advocate, but none of the things you mention have the express purpose of killing another human being. It seems like a straw-man argument.


It might seem that way, if you're looking at it solely from the perspective of gun control. If, however, you're looking at it from the perspective of freedoms preserving a way of life you have something different entirely. You have to consider that questioning one freedom simply because there is a small percentage of bad that is disliked associated with it means you should in-fact question ALL freedom when the results of that freedom are not to your liking.

When you question freedoms because you dislike some bad stuff that happens because of it, you get government agencies like the T.S.A., and that's just one step down the road towards a government that restricts most freedom in the effort of keeping you safe.
 
2012-07-23 01:38:36 PM  
i939.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-23 01:38:52 PM  

cirby: Chummer45:
What is so goddamned "precious" about the "right" to own an assault rifle?

What is so goddamned precious about "banning" them?

The whole Assault Weapons Ban silliness from the 1990s was purely cosmetic - most of the hardware banned by the law just made the guns look "cooler" - it had zero effect on their actual effectiveness. Even the high-cap magazine ban didn't do a damned thing - most murders are done with one to three rounds at close range.



I agree that the assault weapons ban was stupid, because it was filled with loopholes and banned things that just made the weapons look scary.

I love that you're pointing to a crappy law and defective product as proof that we just shouldn't regulate these things.
 
2012-07-23 01:39:51 PM  

NightOwl2255: [i939.photobucket.com image 761x528]


I noticed she needs sunscreen.
 
2012-07-23 01:40:47 PM  
mgshamster:
I'm also really curious why one gunman would have too much visual noise to be able to shoot someone, while another gunman wouldn't have too much visual noise in the exact same situation.

Aside from "one of them is standing at the front of the theater while firing a lot of bullets while the other is hiding behind a seat in the audience full of running people?" Muzzle flash is a GREAT way to target people in low-light environments.

Not to mention that one was wearing the aforementioned gas mask, which is NOT, in any way, good for vision?

I've been exposed to tear gas and CS gas and Mace - and yes, it's nasty, but it's better (once again) than dying without fighting back. The people in the front rows were affected by whatever he used, but (from some of the reports of TV) most of it didn't make it past the front couple of rows.

At least three men in that theater managed to perform enough target acquisition to find the shooter and run directly at him. He killed them. And you're trying to claim that those guys wouldn't have made a difference if they'd been carrying weapons?
 
2012-07-23 01:41:03 PM  

The_Sponge: Wendy's Chili: Each morning The_Sponge rolls over in bed to face the guns he sleeps with, closes his eyes, purses his lips and says, "This is it. This is the day Red Dawn really happens".


What you don't know about average gun owners (like me) could fill a library.


Bless your heart.
 
2012-07-23 01:41:22 PM  

Chummer45: cirby: Chummer45:
What is so goddamned "precious" about the "right" to own an assault rifle?

What is so goddamned precious about "banning" them?

The whole Assault Weapons Ban silliness from the 1990s was purely cosmetic - most of the hardware banned by the law just made the guns look "cooler" - it had zero effect on their actual effectiveness. Even the high-cap magazine ban didn't do a damned thing - most murders are done with one to three rounds at close range.


I agree that the assault weapons ban was stupid, because it was filled with loopholes and banned things that just made the weapons look scary.

I love that you're pointing to a crappy law and defective product as proof that we just shouldn't regulate these things.


This is where you tell us about your reasonable gun control proposals and how 'commonsense' laws will save lives, and how this time, your AWB will be different then the last one.
 
2012-07-23 01:41:55 PM  

Chummer45: Fark It: Chummer45: You must not have wanted the government to do anything to prevent those sort of attacks, because you're perfectly rational and know that those 3,000 deaths were pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I can't speak for who you're responding to, but the TSA, indefinite detention, most of the GWOT has been a gigantic overreach at the expense of our civil liberties and billions of dollars. Has any of that made us safer? Well, we can't really know for sure, and if it has it certainly hasn't been worth the freedoms we've sacrificed.

I feel exactly the same way about assault weapon bans.


