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?



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:



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.

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

If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself.

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.

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.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many of you farkers will point out (correctly) that prohibition doesn't work. Didn't for alcohol, doesn't for drugs - then you immediately come to a thread like this and scream for firearm prohibition.

The next time one of you decide to deride a teabagger for stupid extremist political views, make sure you smile in the mirror to see what an extremist moron looks like.

lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.

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.

This might be dated but


For ALL you gun control nuts

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.

The .223 Remington round is suitable for coyotes, wild hogs and similar-sized animals.

Companies have recently developed AR-15 style rifles chambered in larger calibers suitable for deer hunting.

My AR-15 is currently configured to fire .22LR ammunition. The conversion kit included a 26 round magazine.

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.

...dammit. "Preview", not "post"...

Append to all that this last point: if Adam Lanza had been equipped with a Mini-14 instead of an AR-15, how would what happened have been measurably different, given that the firearms are effectively identical, performance-wise?

Save for people not being able to complain about "military-style assault guns", of course.

I think 'semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle' covers what it is pretty well.

It covers the action, what it fires and whether it is a handgun or a long gun.

Nothing else about it really matters.

So he used an assault rifle to kill people. Ok, that follows. What is with the constant media coverage here? This sensationalises the murders and basically gives a highscore and a come on to try better to every other nutter with a gun out there.

Besides which, even someone like myself who lives in the UK can easily understand that the weapon is ambivalent here; it didn't aim itself then pull it's own trigger. Someone had to do that to make it fire. Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people.

I don't get the whole gun ownership thing (not American after all) but even I understand that you can't legislate for the random fruitloop going crazy... because they're random fruitloops. But the media could do a lot more to make such occurrences well 'boring' ya know?

AR-15? Isn't that the civilian version of the M-16 the rifle issued to most of America's armed forces? I'd have thought they'd of been pretty easy to get.... in America.

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.

*rolleseyes*

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.

Carrying lots of bullets is the real problem here, so we should outlaw pockets.

/my spoon made me fat

Honest Bender: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x360]

As opposed to, you know.... the other type of gun.

Turned away instantly at that image.

I'll listen to facts and figures. Start with the appeal to emotion and I say you can go fark yourself.

"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.

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.


Pit bull owners, whenever a story runs on a pit bull attacking a kid. Of course, there's a lot of overlap between pit bull owners and gun owners.

I mean, they're both assault rifles


*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*

yourenothelping.jpg

Evil Twin Skippy: As far as "war coming to these shores...", well I'll have bigger frigging fish to fry. In the meantime, I'm perfectly content to make my way through civilized society. I swear you farkers are just looking for reasons to justify living like a goddamn neanderthal. Move to frigging Somalia.


They feed off of this fantasy where they get to roam the streets and shoot "liberals" some day. The CCW people I know usually end up citing the possibility of a minority in their house at 3am whenever the gun debate comes up. It's like all they do is dream of the day they get their story printed in the NRA fapletter, after they shoot an unarmed black kid.

They are a very sick and demented part of our society. The Venn diagram between Gunfappers and Fox News viewers: 0

ronaprhys: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.

I never said anything about the 1st Amendment. Apparently you are just extremely stupid. People like you should remain quiet.

mizchief: chuckufarlie: mizchief: Artisan Sandwich: mizchief: 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

Would depend on your house. My parents have a really long hall way (about 20 yards) the leads from the front and back doors to where the bed rooms are. Best way to defend against an intruder would be to post up behind a door frame where you have a stack of 2'x4's that could help stop bullets the intruder fires back, and then take him out at range, vs. getting up close and personal where the bad guy is most likely carrying a pistol and has a better chance of hitting you.

You are the reason that people think of gun owners as nutty. Your masturbation fantasy is pretty specific. What color socks is the bad guy wearing? What does he look like when you shoot him? Please tell.

Someone asked for an example of how an AR-15 would be good for home defense so I gave one. Simple as that. It's not my fault if it gave you a chubby.

