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.

(WTOP)   So just what the heck is an "assault weapon," anyway? A clip? A magazine? Here's your handy-dandy gun glossary so you can sound infromed for the next flamewar   (wtop.com) divider line 694
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, flame wars, semiautomatic firearms, design change, private ownership, target shooting, Uzi  
•       •       •

10275 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 9:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-25 08:16:15 AM  
It will be whatever a court decides it to be, despite what any reporter or politician says.  Legals definitions are outlined by these people, but their accuracy and adjustment is done in court. And that really should be the way it stays. Whatever definition is determined, there will always be someone able to skirt around it. Think they are called loopholes, and so the back and forth continues. Courts make a decision. Rest of world look for loopholes. So long as the loopholes are small, the world should be a better place. But not always.
 
2013-01-25 09:19:50 AM  
Why would we need an article like this? Every time a reasonable debate on guns breaks out it's immediately hijacked by the nomenclature nannies  so we've got this covered.
 
2013-01-25 09:36:41 AM  
It's a weapon designed for warfare. I'd much rather have a pistol gripped, high capacity, .223 AR15 in "the field" rather than the "new design" Browning Automatic Rifle.
The .300 winchester is better for taking down a moose anyway.

See:

www.quarterbore.net
For wars against people

media.liveauctiongroup.net
For wars against Moose.
 
2013-01-25 09:41:13 AM  
For what it's worth, I'VE SEEN THAT DAMNED JOURNALIST'S GUIDE A MILLION TIMES ALREADY. I think we've all got it memorized by now.
 
2013-01-25 09:49:51 AM  
It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation.

An "assault weapon" is a political term only, and unless you live in a state like California or Connecticut with a state law, there is no such thing as an assault weapon under current laws.
 
2013-01-25 09:53:21 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com

GAS POWERED STICK! IT NEVER RUNS OUT OF GAS!

/Man, this is a jive ass stick.
 
2013-01-25 09:56:45 AM  
Magazine:
www.mancertified.com

Clip:
www.hellopro.fr
 
2013-01-25 09:57:14 AM  
A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.
 
2013-01-25 09:57:36 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: It's a weapon designed for warfare. I'd much rather have a pistol gripped, high capacity, .223 AR15 in "the field" rather than the "new design" Browning Automatic Rifle.
The .300 winchester is better for taking down a moose anyway.

See:

[www.quarterbore.net image 700x291]
For wars against people

[media.liveauctiongroup.net image 640x171]
For wars against Moose.


You can buy an upper chambered in .300 win
 
2013-01-25 09:57:48 AM  
The difference is obvious.


kbensema.files.wordpress.com

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


www.thefirearmblog.com

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.
 
2013-01-25 09:58:00 AM  
It's a marketing term and therefore useless...
 
2013-01-25 09:58:30 AM  
hope this helps

stolen from another poster
 
2013-01-25 09:59:03 AM  
i.imgur.com

in before the "crazy"
 
2013-01-25 09:59:06 AM  
ih1.redbubble.net

and

www.bugasalt.com

/hot like assault weapons
 
2013-01-25 09:59:17 AM  

so you can sound infromed


Well, call me Ethan 'cause I'm infromed!
 
2013-01-25 09:59:30 AM  
Today on the front page of the Dallas Morning News was a headline that talked about regulation of high capacity clips.

::facepalm::
 
2013-01-25 10:00:09 AM  
Is this the thread where people post pictures of mini-14's with both wood and collapsible stocks and belittle assault weapon bans for just being about "scary" weapons, when in reality they should be happy that lawmakers are easily duped enough that if they restored the ban, they could still skirt around it by ditching plastic pieces?

Cause that thread's boring.
 
2013-01-25 10:00:27 AM  
This:

images.politico.com
 
2013-01-25 10:00:54 AM  

Dimensio: The difference is obvious.


[kbensema.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


[www.thefirearmblog.com image 590x300]

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


I guess I answered my own question.
 
2013-01-25 10:00:55 AM  
The answer is perception. According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby:

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
 
2013-01-25 10:01:05 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: It's a weapon designed for warfare. I'd much rather have a pistol gripped, high capacity, .223 AR15 in "the field" rather than the "new design" Browning Automatic Rifle.
The .300 winchester is better for taking down a moose anyway.

See:


For wars against people


For wars against Moose.


Begin, the moose wars have.
 
