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.

(Talking Points Memo)   The history of the AR-15, the gun used at Sandy Hook. Since the media doing this, I'm impressed we're not looking at a picture of the AK-47. I mean, they're both assault rifles and both have "A" in their name   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 667
    More: Interesting, Sandy Hook, assault rifles, Kalashnikov, Palm City, semi-automatic rifle, John Allen Muhammad, Cerberus Capital Management LP, assault weapons ban  
•       •       •

13565 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-21 10:45:14 AM

Evil Twin Skippy:
Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.



So apparently you're of the opinion that war could never come to our shores? Or of the opinion that our government could never become corrupt and evil and revolution could not be needed? The 2nd Amendment is there to protect our citizens from a tyrannical government, OUR government, if it becomes that way. The 2A is there to keep our government in check, not the other way around. Otherwise you end up with a runaway government like the UK or Australia where even porn is censored out of games, and you have to ask your social betters pretty please to buy a butter knife.

The second amendment isn't there just for hunting, or even sport shooting. It has a very real and important reason for existing. Freedom comes with a price, and unfortunately sometimes that price is paid in blood.
 
2012-12-21 10:45:17 AM
This might be dated but


For ALL you gun control nuts
 
2012-12-21 10:45:28 AM

LasersHurt: Dimensio: Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

Are you saying that ANYONE has suggested to ban Bushmaster brand rifles?


" am not buying the notion that you can't ban a Bushmaster without also effectively banning a .22 handgun."
 
2012-12-21 10:46:07 AM

HeadLever: Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

For me, they were a great thing to have when hunting varmints during winter. Didn't want to have to reload that thing up ever 3 mintes, especially when the fingers were not working all that well due to the cold.

Is it a need? No. Pretty handy though.


Point taken. Though, to be fair, the guy mowing down a row of unarmed people probably has the same complaint.
 
2012-12-21 10:47:22 AM

WinoRhino: Gosling: The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Someone steals my car and hits a pedestrian. Ban the Honda Civic.


No, it's covered by the 2nd Amendment. Being in a militia is a Civic duty.
 
2012-12-21 10:47:22 AM

Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?


She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.
 
2012-12-21 10:49:02 AM

remus: Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip...

You claim to have been "at the range" and you actually ask why a civilian would need a 30 round magazine? Seriously? How many times do you have to stop to refill your magazines with fresh ammo? It takes a bit of time doesn't it? Hurts the fingers too if you don't have a loader, right? Why does a civilian need a 30 round mag? Because it makes shooting at the range far more enjoyable; you can shoot longer without refilling mags and, thus, save time, which many ranges charge you by the hour.  I'd rather load up 10 thirty round mags to go to the range than 30 ten round mags. Saves space in my range bag. Also, it's a lot faster to fill with my loader device.


Well shooting at the range, for me, includes evaluating my groupings, improving my aim, and taking time to take my shot. Any idiot can put lead down range. If the time it takes you to fill your clip is the problem, why not just take a belt fed machine gun with you?

(Besides, feeding a 10 round magazine doesn't take nearly as much time as a 30 rounder. And I don't need an special tools.)
 
2012-12-21 10:49:33 AM

Gosling: Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?
 
2012-12-21 10:49:39 AM
This is quite a unique case anyway. I am all for freedom to own guns. But she had a batshiat crazy kid, with a history of violence. Keeping guns around him was criminal. If she was alive, I would want her to pay dearly for stupidity.

If someone breaks in to your house, steals a gun, then commits a crime, that is different in my eyes.
 
2012-12-21 10:50:40 AM

DjangoStonereaver: BolshyGreatYarblocks: A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?

I worked with a Vietnam vet, and once we got into a semi-serious discussion at the end of a staff meeting
of what weapon we'd use if we ever decided to gun down our coworkers.

I was firmly in the AK-47 camp since it is very reliable.  My coworker was a staunch defender of the M-16,
saying that the only reason it got a bad reputation was that it was given to Marines who didn't know how
to clean them properly.

In the end, we mutually decided that since really loved and respected our officemates as people we'd use
a machete.