Ok. I understand that argument with respect to warrantless wiretapping. What is so goddamned "precious" about the "right" to own an assault rifle?


Since the term 'assault' is a vauge and ill defined term any way it really does not mean much. As for owning a rifle, there are many uses for that. Some of them are within the context of 'defense' and some of them are within the context of hunting and sport.
 
2012-07-23 01:42:03 PM  
i939.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-23 01:42:21 PM  

Zumaki: Kit Fister:

The guns make it a lot easier to kill people than with rocks or bare hands, though.


a bomb or weaponized anthrax do, too. Why bother with all the work to load magazines, reload guns, carry all that shiat around, actually shoot at people when you can simply make a bomb or a virus, drop it into a crowd, and walk away.
 
2012-07-23 01:42:49 PM  

Fark It: ou_fan222: For those who think gun control is the answer, please read about Chicago. Chicago has some of the most strict gun control laws in the U.S., yet suffers from some of the highest rates of homicide and hand-gun violence. For instance, as of July 13th, there have been 1409 people shot (245 of which were killed, 34 on one weekend). Why is this not being discussed?

Refs:
Link
Link
Link

To be fair, gun violence in Chicago is clearly the fault of the NRA and downstate voters, not the thugs and criminals who occupy the neighborhoods where the shootings take place. It's certainly not the fault of our drug policy, or our education system. That's why Mayor Emanuel is courageously standing up to the gun owners after disbanding the city's gang units and diverting resources to restaurants and liquor stores with code violations, by pushing for all residents of Illinois to register and pay a fee for each handgun they have the privilege of owning.


To be fair, instead of playing Shadow Run, most people just go to Detroit Chicago for the real life experience.
 
2012-07-23 01:42:56 PM  

cirby: mgshamster:
I'm also really curious why one gunman would have too much visual noise to be able to shoot someone, while another gunman wouldn't have too much visual noise in the exact same situation.

Aside from "one of them is standing at the front of the theater while firing a lot of bullets while the other is hiding behind a seat in the audience full of running people?" Muzzle flash is a GREAT way to target people in low-light environments.

Not to mention that one was wearing the aforementioned gas mask, which is NOT, in any way, good for vision?

I've been exposed to tear gas and CS gas and Mace - and yes, it's nasty, but it's better (once again) than dying without fighting back. The people in the front rows were affected by whatever he used, but (from some of the reports of TV) most of it didn't make it past the front couple of rows.

At least three men in that theater managed to perform enough target acquisition to find the shooter and run directly at him. He killed them. And you're trying to claim that those guys wouldn't have made a difference if they'd been carrying weapons?


Psssh. Hogwash, NRA gun-nut. A concealed carrier wouldn't have been able to make a difference.

Now, if he had to reload or switch weapons then someone without a weapons clearly could have made a difference.
 
2012-07-23 01:43:36 PM  

bikerbob59:


Exactly.
 
2012-07-23 01:43:37 PM  

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.


The fun kind?
 
2012-07-23 01:44:31 PM  

Sensei Can You See: Wendy's Chili: The number of criminals arrested posessing extended magazines dropped year after year during the assault weapon ban. When it was lifted the numbers skyrocketed.

[citation needed]

Pssst: You could still buy extended magazines during the ban. Legally. You just couldn't manufacture them.


And as I understood it, you couldn't use those extended capacity magazines or other banned parts in a "Ban Legal" weapon.

What? You folks didn't know that you could still buy a perfectly legal ak-47 during the assault weapons ban?
You sure could. And AR-15's too etc etc.

That ban was the biggest vote buying joke I have ever seen.
 
2012-07-23 01:44:47 PM  

Fark It: Chummer45: cirby: Chummer45:
What is so goddamned "precious" about the "right" to own an assault rifle?

What is so goddamned precious about "banning" them?

The whole Assault Weapons Ban silliness from the 1990s was purely cosmetic - most of the hardware banned by the law just made the guns look "cooler" - it had zero effect on their actual effectiveness. Even the high-cap magazine ban didn't do a damned thing - most murders are done with one to three rounds at close range.