You could stop that paranoid vision of yours with a bolt action single shot rifle. You do not need to have thirty rounds screaming down the hall all at once.

It's not a paranoid vision, its a hypothetical situation. I have no idea what types of attacks I might face, and I surly can't imagine every scenario others may face in their own homes or places of business and neither can you. I didn't say I needed a 30rd clip for that, but don't think a bolt action rifle would be very versatile in any situation other than a single shot.

It is paranoia. You have an unreasonable fear that somebody is going to try to kill you. That is the very definition of paranoia. You can try to call it a hypothetical situation, but that is not even close to being accurate. It is paranoia, plain and simple. You live in constant fear for your live. You tell us not to worry about school children getting killed but you are worried about being killed yourself. That is cowardly.

I have lived in a city that is considered very dangerous, and it is. I lived in Detroit. I never carried a gun. I was never afraid. I was cautious but I was not a coward like you are. I went where I wanted to go, when I wanted to go there. I was not afraid.

And yet, I survived without a scratch. I did not live in fear.

I feel sorry for you. A little bit of you dies every day. Do you know who Hemingway was? Among other things, he said" "The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one". I am not brave but you are certainly dying a thousand deaths.

DoctorOfLove: Oh, and another way to reduce gun violence in general is legalize pot, and at least think about legalizing coke, as Portugal has.

The only legitimate schizophrenic I have intimately known actually got crazier on pot. Last I checked there was no definitive study on whether marijauna reduced major mental health problem or exacerbated them. I agree that more pot would slow the normals, but the topic du jour seems more aimed at the crazies.

And not to mention that the so called "new gun laws" being bandied about, ie: a waiting perioid, no more gun shows, background checks, and even the "evil Assualt rifle" ban would not have made a single difference in the Newtown Sandhook killings.

but hell, let's not have the stop us!

Ever notice every single thing that Obama and the Democrats are pushing into law, diminishes people's rights? Every single thing. I thought liberals were supposed to want people to be free and have rights? Every single piece of legislation you guys favor, takes away the rights of someone, often yourselves. You cheer.

Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.

I'm against automobile deaths

Therefore I am sending a bill to the state legislature to ban all red cars.

You can argue all you want but there statistics that red cars get more speeding tickets than any other color and if this law prevents just 1, - JUST 1 - death then it's worth it.

right?

/ask me about my plan to ban Gin to prevent alcholism.

lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.

The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.

hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)

You're talking about a Taurus Judge! Nice choice.

lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.

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?

Good point, lets just ban the Bushmaster AR-15 and call it a day. Gun grabbers won't be happy, gun owners won't be happy, but the over hyped mainstream idiot will see something got done and go back to watching reality TV.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

vpb: The idea that people just want gun control because the guns "look scary" is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard on Fark or anywhere. Mini-14s were covered under the assault weapon ban the same as the AR-15, which isn't surprising because the Mini-14 is a scaled down M-14 just as the AR-15 is a scaled down AR-10.

The now-expired federal "assault weapons ban" did not prohibit manufacture of the Ruger Mini-14. Manufacturing a Mini-14 with two or more of the "banned" features was prohibited, but the Mini-14 rifle model itself was not.

The "Colt AR-15" was identified by name in the previous federal "assault weapons ban".

Dimensio: 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?

Some people just really like to think about penises. NTTAWWT.

Gosling: 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.

Seriously - that's about as lame as you can get. If you're going to use that in a debate, you're as useless as tits on a boarhog.

Gosling: 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.

Which firearms compensate for "small penises"? How, exactly, does any firearm compensate for a deficiency in genital size?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The AR-15 was designed for the Army's primary mission post-WW2, i.e. urban crowd control. The B-52s were for fighting the Russians.

Why you would drop an army equipped and trained for the Watts riots into a jungle insurgency I have no idea.

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?

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.
----

Not to mention that once you start barging into peoples houses with the military you've violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
And the 4th amendment.

Not only would you have an all out civil war. You'd have that civil war rightfully so, meaning people of the military and government would also revolt, making it even more chaotic.

Fark it, I'll make my own guns.











