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  
•       •       •

13566 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 11:27:47 AM

Dimensio: You did not address my question: how will owners be compensated for the loss of their property.


The probably would not.  It's stupid, ineffective and will never work.  Let's keep numbers simple here...

Assuming that there are 25M "high capacity" mags out there (I am sure it is a lot more) at a mean value of $20 each.  The total value is $500,000,000.

If the government were to put this incredibly stupid ban forward AND (unlikely) compensate the owners for the loss of property...I would argue that a half of a billion dollars could be better spend on gun safety education and or mental health services here in the US.
 
2012-12-21 11:28:48 AM

Magorn: SO. THE FARK. WHAT?

I can't identify a Holley carburetor from a stock one, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on speed limits, particularly when someone just killed a bunch of people drag-racing in a souped up car.


A lack of understanding of automotive technology does not disqualify an opinion regarding speed limits. A lack of understanding of automotive technology does disqualify an opinion that the Honda Civic model automobile should be prohibited to civilians due to its inherent racing ability.
 
2012-12-21 11:29:10 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: dittybopper: 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.

Not a reasonable limit, because someone who enjoys varied shooting sports would run up against that limit quickly:

1. Open field deer rifle: Probably a scoped bolt action, you need accuracy.
2. Swamp/deep woods deer rifle: Probably open-sighted semi-auto or lever action carbine.
3. Varmint rifle: Probably similar to 1, but in a smaller caliber because the varmints are smaller.
4. Small game rifle: Probably a .22 LR for things like squirrels and rabbits.
5. Shotgun: Could be used for geese, ducks, turkeys.

But you've just covered the majority (but not all) hunting situations, and you've got nothing left for things like a CCW handgun, specialized target rifles, specialized shotgun event shotguns, or even "spares" to use when your main gun breaks and you don't have time to get it fixed before your big hunting trip.

I haven't even delved into competition guns like IPSC, biathlon (both modern and my personal favorite, primitive), trap and skeet, etc.

I like to point out to people that guns are like golf clubs: You wouldn't play golf with just a 9 iron in your bag, would you? Of course not, you'd have clubs for all sorts of situations, woods, irons, at least one putter, a sand wedge, etc. Guns are the same way: They are all optimized for different situations. You wouldn't try to hunt pronghorns out west with an SKS, just like you wouldn't hunt swamp deer with a bolt action with a 10-power scope on it. You wouldn't use a .22 LR to hunt Elk or Moose, and you wouldn't use a .338 to hunt squirrels.

This is why I would focus on the Ammo, not the gun. People also collect guns for their intrinsic beauty. You have the issue of museums and private collections, which can have hundred or thousands. I don't think limiting GUN ownership is a good idea, or even a desirable on ...


You realize, ammo is way easier to make than guns. People can do it at home. You really think that would work, at all, when we can't stop people from buying drugs?

The war on ammo?
 
2012-12-21 11:29:14 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Yes, but criminals at least have a sense of perspective. They know if they just mow down people willy nilly, their ass is going to be on a wanted poster, assuming they don't go down in a hail of bullets in a police shootout.


And, for the most part, it seems that criminals tend to kill criminals or those involved in the drug trade in one way, shape, or form. Yes, they do murder normal people and sometimes normal people get into arguments or situations where things get out of hand, but it does seem that something like 60-75% of the homicides out there are gang or drug related. Someone else can correct me on the latest numbers, but that's rough range.

What we need are laws to handle the cases where a seemingly "normal" person flips on their homicide bit. And it's not going to stop every homicidal maniac. But it would at least slow them down. Most of these mass shooting are people who have gone over the edge, and use readily available means that their disposal to create mass casualties.

I think preventing the flip outs, or reducing the rate, is a very good thing. I disagree with your approach for a few reasons.
1 - These are the vast minority of incidents. Anything you do here will greatly inconvenience law-abiding people.
2 - The restrictions you're talking about are incredibly easy to circumvent and practically impossible to enforce.
3 - Considering that in all of these situations, the shooters are stealing the weapons (either with or without killing the owners), it seems that trying an impossible task seems to be the wrong direction.

Making guns and buckets of ammo a little harder to get than cough medicine could potentially save some lives. Nutters, when they have to explain what they want out loud, forget that they are nutters.

Cough medicine is exceedingly easy to get. Specific types of cough medicine are slightly more difficult - especially if you want to create a meth lab.

Just try ordering a few tons of fertilizer. Odds are, you'll get some scrutiny, if not a visit from the local constabulary to sort out what you want to use it for. It should be the same for buying pallets of ammunition.