I agree that the assault weapons ban was stupid, because it was filled with loopholes and banned things that just made the weapons look scary.

I love that you're pointing to a crappy law and defective product as proof that we just shouldn't regulate these things.

This is where you tell us about your reasonable gun control proposals and how 'commonsense' laws will save lives, and how this time, your AWB will be different then the last one.


so then the laws we already have banning murder and such are not common sense laws? Who knew?
 
2012-07-23 01:46:19 PM  

give me doughnuts: Wendy's Chili: Chummer45: Seriously. gun nuts will defend indefinite detention before acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, some gun accessories shouldn't be available to the general public.

Open question to the gun lovers...

Where should the line be drawn (if anywhere)? Machine guns? Rotary cannons? Rocket launchers? Guided missiles? Nukes?

When does one cross over from being a patriot to a bed-wetting liberal?

Where is stands now is pretty good. Without a Federal collector's/dealer's license, civilians can't get automatic weapons. Civilians can't get artilery, crew-served weapons, anti-armor rockets, or grenades.

They can get semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.


I was hoping to get a response from someone who interprets the Second Amendment to mean they're entitled to any and all killing tools. You haven't mentioned it in this thread, but I'll ask anyway: How is a handgun different from a .50 cal machine gun with regards to the Constitution?
 
2012-07-23 01:46:21 PM  
I'm sorry, but a paintball poster? Labeled as a video game poster? Are you farking serious?
 
2012-07-23 01:46:32 PM  
Chummer45:
I love that you're pointing to a crappy law and defective product as proof that we just shouldn't regulate these things.

I love that you're whining that we don't regulate something that's actually pretty heavily regulated.

The vast majority of gun crime in the US is in places that effectively ban personal firearms. Adding more laws to the already-ridiculous number in effect won't do a damned thing.
 
2012-07-23 01:46:33 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The issue now is your failure to acknowledge contradicting yourself. I'm not interested in your character flaws.


You said I defended the availability of 100-round magazines because they don't work. I replied that the specific make and model of magazine Holmes purchased tends to jam.

Holmes bought one of these:

www.mississippiautoarms.com

For various reasons, mostly because they're just too complicated, this type of magazine is notorious for jamming.

You can, however, also get 100-round magazines that look like this:

www.brownells.com

This kind of magazine, while not as cool or fancy as the previous, is far more reliable.

I mentioned the jamming problems with the first mag because I'm thankful Holmes' inexperience led him to choose the wrong product.

As far as defending the availability of these magazines, I in no way defend them based on what Holmes did. I simply pointed out that this massacre could very well have been much worse if Holmes had not had access to high-cap mags. The fact that he did luckily led him to choose a bad one.
 
2012-07-23 01:48:38 PM  

Wendy's Chili: dittybopper: Wendy's Chili: dittybopper: And yet, homicides continued to drop post ban, to this very day. Obviously, standard capacity magazines aren't the issue.

Mass homicides are up.

So what? The *TOTAL* number of people killed continues to drop.

"So what?" Seriously?

70+ people were just shot in the blink of an eye. That's what.

If some tough from my home town of Camden wants to kill the kid from around the way, taking away his ability to buy a gun isn't going to change that. He'll use a knife, a bat, or his Timberland boots. But for a variety of reasons, those types of crime have gone down in the last decade or so.

But if some deranged shiat just wants to kill as many people as possible, the weapons at his disposal make the difference between 5 bodies and 20 bodies. My link above shows that the availability of extended magazines drops considerably after they're banned.


Uh, no........during the ban, I was able to purchase them at a gun show with no problem, there were more expensive though. They were also available at pawn shops, and at the local firearms shop I frequented.

Get your facts straight. btw - if you're just trolling, you're doing pretty well
 
2012-07-23 01:48:54 PM  

give me doughnuts: Wendy's Chili: Chummer45: Seriously. gun nuts will defend indefinite detention before acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, some gun accessories shouldn't be available to the general public.

Open question to the gun lovers...