2013-01-25 10:01:22 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: It's a weapon designed for warfare. I'd much rather have a pistol gripped, high capacity, .223 AR15 in "the field" rather than the "new design" Browning Automatic Rifle.
The .300 winchester is better for taking down a moose anyway.

See:

[www.quarterbore.net image 700x291]
For wars against people

[media.liveauctiongroup.net image 640x171]
For wars against Moose.


Also effective in wars against Moose:

www.gunblast.com

AR-15 in .50 Beowulf.

Takes all of, what, 20 seconds to convert a gun with a .223 upper to one with a .50 Beowulf, or .458 SOCOM, or .450 Bushmaster upper, all of which are effective against moose-sized ani-mules.
 
2013-01-25 10:01:22 AM  

Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 488x402]

in before the "crazy"


Does it really count as "Before" the crazy, if you, yourself, ARE the crazy?
 
2013-01-25 10:01:40 AM  

Dimensio: The difference is obvious.




This is a traditional civilian rifle.




This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


What if we have to rise up against an oppressive government like the now conservative heroes, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro?
 
2013-01-25 10:01:47 AM  

Glicky: It's a marketing term and therefore useless...


The term is in fact political, not commercial. By grouping a subset of firearms as "military-style assault weapons", politicians and political advocates are able to present the implication that such firearms serve no legitimate civilian purposes (such as hunting or target shooting) to members of the public with no understanding of firearms. This implication is further reinforced by inclusion of civilian rifles that cosmetically resemble known common military firearms, and only using images of such firearms when advocating a ban upon them, not showing images of more traditional-looking rifles (such as the Mini-14 or the M1 Carbine) because those rifles appear to be less "menacing" and because advocates of such a ban do not wish to openly admit that they are attempting to prohibit civilian ownership of many popular civilian sporting rifles with demonstrable legitimate civilian use.
 
2013-01-25 10:02:01 AM  
i1127.photobucket.com


/oblig
 
2013-01-25 10:02:37 AM  
As long as they get rid of bayonet lugs again. I'm tired of all the bayonettings that have been going on lately.
 
2013-01-25 10:03:19 AM  

Dimensio: This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


Look at all the scary attachments! Those improve killin' power, I betcha.
 
2013-01-25 10:03:32 AM  

LarryDan43: Dimensio: The difference is obvious.

This is a traditional civilian rifle.

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.

What if we have to rise up against an oppressive government like the now conservative heroes, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro?


Well crapping on police cars and shouting I WANT FREE STUFF only gets you pepper sprayed. Man up and grab a rifle next time sissy boy.
 
2013-01-25 10:03:36 AM  

Dimensio: The difference is obvious.


[kbensema.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


[www.thefirearmblog.com image 590x300]

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


The black stock makes it extra deadly.
 
2013-01-25 10:04:22 AM  
www.noisyroom.net
 
2013-01-25 10:04:30 AM  
Assault is a behavior, not a device.

But it sure is a scary word, so it's good for spinning political agenda's.
 
2013-01-25 10:04:38 AM  

Dimensio: The difference is obvious.


[kbensema.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


[www.thefirearmblog.com image 590x300]

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


So a pistol grip somehow makes a gun deadly? Because that's the only difference between those two guns.
 
2013-01-25 10:04:57 AM  
Okay, got a question... not tryin to start a flame war.... legitimate question.

FTA: and because they resemble military rifles they can appear particularly menacing when used for personal defense or home protection.

So..... if "everybody knows" that the black plastic parts are just to look cool and "that doesn't make it an assault weapon," then why does that look particularly menacing?
 
2013-01-25 10:05:00 AM  

Fluid: Dimensio: The difference is obvious.


[kbensema.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


[www.thefirearmblog.com image 590x300]

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.

The black stock makes it extra deadly.


I have been informed that the collapsible stock aids in concealment.

I have also been informed by the same organization that silencers are illegal. Strangely, I have also received paperwork that will enable me to legally take possession of a silencer.
 
2013-01-25 10:05:40 AM  
Are we almost done with all the "I Love My Guns" and "Your Guns Are Scary" dick-waving already? Can we move on to more important things, like figuring out how we can improve mental health care so John Q. Wackadoodle gets the help he needs before he decides shooting up his office is the only choice he has?
 
2013-01-25 10:06:51 AM  
Infromed is a perfectly cromulent word.
 
2013-01-25 10:06:59 AM  
http://www.assaultweapon.info
 
2013-01-25 10:07:01 AM  

The Loaf: Is this the thread where people post pictures of mini-14's with both wood and collapsible stocks and belittle assault weapon bans for just being about "scary" weapons, when in reality they should be happy that lawmakers are easily duped enough that if they restored the ban, they could still skirt around it by ditching plastic pieces?