What you're proposing would just involve folks buying it in smaller and smaller quantities to get around the reporting requirements. Over time, stockpiling would become the norm (hell, it's becoming the norm now mostly because people are afraid).

Honestly, what might be more effective than anything you've suggested here is to never release the shooters name - but remember the victims and memorialize them. Then the shooters will lose that HISCORE credit. I think that'd tie in well with their mentality. Chances are they feel powerless and helpless to change that, so they look at this as a way to regain the power. Knowing that most people remember the names of the shooters at Columbine, VA Tech, the Oregon Mall, Newton school, etc., they feel they'll gain lasting notoriety. Take that away and see if we cut the number of shootings.

Of course, this would need to have the voluntary participation from the media as I'd be unwilling to limit the 1A, either.
 
2012-12-21 11:29:24 AM

Gosling:
Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit.


And what would you suggest for those of use who are firearms instructors and per course requirements must have 30 firearms to teach a ten person class?
 
2012-12-21 11:29:27 AM
As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.
 
2012-12-21 11:29:34 AM

Magorn: Of all the irraitating thing gunnuts do, none is more annoying or ridiculous than thier constant butt-hurt about Gun nomeclature and identification.  They use it like a secret handshake to indentify other obsesssives like themselves and marginalize the opinions of everyone else  "Ah-ha the article said the gun was an Ar-15  but CLEARLY it was an Ar-15 L limited edition with the collapsible stock and the chome sights-stupid Lib reporter who doesn;t know anything about guns.."

SO. THE FARK. WHAT?


I often misname weapons just to get them to wring their cap in their hands and gnash their tooth.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:03 AM
So I've been "assaulting" coyotes all these years? Huh.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:17 AM

Dimensio: MrBallou: Duelist: How do we stop that 1 person from thinking that killing others is a good idea?

This is really the heart of the matter. Modern society is extremely farked up. And I don't mean just getting mental health care to those who are already in trouble. I mean changing society so that we're not so divided, alienated and dehumanized.

It's a hell of a world that makes people want to kill other people for no reason at all.

Murder rates in "modern society" are substantially lower than they were in previous eras.


That's murder with a motive (war, robbery, sexual rivalry, power struggles, etc.). I mean going apeshiat and killing strangers.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:20 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Southern100: BokChoy:
Just try ordering a few tons of fertilizer. Odds are, you'll get some scrutiny, if not a visit from the local constabulary to sort out what you want to use it for. It should be the same for buying pallets of ammunition.


Order pallets of instant cold packs instead. No scrutiny. Order pallets of etch-a-sketches. No scrutiny. Look up whats inside those...
 
2012-12-21 11:30:29 AM

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.


Tickle rifle?
 
2012-12-21 11:31:03 AM

Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.


Yes! Ironwood Designs makes some gorgeous wooden furniture for ARs, very snazzy.
 
2012-12-21 11:31:16 AM

Thunderpipes: Red_Fox: FightDirector: They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN.

ok then we'll ban them both. The day of you gun loving jackasses running shiat is over.

How many guns protect the Messiah daily?

Weird how they are good enough for him, but us peasants cannot own them.


i50.tinypic.com

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy.
 
2012-12-21 11:31:17 AM

Satanic_Hamster: I thought the killer at Sandy Hook only used two pistols (but had the rifle with him).


I guess that story didn't create enough hysteria. I would also would really like to know how the facts became so screwed up in this case as info was flowing out. Media making shiat up? Bad intel from wittiness? Authorities making statements without actually going to the crime scene? WTF?

Weren't they also reporting a second shooter they were chasing though the woods at one point?

How did we go from being found dead with two pistols and the gun being in the car, to cops reporting .223 casings all over the place and finding the AR on him?

Not saying the is a conspiracy or anything like that, but I do want to know the sources of the bad information and a real timeline of events.
 
2012-12-21 11:31:37 AM

Dimensio: 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.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

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


How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15
 
2012-12-21 11:32:16 AM

Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.


If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.
 
2012-12-21 11:32:37 AM

r1niceboy: Magorn: Of all the irraitating thing gunnuts do, none is more annoying or ridiculous than thier constant butt-hurt about Gun nomeclature and identification.  They use it like a secret handshake to indentify other obsesssives like themselves and marginalize the opinions of everyone else  "Ah-ha the article said the gun was an Ar-15  but CLEARLY it was an Ar-15 L limited edition with the collapsible stock and the chome sights-stupid Lib reporter who doesn;t know anything about guns.."