Where should the line be drawn (if anywhere)? Machine guns? Rotary cannons? Rocket launchers? Guided missiles? Nukes?

When does one cross over from being a patriot to a bed-wetting liberal?

Where is stands now is pretty good. Without a Federal collector's/dealer's license, civilians can't get automatic weapons. Civilians can't get artilery, crew-served weapons, anti-armor rockets, or grenades.

They can get semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.


I agree that it's not bad, but they probably should ban high-cap magazines. It's not a perfect solution, but they clearly help facilitate these types of mass shootings, and serve no legitimate purpose (other than they're cool).

It's a simple cost-benefit analysis that we do with pretty much every other product on the market. There's no good reason to treat guns any different.
 
2012-07-23 01:50:24 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-07-23 01:50:27 PM  

Sensei Can You See: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The issue now is your failure to acknowledge contradicting yourself. I'm not interested in your character flaws.

You said I defended the availability of 100-round magazines because they don't work. I replied that the specific make and model of magazine Holmes purchased tends to jam.

Holmes bought one of these:

[www.mississippiautoarms.com image 330x310]

For various reasons, mostly because they're just too complicated, this type of magazine is notorious for jamming.

You can, however, also get 100-round magazines that look like this:

[www.brownells.com image 500x500]

This kind of magazine, while not as cool or fancy as the previous, is far more reliable.

I mentioned the jamming problems with the first mag because I'm thankful Holmes' inexperience led him to choose the wrong product.

As far as defending the availability of these magazines, I in no way defend them based on what Holmes did. I simply pointed out that this massacre could very well have been much worse if Holmes had not had access to high-cap mags. The fact that he did luckily led him to choose a bad one.



I see. Thank God for his bad luck. Thanks for your insight.
 
2012-07-23 01:51:01 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: HeadLever: Nonsense? No, it was the repurcussions of knowingly allowing guns to be illeagly purchased in the first place that was the issue and had us 'righ-wingers' upset.

So you're saying that, if not for Fast and Furious, the drug runner who shot the border agent would have been unarmed?


Try using that 'criminals will get guns anyway' in a defense where your provided a known criminal a gun and then he shot someone. Let me know how well that works out for you.

Being a straw buyer is a crime for a reason.
 
2012-07-23 01:51:24 PM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: What? You folks didn't know that you could still buy a perfectly legal ak-47 during the assault weapons ban?
You sure could. And AR-15's too etc etc.


Well, semi-auto versions of AK-47s.
 
2012-07-23 01:52:19 PM  

Death_Poot: Uh, no........during the ban, I was able to purchase them at a gun show with no problem, there were more expensive though. They were also available at pawn shops, and at the local firearms shop I frequented.

Get your facts straight.


I must have missed the part where I said they completely vanished from existence.
 
2012-07-23 01:52:23 PM  

pacified: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x675]


If gun ownership was a privilege....

/it's not
 
2012-07-23 01:53:31 PM  

give me doughnuts: Without a Federal collector's/dealer's license, civilians can't get automatic weapons.


Not true. To get an automatic weapon you simply need to apply for automatic weapons license after your FBI background check. Assuming you pass the check you pay a $200 transfer tax when you buy the weapon.

You also need loads of money because the '86 bill made the ones in circulation VERY expensive.
 
2012-07-23 01:53:37 PM  

give me doughnuts: Without a Federal collector's/dealer's license, civilians can't get automatic weapons. Civilians can't get artilery, crew-served weapons, anti-armor rockets, or grenades.


At the risk of being somewhat pedantic, that's not precisely true. A Federal tax stamp is required (usually on an ATF Form 4) for the ownership of automatic weapons, silencers, short-barreled rifles or shotguns, destructive devices (artillery, grenades, etc.). A specific class of dealer license is required to buy and sell such firearms as a dealer, but is not required for ownership. One could argue that the requirement for a tax stamp is effectively a "license" and I'd agree, but it helps to be correct.

It's a common misconception, but not an unreasonable one. I hope you don't mind my correction.