Meanwhile, our then-new supervisor was sitting in the corner, shaking his head and saying "Guys, you
know I'm supposed to report this, right?"  Thankfully, it later turned out he was just as much a weirdo
reprobate as anyone on our team, and he was a great boss for 2 years.

/Nowadays, though, there probably would have been a SWAT team waiting in our cubicles.


No love for the Thompson? Converted for full auto, of course, and with the 50 round drum. There's just something about that .45 round, especially at the close quarters you'd encounter.
 
2012-12-21 10:50:43 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Well shooting at the range, for me, includes evaluating my groupings, improving my aim, and taking time to take my shot. Any idiot can put lead down range. If the time it takes you to fill your clip is the problem, why not just take a belt fed machine gun with you?

(Besides, feeding a 10 round magazine doesn't take nearly as much time as a 30 rounder. And I don't need an special tools.)


The Aurora shooter didn't have a clip. He had a goddamn drum.
 
2012-12-21 10:50:44 AM

Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

Are you saying that ANYONE has suggested to ban Bushmaster brand rifles?

" am not buying the notion that you can't ban a Bushmaster without also effectively banning a .22 handgun."


"I take things wildly out of context and reductio ad absurdum, because I am scared."
 
2012-12-21 10:51:00 AM
Loader device?

We have gotten so bad people are too lazy to manually load a magazine?
 
2012-12-21 10:51:26 AM

thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.


Actually, it's "Modern Sporting Rifle", and it's based on prior precedent: Military-style firearms of today become the commonly accepted civilian sporting arms of tomorrow. It happened with caplock muzzleloaders, revolvers, cartridge guns, bolt actions, the Colt 1911, and semi-automatic rifles of all stripes.

Of course, it goes the other way too: Civilians actually adopted semi-auto rifles before the military did. The Remington Model 8 semi-auto rifle was a pricey, but common enough sporting rifle that was introduced in 1906. The first military to adopt a semi-auto rifle for widespread military use was the US Army in 1936, a full 30 years after US hunters started using them. BTW, Mikhail Kalashnikov cribbed large portions of his design for the AK-47 from the John Browning-designed Model 8.

Anyway, military guns end up being popular with civilians, and civilian guns end up being popular with the military. Both find ways to adapt the others guns to their own use. Sniper rifles and target rifles have pretty much the same exact uses, only the target differs. So-called "assault weapons" can and are used for hunting: AK's and SKS's are starting to replace the venerable lever-action .30-30 as the swamp/deep woods deer carbine of choice, and the AR platform has numerous deer cartridges available for it, along with "varmint" cartridges like the ubiquitous .223 Remington, the standard 'AR' caliber.

In other words, there really is no good way to distinguish between so-called "assault weapons" and common semi-automatic sporting rifles as they share a very intermixed lineage. Either you ban guns based solely on cosmetic features (like the previous AWB), or you also ban a very large number of commonly used sporting guns.
 
2012-12-21 10:51:42 AM

tetsoushima: bungle_jr: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.
exactly. anything that can harm someone can be used in an "assault"

"1a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"

ban fists!

If criminals are going to break laws anyways, why bother having laws, right?


No, we should have laws against punching people, so that even though people will still be punched, we have the legal tools to punish them for harming another when they do, and showing by example what happens to people who punch others.

Even better though, if people didn't have fists no one would get punched. Its only logical. So, do we chop your hands off? People might build evil dead type gauntlets and still punch others. Chop your arm off at the elbow? There's still going to be some people swinging their flippers about causing mayhem. Best to remove your arm at the shoulder.

So what then? I see an escalation in kicking occurring soon after. Were going to need to be doing some serious foot chopping pretty soon.
 
2012-12-21 10:52:07 AM

Gosling: Evil Twin Skippy: Well shooting at the range, for me, includes evaluating my groupings, improving my aim, and taking time to take my shot. Any idiot can put lead down range. If the time it takes you to fill your clip is the problem, why not just take a belt fed machine gun with you?

(Besides, feeding a 10 round magazine doesn't take nearly as much time as a 30 rounder. And I don't need an special tools.)

The Aurora shooter didn't have a clip. He had a goddamn drum.