/From link

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.

RussianPooper: It's funny when gun nuts act like knowing things about guns suffices for intelligence.

It's funnier when the ignorant revel in their ignorance of a subject as if knowing factual things is somehow unclean or uncouth.

Well... it's not so funny when they're in congress. Or in the media.

I don't care if you have thirteen doctorates and have an IQ of 240. If your level of knowledge is "what I saw on TV", for that topic, you're an idiot. If I want to know about the fine details of the inner workings of a BMW, what to do and what not to do, I'll go to the high school dropout that makes his livelihood fixing BMWs, not the multiply degreed lawyer that doesn't know to change the oil.

r1niceboy: I would add that had Adam Lanza been carrying a full auto assault rifle, he'd have sprayed, wounding more, but killing less kids.

This is an excellent point.  The worst thing you can do to the opposing military is wound.  If you kill, you reduced the force by 1.  If you wound, there's an entire logistics team that now has to mobilize to keep that soldier alive.

Bongo Blue: 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.

Bikers. The motorcyle type.

Oh, I'd say the pedal type bikers are a pretty whiny bunch too.

And red light runners - they seem to whine alot when we try to ticket them.

And don't forget how much the non-smokers whine about the smokers.

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.

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.

Fark progressive are far whinier. But then you probably are one so it's not X when you do it.

Vaneshi: So he used an assault rifle to kill people. Ok, that follows. What is with the constant media coverage here? This sensationalises the murders and basically gives a highscore and a come on to try better to every other nutter with a gun out there.

Besides which, even someone like myself who lives in the UK can easily understand that the weapon is ambivalent here; it didn't aim itself then pull it's own trigger. Someone had to do that to make it fire. Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people.

I don't get the whole gun ownership thing (not American after all) but even I understand that you can't legislate for the random fruitloop going crazy... because they're random fruitloops. But the media could do a lot more to make such occurrences well 'boring' ya know?

AR-15? Isn't that the civilian version of the M-16 the rifle issued to most of America's armed forces? I'd have thought they'd of been pretty easy to get.... in America.

they are easy to get, and just as the sales figures in the article said, they will continue to be easy to get.  someone is paying for all this "freedom" marketing in the media.  there are very few political opinions without financial backing.  although, i'm not trying to by some conspiratorial cynic, making money is what makes a country work and have nice things.  so, whatever.

r1niceboy: I like me some firepower (learned to shoot using the FN FAL), but I'm at a loss to explain how someone could justify owning an AR-15. They exist to put a lot of firepower in a lot of targets very quickly while only just giving a nod to existing gun laws. I would add that had Adam Lanza been carrying a full auto assault rifle, he'd have sprayed, wounding more, but killing less kids. The AR-15 makes you pick your shots.

AR-15 ownership is justified in the same way that Mini-14 ownership is justified.

bungle_jr: 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.

i always thought "gun" was a perfect word. succinct, correct, poignant, with undertones of oak and berries

You're right. I should only call my car a "car". If someone asks me to describe the car, I should not say "sedan". I should absolutely not mention that it has a "V6". No, "car" will do. I will vigorously object to any attempts to separate my car from other cars. Car will describe a Mack truck just as well it describes my car.

In fact, why even go that far? "Vehicle" should cover it. Why have different words to describe my car and a dune buggy? Aren't they both just vehicles?

Hell, why do we need the word "vehicle", for that matter? I drove my "object" to "place" today. That should be just fine.

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?

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.

i always thought "gun" was a perfect word. succinct, correct, poignant, with undertones of oak and berries

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!

Heck, that isn't even Stoner's best invention

Well that was a terrible article. Almost no history at all.

Rufus Lee King: Oh, God. Not again.

And this. I'd "smart" you, but I refuse to use the farkies and other thread conditioning tools. I like my shiat raw.

Waaaah, get the name of my toys right. Don't want me to snap and start using them. Waaaah

What a great pic. Scaremongering at its best.

Honest Bender: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x360]

As opposed to, you know.... the other type of gun.

This gun?