Cause that thread's boring.


or

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

`(K) A conversion kit.

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
 
2013-01-25 10:07:07 AM  

tommyl66: Are we almost done with all the "I Love My Guns" and "Your Guns Are Scary" dick-waving already? Can we move on to more important things, like figuring out how we can improve mental health care so John Q. Wackadoodle gets the help he needs before he decides shooting up his office is the only choice he has?


That would require higher taxes. So, no.
 
2013-01-25 10:07:35 AM  
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
GUNS!
i1151.photobucket.com
GUNS!!
i1151.photobucket.com
GUUUUNSSS!!!
i1151.photobucket.com
FIREARM SEMANTICS!!!!
 
2013-01-25 10:07:55 AM  
The renewed talks about gun control has, if anything, taught the grabbers what a magazine is.

I also heartily lol at them trying to rebrand themselves as "gun safety" advocates
 
2013-01-25 10:08:27 AM  
Couldn't they just download the NRA gun app? Not the game one but rather the one that's an guide to various guns.
 
2013-01-25 10:08:56 AM  

QueenMamaBee: Okay, got a question... not tryin to start a flame war.... legitimate question.

FTA: and because they resemble military rifles they can appear particularly menacing when used for personal defense or home protection.

So..... if "everybody knows" that the black plastic parts are just to look cool and "that doesn't make it an assault weapon," then why does that look particularly menacing?


Probably because of media depictions and associating with the military
 
2013-01-25 10:10:00 AM  
Also, Alton Brown says fark your gun control

www.armoryblog.com
 
2013-01-25 10:10:20 AM  
I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.
 
2013-01-25 10:10:26 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: [www.noisyroom.net image 400x266]


I *LOVE* that meme.
 
2013-01-25 10:11:21 AM  
Since when has being informed ever been a prerequisite for participation in a Fark thread?

I'd guess there would be no Fark threads if it was required to be informed before commenting.

For instances I don't know what the difference is between a clip or a magazine. But I'm quite comfortable saying I don't want you to have access to either. I, however, should have access to shoulder fired missiles.
 
2013-01-25 10:11:43 AM  
Please don't say "clip". It's a magazine. Always.
 
2013-01-25 10:11:59 AM  

dittybopper: Also effective in wars against Moose:

AR-15 in .50 Beowulf.

Takes all of, what, 20 seconds to convert a gun with a .223 upper to one with a .50 Beowulf, or .458 SOCOM, or .450 Bushmaster upper, all of which are effective against moose-sized ani-mules.



I went with the .450 Bushmaster "thumper". The AR-15 is a great platform. I spent about $650 on the upper and PRESTO I have a great hunting rifle.
 
2013-01-25 10:12:05 AM  

TheOther: `(iii) Striker 12; or
`(iv) Streetsweeper.


Note that these shotgun models are already federally restricted as "destructive devices". Legally obtaining either shotgun model currently requires approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Senator Feinstein is attempting to entirely prohibit civilian ownership of firearm models already substantially restricted, likely because she lacks any actual understanding of firearms.
 
2013-01-25 10:12:27 AM  
I have yet to see a weapon that cannot be used to assault someone.
 
2013-01-25 10:12:39 AM  
Radical gun nuts are attracted to "assault weapons" because they get a power trip liking themselves to Rambo. This god complex is often present in sociopath so there is a reason why they are often used for mass murder. The thing is, if you deny them the shiny Rambo guns it will not stop their god complex. They will just bust a nut over whatever weapon they can find that makes them feel powerful.
 
2013-01-25 10:12:49 AM  
any damn weapon the feds say it is?
 
2013-01-25 10:12:58 AM  

Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.


http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/01/19/test-firing-a-3d-printed -a r-15-magazine/

Yep, it's already becoming a reality.
 
2013-01-25 10:13:29 AM  

Dimensio: The difference is obvious.


[kbensema.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


[www.thefirearmblog.com image 590x300]

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


let me guess... they're the same rifle.
 
2013-01-25 10:13:43 AM  
FYI: the "plastic parts" are for people that have to carry a gun around on their person, for weeks at a time, in various environmental conditions (you know, soldiers). There, it's nice to have a lighter weapon.

For the nutball that picks up a gun and goes out shooting, it gives no advantage.
 