His drum jammed relatively quickly, and he damaged his rifle in attempting to clear it.
 
2012-12-21 10:52:47 AM

FightDirector: Gosling: FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.

So therefore let's give up and give everyone more guns, right?

I am not buying the notion that you can't ban a Bushmaster without also effectively banning a .22 handgun. You're not getting out of this one without at least some type of legislation being introduced. You might as well TRY and help because if you just sit there whining 'but it's too haaaaaaaard', we're just going to do it without you and you're not going to like what we come up with.

An unenforcable law is one that should not be written. How are you going to get rid of the millions (and face it, there ARE millions) of AR-15s already out there? There's no registry. There's no way to track them. As far as the government is concerned, every person in the country has between zero and a billion firearms in their home. You can't just "wait for them to wear out"...the weapons will last 50+ years, easily, with proper care. So how do you get rid of what's already out there?

The only answer is house-to-house searches. Good farking luck with that. That'll end up killing more people than a decade of gun violence. Moreover, it will absolutely require the military to be deployed offensively against the civilian population. THERE'S a precedent we want set, right?

Your turn: what's the solution to between 70 million and 120 million gun owners who you'd have to take guns from?


It worked just fine in New Orleans after Katrina. Gun owners handed them over wholesale with little more than a whimper.
 
2012-12-21 10:52:56 AM

born_yesterday: DjangoStonereaver: BolshyGreatYarblocks: A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?

I worked with a Vietnam vet, and once we got into a semi-serious discussion at the end of a staff meeting
of what weapon we'd use if we ever decided to gun down our coworkers.

I was firmly in the AK-47 camp since it is very reliable.  My coworker was a staunch defender of the M-16,
saying that the only reason it got a bad reputation was that it was given to Marines who didn't know how
to clean them properly.

In the end, we mutually decided that since really loved and respected our officemates as people we'd use
a machete.

Meanwhile, our then-new supervisor was sitting in the corner, shaking his head and saying "Guys, you
know I'm supposed to report this, right?"  Thankfully, it later turned out he was just as much a weirdo
reprobate as anyone on our team, and he was a great boss for 2 years.

/Nowadays, though, there probably would have been a SWAT team waiting in our cubicles.

No love for the Thompson? Converted for full auto, of course, and with the 50 round drum. There's just something about that .45 round, especially at the close quarters you'd encounter.


We were tacitly keeping ourselves to the more commonly available weapons.

Besides:  even with a Cutts compensator the Tommy Gun tends to rise with prolonged fire.
 
2012-12-21 10:53:17 AM

Gosling: Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


I disagree. To me, guns aren't the problem at all. If somebody wants to own a tommy gun, and M-2, and a barret sniper rifle, bully for them.

Ammo. Ammo is where we have to draw the line. If I have to show my driver's license to get cold medicine, somebody trying to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition should get the same scrutiny. Shoot all the ammo you want at the range, if you buy it at the range. Come up with some sensible level that would get a hunter through a season in the bush. But anything more than that should a) be considered extremely distasteful by all gun owners, and b) should be controlled as a public hazard.
 
2012-12-21 10:53:22 AM

CygnusDarius: Fark it, I'll make my own guns.

[englishrussia.com image 520x390]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

/From link


Neat. :-)

But all you really need these days is a computer and a 3-D Printer. Presto - instant gun.
 
2012-12-21 10:53:48 AM

remus: Endive Wombat: [i51.tinypic.com image 640x533]
I still shake my head that during the height of the coverage of Sandy Hook, Megyn Kelly at Fox reported that the shooter is suspected to have a 9mm handgun and a Glock.

Well, to be fair, her statement was accurate. He indeed had a 9mm Sig and a 10mm Glock. Since the Glock wasn't also a 9mm, nor was it a Sig Sauer, it does belong to a different set than "9mm handgun", and the Sig does not belong to the discrete set "Glock", thus her statement was factually correct.


Fair enough.  But she did not know that at the time of the broadcast.  More importantly, why does the caliber of the gun even matter?  You have got close to 30 people dead, 20 of them kids.  The caliber of the gun(s) used does not change anything.