SO. THE FARK. WHAT?

I often misname weapons just to get them to wring their cap in their hands and gnash their tooth.


Oh come on, any hobby with a technical aspect has people like that. Ever wander into a muscle-car forum? Yikes!
 
2012-12-21 11:33:37 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: This is why I would focus on the Ammo, not the gun. People also collect guns for their intrinsic beauty. You have the issue of museums and private collections, which can have hundred or thousands. I don't think limiting GUN ownership is a good idea, or even a desirable one.

I just want a common sense rule in place to limit the damage that one person can do when they go off the deep end. And I think we can all agree, there are plenty of ways to do that and not infringe on the other uses of a gun in any way.


Focus on the ammo, how? Limit the number of rounds a person can buy at one time? Jack the price up?

OK, we'll just make our own.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:05 AM

jcmjx: thurstonxhowell: the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.

Feminists, vegans, gay rights activists, PETA.

/Just because they're on your side doesn't mean it's not true


Nobody's on PETA's side
 
2012-12-21 11:34:12 AM

r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.


Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:20 AM

Magorn: 90+% of the population knows about guns, have fired a gun in thier lifetime, are more than familiar with their basic operation.


I'd love to see the citation on that if you have it....


r1niceboy: I often misname weapons just to get them to wring their cap in their hands and gnash their tooth.


This kind of behavior really helps out the discussion. Trying to bait the other "side" has always made things go smoother when trying to find solutions to any problem we face.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:24 AM

Magorn: Dimensio: 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.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

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

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15


Actually, for two of the three: Safe, and semi-auto.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:48 AM

Magorn: Dimensio: 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.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

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

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15


Is a Mini-14 functionally dissimilar to an M-16?
 
2012-12-21 11:34:55 AM

r1niceboy:
If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.



Contrary to unpopular belief, the AK is pretty darn accurate in the right hands.
 
2012-12-21 11:35:38 AM
Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?
 
2012-12-21 11:36:02 AM
Here's the deal. Everybody needs AT LEAST 5 guns, and the case can be made for 6. High and low caliber rifle (308 and 223), high and low caliber pistol (9mm and .22 lr), 12 gauge and 20 gauge shotguns. The only non need weapon there is the 22 pistol, which is pretty much just there for fun.
 
2012-12-21 11:36:15 AM

trappedspirit: 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.

Tickle rifle?


closest I could find:

i100.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-21 11:36:31 AM

Thunderpipes: Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?


A flash suppressor eliminates muzzle flash, rendering a shooter invisible in the dark.

/This is what assault weapons ban advocates actually believe.
 
2012-12-21 11:37:18 AM
dittybopper
Magorn: Dimensio: 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.
"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.
"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.
How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day? Would you be happy then. For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15
Actually, for two of the three: Safe, and semi-auto.


I want to throw out an idea. Can the linage of the design be traced back to the mp44? In function, not just form.
 
2012-12-21 11:39:02 AM
Magorn:

Speaking of butthurt, let's review this post.

Of all the irraitating thing gunnuts do, none is more annoying or ridiculous than thier constant butt-hurt about Gun nomeclature and identification. They use it like a secret handshake to indentify other obsesssives like themselves and marginalize the opinions of everyone else "Ah-ha the article said the gun was an Ar-15 but CLEARLY it was an Ar-15 L limited edition with the collapsible stock and the chome sights-stupid Lib reporter who doesn;t know anything about guns.."

Well, since no one is doing that, you have no point. Using assault weapon or assault rifle when referring to semi-automatic rifle is blatantly incorrect. It's not really that much different than confusing Congressman and Senator. Both are elected officials, but both have different capacities. There are only two reasons to not use the proper terms: Ignorance or willful obfuscation to make an emotional appeal. Ignorance, in the media and legislature, is unacceptable. The emotional appeal that comes from deliberately using the incorrect terms is lying and should be called out and mocked as such.

SO. THE FARK. WHAT?

If one was using incorrect terminology to try and limit the freedoms called out in the 1A, you'd likely be all over that. Get over your butthurt and use the correct terms.

I can't identify a Holley carburetor from a stock one, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on speed limits, particularly when someone just killed a bunch of people drag-racing in a souped up car.

As noted by others, it could make a difference depending on the argument at hand. If you're not going to bother with actually educating yourself on the proper terminology when discussing infringing upon a right spelled out in the Constitution, then yes, you can have an opinion. But yes, everyone else gets to mock you for your ignorance or deliberately lame emotional appeals.