The machine gun registry has been closed to new, public-transferrable items since 1986. All machine guns manufactured after that date are only authorized for police/military use or for use as dealer samples (ostensibly to demonstrate the item to police/military customers). Private citizens cannot own post-1986 machine guns. This restriction does not apply to silencers, SBRs, SBSs, or DDs.

/jumped through the hoops for a tax stamp for a silencer for my .22 LR rifle. Really great for informal shooting with subsonic ammo as earmuffs are not required. Also handy for teaching new shooters, as .22 has essentially no recoil and the silencer helps lessen their nervousness with the loud sounds of shooting.
//has a friend who is a Class III dealer. I got to go out to the range with him and his other Class III dealer buddy a few years back and shoot suppressed M16s and an suppressed Uzi. Fun times.
 
2012-07-23 01:54:07 PM  

Death_Poot: Wendy's Chili: dittybopper: Wendy's Chili: dittybopper: And yet, homicides continued to drop post ban, to this very day. Obviously, standard capacity magazines aren't the issue.

Mass homicides are up.

So what? The *TOTAL* number of people killed continues to drop.

"So what?" Seriously?

70+ people were just shot in the blink of an eye. That's what.

If some tough from my home town of Camden wants to kill the kid from around the way, taking away his ability to buy a gun isn't going to change that. He'll use a knife, a bat, or his Timberland boots. But for a variety of reasons, those types of crime have gone down in the last decade or so.

But if some deranged shiat just wants to kill as many people as possible, the weapons at his disposal make the difference between 5 bodies and 20 bodies. My link above shows that the availability of extended magazines drops considerably after they're banned.

Uh, no........during the ban, I was able to purchase them at a gun show with no problem, there were more expensive though. They were also available at pawn shops, and at the local firearms shop I frequented.

Get your facts straight. btw - if you're just trolling, you're doing pretty well


I don't understand how saying "previous gun laws had tons of loopholes" supports your position that better, more effective laws shouldn't be passed.
 
2012-07-23 01:54:22 PM  

Chummer45: I see. Thank God for his bad luck. Thanks for your insight.


You're welcome. Are you sure you're on the right site?
 
2012-07-23 01:54:44 PM  

Fark It: pacified: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x675]

If gun ownership was a privilege....

/it's not


Tell that to convicted felons.
 
2012-07-23 01:55:49 PM  

Chummer45: I don't understand how saying "previous gun laws had tons of loopholes" supports your position that better, more effective laws shouldn't be passed.


What loopholes? How do you proposed closing them?

/the people who wrote these laws knowing fark-all about guns doesn't count as a loophole
 
2012-07-23 01:56:05 PM  

Sensei Can You See: Chummer45: I see. Thank God for his bad luck. Thanks for your insight.

You're welcome. Are you sure you're on the right site?



I'm never sure about that.
 
2012-07-23 01:56:47 PM  
I admit to mostly lurking around here, but I learned a bunch of things on this thread. I didn't know what an AR-15 was good for (going to the range and hitting what you aim at without having to reload every ten seconds), and it sounds like it'd be good for something besides fascist governments and zombies.

We had ourselves a huge pandemic panic a few years ago. I went as far as to buy an extra bag of flour in case all the grocery stores stopped getting restocked. If I had felt the need to actually stock up on food, I might have bothered to figure out where we keep the bullets for the .22, but then since that's mostly for punching little holes in things, I would have moved down the road to my friends' house. He's Kansas farm stock. I'm sure he's armed, and he loves it when people bring him food, and I'm sure he wouldn't let somebody else take it away.

/ I could probably find the bullets if you give me a couple of minutes. I'm a girl. I know where stuff is (mostly).
 
2012-07-23 01:58:19 PM  

HeadLever: Try using that 'criminals will get guns anyway' in a defense where your provided a known criminal a gun and then he shot someone. Let me know how well that works out for you.

Being a straw buyer is a crime for a reason.


This has gotten way off topic, but just for the record, is the following statement ridiculous: "A gun from Fast and Furious killed a border agent."
 
Displayed 50 of 425 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report