The problem is when the media and politicians start using terminology that they do not fully understand...them being on TV = to most, an authority figure and or expert...so their ignorance is spread to the masses.

Hell, look at all the derp that is coming from the far left/ignorant on the issue of gun control.  I cannot wait to see what Carolyn MccArthy attempts to legislate against next.  Shes already going after The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up and Heat Seeking Bullets.
 
2012-12-21 10:54:23 AM
Additional perspective is helpful:

2011 murder statistics, weapon used:

Rifle (any rifle, not just "assault weapons): 323
Knife or other cutting tool: 1,694
Unarmed attacks (hands, fists, feet, etc): 728
 
2012-12-21 10:54:43 AM

Gosling: Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


I'm more worried about the person who wants only one gun, tbh.
 
2012-12-21 10:56:30 AM

LasersHurt: FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban [...] in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.

What the fark is this shiat?


There's two points being made there, so the reduction you've made is intellectually dishonest.

The first point:
There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package)

This is the point being made by the Mini-14 comparison earlier. Everyone's up in arms about "assault weapons". Well, the Mini-14, which is not an assault weapon by even California's standards, does EVERYTHING the AR-15 does. It just looks different. Any wording you can come up with that would ban an AR-15 based on anything but performance would make a pointless law, because it wouldn't affect the Mini.

Which brings us to the second point:
or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.

So say we ban guns based on performance. The important parts of performance *tend* to be 1) Rate of Fire, 2) bullet size, 3) magazine capacity.

1) Rate of Fire. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm that fires 1 shot per pull of the trigger (4-5 rounds per second if you don't care about hitting anything, more realistically 2 rounds per second to 1 round per 2 seconds if you do care). EVERY modern firearm in the world matches or exceeds this rate of fire, save for bolt-action firearms; which aren't an option for self-defense purposes, which SCOTUS has already said is a legit and protected reason to own firearms.. A double-action revolver can equal this rate of fire. So if you ban based on RoF, you've essentially enacted a *de facto* ban on all firearms that can be rationally used for self-defense. Not acceptable.

2) Bullet size. Without getting too deeply into technical jargon, the .223 used in the AR-15 is a tiny, TINY bullet. It's not big enough for deer, really. You'd have to ban every rifle cartridge out there in any quantity if you got rid of the ".223 and bigger". Again, this is not acceptable. Moreover, if you just ban based on bullet diameter, well, the smallest rational self-defense pistol round is the .380 ACP...a round that's bigger than the .223. So you've also banned every pistol out there that isn't a .22.

3) Magazine Capacity. Reloading takes under 2 seconds. This is not a solution. Moreover, what are you going to do about the millions of 30-round magazine that already exist? We're back to door-to-door searches on this one. Again, this is not a solution.

Therefore, I think my point stands. You cannot legislate a solution to this that will not unduly infringe on firearm owners by *either* being an unenforceable and pointless law (because it only legislates based on appearance), or by being a *de facto* general gun ban due to the fact that the AR-15's performance characteristics are superceded in one fashion or another by a huge variety of pre-existing firearms which would also be caught up in such legislation.
 
2012-12-21 10:57:07 AM

Dimensio: Additional perspective is helpful:

2011 murder statistics, weapon used:

Rifle (any rifle, not just "assault weapons): 323
Knife or other cutting tool: 1,694
Unarmed attacks (hands, fists, feet, etc): 728


And handguns?
 
2012-12-21 10:57:11 AM
Ah, another Provda thread.
 
2012-12-21 10:57:22 AM

Gosling: The Aurora shooter didn't have a clip. He had a goddamn drum.


Yeah, and that jammed on him.  Those things are a joke and cheaply made.  Anything beyond 30 rounds, and the possibility of the mag not feeding correctly increases.
 
2012-12-21 10:57:50 AM

LasersHurt: "I take things wildly out of context and reductio ad absurdum, because I am scared."


Well, accepting it is the first step towards a long recovery. You're off to a good start!
 
KIA
2012-12-21 10:57:58 AM
In terms of whether it is a "military" weapon, it might bear mention that full-auto and burst-capable AR and AK weapons were used by the military in the Vietnam era --about 40 years ago.