Just like evangelical Christians who have somehow convinced themselves they are a persecuted minority in a country that self-indentifies as 90% Christian; you folks have convinced yourselves that you are a special, enlightened elite from an obscure subculture facing ignorant masses who know nothing about guns. The truth is that there are 270 MILLION firearms in private hands or 9 for every ten people in the US. Add in those who have handled or fired one without owning one, and those who have a military or police issued on and guess what? 90+% of the population knows about guns, have fired a gun in thier lifetime, are more than familiar with their basic operation. They just don't CARE about them the way you do.

Actually, you can't make that statement. According the latest round of polls, something like 60% of the country doesn't favor additional restrictions. So, oops. Facts ain't on your side.

You remind me nohing so much as Star-wars geeks who work themselves into paroxsyms of nerd-rage because a movie reviewer never checked the Wiki to find out that the 4th storm trooper to the left in scene 116 has actually been assigned a name and rich backstory by the fan-fic community,

and BTW yes, there is technically a difference btween a "clip" and a "magazine" but they've become interchangeable words in the vernacular and so either is correct when talking about the thing that goes into the gun and holds bullets, and your pedantic corrections serve no purpose but to call you out as a douchebag


Wow. Did you wipe the spittle off your mouth when you finished the rant?
 
2012-12-21 11:39:10 AM

FightDirector: 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.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

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.


This. Problem is, there are no intellectually honest politicians; so let's not expect any meaningful, well thought out action from our parliament of whores - the meaner looking gun should be banned b/c... well, it looks meaner. You can put a Lamborghini body on a Volkswagon, and it'd look alot faster too.
But I'm glad the task's been delegated to Biden -- who knows, with court jester Joe at the helm, fully automatic weapons may end up being legal.
 
2012-12-21 11:39:13 AM

Thunderpipes: Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?


Nope. Perfect example of people who have no idea what they are talking about making regs about guns.
 
2012-12-21 11:39:35 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: dittybopper: Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?
...

This is why I would focus on the Ammo, not the gun. People also collect guns for their intrinsic beauty. You have the issue of museums and private collections, which can have hundred or thousands. I don't think limiting GUN ownership is a good idea, or even a desirable on ...


Almost all ammo is used by legit gun owners for practice. Criminals only need a few rounds.

I'm sure raising the price will deter some criminal from using a gun in a crime.

"I was gonna rob that convenience store but it's gonna cost me $20 to load my gun so I think I'll go get a legit job"
 
2012-12-21 11:40:13 AM

Felgraf: Alright, fine, for those complaining about it being called an "Assault Rifle", how about we call "A civillian version of a military weapon"? I'm sure that will make it MUCH more popular.


I'm happy with semi-automatic assault rifle. or single-fire assault rifle.
 
2012-12-21 11:40:49 AM

CujoQuarrel: Evil Twin Skippy: dittybopper: Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?
...

This is why I would focus on the Ammo, not the gun. People also collect guns for their intrinsic beauty. You have the issue of museums and private collections, which can have hundred or thousands. I don't think limiting GUN ownership is a good idea, or even a desirable on ...

Almost all ammo is used by legit gun owners for practice. Criminals only need a few rounds.

I'm sure raising the price will deter some criminal from using a gun in a crime.

"I was gonna rob that convenience store but it's gonna cost me $20 to load my gun so I think I'll go get a legit job"


The purpose is to deter mass shooters, who would refrain from committing mass homicide if their expenditure were increased by $100.
 
2012-12-21 11:42:57 AM

please: Thunderpipes: Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?

Nope. Perfect example of people who have no idea what they are talking about making regs about guns.


My favorite was using the 'bayonet lug' as one of the criteria for designating a weapon as an 'assault weapon'.

Because of all the drive by bayonetings we were getting
 
2012-12-21 11:43:52 AM

Click Click D'oh: Gosling:
Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit.

And what would you suggest for those of use who are firearms instructors and per course requirements must have 30 firearms to teach a ten person class?


Even if I have a 100 guns. How many can I carry/use at a time anyway? If you want to mow down a lot of people you want 1 gun with a lot of reloads. Then a spare in case of fouling. It is better if it takes the same ammo, but that may be impractical.
 
2012-12-21 11:44:27 AM

Enemabag Jones: dittybopper
Magorn: Dimensio: 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.
"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.
"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.
How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day? Would you be happy then. For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15
Actually, for two of the three: Safe, and semi-auto.