Full auto and burst capable weapons are still illegal without extensive testing and licensing. They are incredibly expensive and are almost never used for crime.
 
2012-12-21 10:58:21 AM
Apparently We are going to have twenty gun threads a week until we get to the conclusion we want.

/the Armalite 15: soldiers say its too weak, boot lickers say its too strong.
/I say the media is full of shiat.
 
2012-12-21 10:58:24 AM

Gosling: Evil Twin Skippy: Well shooting at the range, for me, includes evaluating my groupings, improving my aim, and taking time to take my shot. Any idiot can put lead down range. If the time it takes you to fill your clip is the problem, why not just take a belt fed machine gun with you?

(Besides, feeding a 10 round magazine doesn't take nearly as much time as a 30 rounder. And I don't need an special tools.)

The Aurora shooter didn't have a clip. He had a goddamn drum.


Any knowledgeable shooter would never use an ammo drum like that. Those things are extremely prone to jamming. This is exactly what happened to the Aurora shooter, requiring him to switch to his shotgun. There's a big difference between standard capacity and high capacity magazines.
 
2012-12-21 10:58:36 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


You are what is known as a "Fudd".
 
2012-12-21 10:59:20 AM

Thunderpipes: Loader device?

We have gotten so bad people are too lazy to manually load a magazine?


You'd be surprised at how much ammo a person goes through for a defensive handgun class. Heck, even a practice trip at the range, I go through about 100-200 rounds. Magazines have pretty stiff springs in them, so you do have to use a little elbow grease to put cartridges in them, especially the last one or two. Repeat that times a couple hundred and you'll have a pretty sore thumb.
 
2012-12-21 10:59:40 AM

Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?


Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

It wouldn't do anything to the people who really do just want the one gun for hunting or protection. In fact, they can do both that way. Multiple types of game, even. But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.
 
2012-12-21 10:59:44 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Dimensio: Additional perspective is helpful:

2011 murder statistics, weapon used:

Rifle (any rifle, not just "assault weapons): 323
Knife or other cutting tool: 1,694
Unarmed attacks (hands, fists, feet, etc): 728

And handguns?


6,220
 
2012-12-21 10:59:55 AM

BokChoy: It worked just fine in New Orleans after Katrina. Gun owners handed them over wholesale with little more than a whimper.


That was prior to the Heller and McDonald decisions.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:09 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


Tell that to the tens of thousands of people that use it for small game hunting. Not every magazine is a 30rnd magazine.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:09 AM

vpb: HeadLever: LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

That would work for me. It won't be used though because it is not as easily associated with a harmful intent as all of these rifles must. We need to have 'assault', 'killing' 'attack', or 'accost' in its name.


Assault Rifle is the literal translation from German of the actual military designation of the StG 44.  It's hilarious that people who mock the media for not knowing about guns think it is some term made up by activists.  Or maybe the NRA is out to revise history again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44


It's not that they've made up the term 'assault rifle' it's that they're applying it incorrectly. These rifles don't not fire in full automatic or burst mode. They didn't make up the word 'bazooka' either, but to call this rifle one would also be incorrect.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:21 AM

Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?


Sorry, I still have a hard time believing that. Every reporter on the scene during the first few hours reported that the bushmaster was in the car, and that he had not carried it in with him. He didn't start shooting till he was inside, so what'd he do, teleport it out there? And then later in the afternoon everyone was saying yes, he DID use the bushmaster.

I just don't buy it. I think that's what they were TOLD to report.

Irregardless though, I believe this idiot would have done the same thing even if he had or didn't have the rifle.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:28 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


If you are rifle hunting, a .223 from an AR-15 or any other rifle is only considered functional for coyote or smaller. In most states, you can't hunt deer with anything smaller than .270. It is decidedly less lethal than the .308 and .30-06 it replaced, but it was lighter so you could carry more of them. The theory being, that even if you are shooting a less lethal bullet at me, I prefer to stay in cover than to pop my head up to see if I can shoot back.

So is the argument going to be that we can't use .223 because it is a people bullet, but deer and moose bullets are OK?
As for magazine limits, they are more functional for internal magazine weapons. As long as it is an external magazine, all you need is a bit of sheet metal and a bigger spring to increase the size of a standard magazine.

Besides, what do we mean with the 2nd amendment? What is a militia? If the point is to make people capable of organizing into a fighting unit to oppose government lead military enforcement, then the argument that something is a people killer or military-style is moot; because that is the point.

If we as a country feel that it is no longer possible for the government to use the military to oppress us internally, then we need to discuss what we want the 2nd amendment to mean and pass something saying so.

What do we want, how do we get there, and what are we willing to give up?

Say we limit magazines and rifle bullet sizes. It is still going to make the news when 1 person kills 5 with a .45 acp pistol. On a human level, that 5 is still too many; each life is precious in its own way. How do we stop that 1 person from thinking that killing others is a good idea? If you don't want to kill someone, then a fully automatic weapon with 1,000 bullets is harmless in your hands.

Funky, weird, maze-like laws just makes government grow bigger to hire people to do the paperwork. How do we educate and change minds and hearts? How do we help those who are a danger to themselves and/or others?

Why are we fighting about things instead of people? 1 year from now, everyone will remember the killer, and the victims will be lumped up into a number. There will be a disturbed person who feels alone that will think that at least Adam Lanza found a way to be remembered. Maybe I can be remembered too.
 
2012-12-21 11:02:00 AM

hundreddollarman: Thunderpipes: Loader device?

We have gotten so bad people are too lazy to manually load a magazine?

You'd be surprised at how much ammo a person goes through for a defensive handgun class. Heck, even a practice trip at the range, I go through about 100-200 rounds. Magazines have pretty stiff springs in them, so you do have to use a little elbow grease to put cartridges in them, especially the last one or two. Repeat that times a couple hundred and you'll have a pretty sore thumb.


I consider it part of the fun. Shot about 300 rounds last time at the range, .308 and some .223 a buddy let me use.

Like Arnold says about working out and wusses who use straps. Man up and let your forearms get strong, you won't need help.
 
2012-12-21 11:02:06 AM
If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself.
padens.com
 
2012-12-21 11:02:26 AM

Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

It wouldn't do anything to the people who really do just want the one gun for hunting or protection. In fact, they can do both that way. Multiple types of game, even. But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.


Of what relevance are penises -- of any size -- to the current discussion? For what reason did you introduce the subject of male genitalia?
 
2012-12-21 11:02:51 AM

Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

It wouldn't do anything to the people who really do just want the one gun for hunting or protection. In fact, they can do both that way. Multiple types of game, even. But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.


Why 5? What's magic about that number? It's pretty easy to come up with uses for more than 5.

The fact is that limiting the number of firearms a person may own would do absolutely nothing to reduce homicide rates nor is it an enforceable law.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:20 AM

GanjSmokr: LasersHurt: "I take things wildly out of context and reductio ad absurdum, because I am scared."

Well, accepting it is the first step towards a long recovery. You're off to a good start!


You know perfectly well that I was referring to the article author who thinks banning any guns that fire something in .22x means all .22s will be illegal, because that's totally the only characteristic difference between a Bushmaster and a pistol.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:52 AM

Dimensio: Of what relevance are penises -- of any size -- to the current discussion? For what reason did you introduce the subject of male genitalia?


'Consider Your Man Card Reissued'. That's why. Guns that exist to compensate for small penises.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:53 AM

WinoRhino: Gosling: The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Someone steals my car and hits a pedestrian. Ban the Honda Civic.


An average of 10,000 people (including thousands of children) are killed every year by drunk drivers. Ban alcohol.
 
2012-12-21 11:04:24 AM

Dimensio: Of what relevance are penises -- of any size -- to the current discussion? For what reason did you introduce the subject of male genitalia?


I know we disagree on other stuff, but yeesh the Penis thing really is annoying.
 
2012-12-21 11:04:36 AM
Are sword-canes legal for self-defense?.
 
2012-12-21 11:04:49 AM

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself.
[padens.com image 612x600]


How dare you encourage that! Personal responsibility has zero place gun ownership, so says my NRA mailer.
 
Displayed 50 of 667 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report