I want to throw out an idea. Can the linage of the design be traced back to the mp44? In function, not just form.


The lineage of *ALL* of them can be traced back to before 1900 and the designs of John Moses Browning.
 
2012-12-21 11:46:32 AM

Duelist: Even if I have a 100 guns. How many can I carry/use at a time anyway? If you want to mow down a lot of people you want 1 gun with a lot of reloads. Then a spare in case of fouling. It is better if it takes the same ammo, but that may be impractical.


Well, with a bit of work, effort, welding, machining, and some assembly, you probably could fire them all at once. It wouldn't be particularly practical, but it's doable.
 
2012-12-21 11:47:25 AM

thurstonxhowell: xaks: thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.

Where do you live that there are no catholics, jews, or islamists?

I live in a place with plenty of all of those (assuming you replace "islamists" with "Muslims"). Hell, I'm engaged to a Catholic. I've heard less whining from them in a decade than I hear every time a gun is mentioned in any news story.


No one is trying to stop your protected right to enjoy your religion. Maybe that's the difference.
 
2012-12-21 11:47:35 AM

CujoQuarrel: please: Thunderpipes: Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?

Nope. Perfect example of people who have no idea what they are talking about making regs about guns.

My favorite was using the 'bayonet lug' as one of the criteria for designating a weapon as an 'assault weapon'.

Because of all the drive by bayonetings we were getting


Means almost all military classic rifles are assault weapons, even the bolt action ones, correct?
 
2012-12-21 11:47:44 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.


You'll have you take my civic out of my cold dead hands!

/ I love my all stock civic.
// death to ricers.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:01 AM

Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.


It has rather an AK-47 vibe, I think.  It must be the mix of the natural wood grain texture and the black
steel:

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

Somehow, though, its not as intimidating.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:21 AM
Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:45 AM
Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns
 
2012-12-21 11:52:01 AM

dittybopper: WTF Indeed: 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.

Encouraging it is fine. Hell, I have a gun safe, albeit not as fancy as that one.

Requiring it is unconstitutional: Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.


I used to have a 9mm to shoot for fun, but eventually got rid of it after I got bored with throwing money away at ranges.

What was pretty clear to me was that it was pointless for home defense. I kept it locked up in a padlocked steel box, and it just didn't seem feasible to:

1) Wake up upon hearing a noise
2) Listen for a while to decide it was someone in the house
3) Get out of bed, get the key
4) Go get the gun out of the closet
5) Load a few rounds into a mag

Seemed to me like that would take waaaay to long, especially if it was a home invasion style deal, which they have plenty of out here in Cali. I realize I'm just baiting the crazies with a hypothetical situation they can argue with, but that's how it seemed to me. I wasn't about to stash an unsecured gun and ammo in a drawer next to the bed when I actually let other people into my house sometimes.

Also, seems like half the time the home invasion robberies happen because somebody knows the guy who lives there has a lot of nice guns, and they are after the guns. Maybe if you guys wouldn't lovingly arrange them on your beds like a doll collection and post pictures it wouldn't happen so much.
 
2012-12-21 11:53:07 AM

hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


Agreed. Shotgun or revolver, s revolvers don't typically jam, or if you get a misfire, you don't have to take time to clear it, you just pull the trigger again.
 
2012-12-21 11:53:13 AM

hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns


I go with a short double barrel 12 guage here. Thought about going for a 20 for a bit.
 
2012-12-21 11:54:18 AM

Dimensio: Magorn: Dimensio: 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.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

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

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15

Is a Mini-14 functionally dissimilar to an M-16?


Insofar as a Mini-14 doesn't have a 3-round burst setting (or full-auto switch, depending on the M-16 variant model), yes, it's functionally dissimilar.
 
2012-12-21 11:54:42 AM

hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns


The question of what to use to defend your home is an interesting one. A shotgun, while potentially easier to aim, has a lower capacity and can be unwieldy. They tend to be relatively long and unless you're across the room from someone, it could be difficult to get it up and aimed at someone. Rifle's may be slightly better as some are shorter (or functionally shorter, based on how you hold them) and may have more capacity. However, your aim has to be better. Pistols are much more maneuverable, but they take a bit of practice to become proficient with aiming and quicker shots.

Personally, I'd rather use a .45 with higher capacity (yes, I've read the Gospel According to John Moses Browning and I realize that I should need no more than 7 rounds) and a few extra magazines. Plenty of stopping power, works in close quarters, and I can put lots of bullets at the assailant.
 
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