2013-01-25 10:13:45 AM  

js34603: I, however, should have access to shoulder fired missiles.


You got the money?
 
2013-01-25 10:13:51 AM  

Citrate1007: Radical gun nuts are attracted to "assault weapons" because they get a power trip liking themselves to Rambo. This god complex is often present in sociopath so there is a reason why they are often used for mass murder. The thing is, if you deny them the shiny Rambo guns it will not stop their god complex. They will just bust a nut over whatever weapon they can find that makes them feel powerful.


Your hypothesis is interesting, and I eagerly await the references to the substantial body of supporting data that you will be able to provide.
 
2013-01-25 10:15:34 AM  

Frank N Stein: The renewed talks about gun control has, if anything, taught the grabbers what a magazine is.

I also heartily lol at them trying to rebrand themselves as "gun safety" advocates


That is always a plus. It really annoys me for some reason.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-25 10:15:48 AM  

Citrate1007: Radical gun nuts are attracted to "assault weapons" because they get a power trip liking themselves to Rambo. This god complex is often present in sociopath so there is a reason why they are often used for mass murder. The thing is, if you deny them the shiny Rambo guns it will not stop their god complex. They will just bust a nut over whatever weapon they can find that makes them feel powerful.


Thanks for your psychological analysis. Where did you get your doctorate?
 
2013-01-25 10:16:05 AM  
I thought that an "Assault Weapon" was just a weapon primarily used to Assault someone with.

How many bullets does it normally take to kill a harmless fuzzy creature anyway?
 
2013-01-25 10:16:28 AM  

syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.


This.

Nj already has a limit---my Glock 19C is restricted to 15 but I believe the max is 17
 
2013-01-25 10:16:31 AM  

Dimensio: Citrate1007: Radical gun nuts are attracted to "assault weapons" because they get a power trip liking themselves to Rambo. This god complex is often present in sociopath so there is a reason why they are often used for mass murder. The thing is, if you deny them the shiny Rambo guns it will not stop their god complex. They will just bust a nut over whatever weapon they can find that makes them feel powerful.

Your hypothesis is interesting, and I eagerly await the references to the substantial body of supporting data that you will be able to provide.


Exhibit A
 
2013-01-25 10:17:37 AM  

HansoSparxx: I thought that an "Assault Weapon" was just a weapon primarily used to Assault someone with.

How many bullets does it normally take to kill a harmless fuzzy creature anyway?



Please define a defensive weapon that has no offensive capability.
 
2013-01-25 10:17:47 AM  

dittybopper: Because People in power are Stupid: It's a weapon designed for warfare. I'd much rather have a pistol gripped, high capacity, .223 AR15 in "the field" rather than the "new design" Browning Automatic Rifle.
The .300 winchester is better for taking down a moose anyway.

See:

[www.quarterbore.net image 700x291]
For wars against people

[media.liveauctiongroup.net image 640x171]
For wars against Moose.

Also effective in wars against Moose:

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

AR-15 in .50 Beowulf.

Takes all of, what, 20 seconds to convert a gun with a .223 upper to one with a .50 Beowulf, or .458 SOCOM, or .450 Bushmaster upper, all of which are effective against moose-sized ani-mules.


Hey, it's chambered in $2 bills!
 
2013-01-25 10:18:03 AM  
I wake up and see three gun stories in a row. What gives?
 
2013-01-25 10:18:17 AM  

Citrate1007: Dimensio: Citrate1007: Radical gun nuts are attracted to "assault weapons" because they get a power trip liking themselves to Rambo. This god complex is often present in sociopath so there is a reason why they are often used for mass murder. The thing is, if you deny them the shiny Rambo guns it will not stop their god complex. They will just bust a nut over whatever weapon they can find that makes them feel powerful.

Your hypothesis is interesting, and I eagerly await the references to the substantial body of supporting data that you will be able to provide.

Exhibit A


If he wanted real unadulterated power he should have ran for office to exert his will on the people.
 
2013-01-25 10:18:18 AM  

Frank N Stein: The renewed talks about gun control has, if anything, taught the grabbers what a magazine is.


Even the Associated Press has taken notice: http://www.facebook.com/apstylebook/posts/508285139194577
 
2013-01-25 10:18:40 AM  

syrynxx: An "assault weapon" is a political term only, and unless you live in a state like California or Connecticut with a state law, there is no such thing as an assault weapon under current laws.


That's more or less what TFA says, including a short blurb about how ineffective the lack of real definition made the previous AWB (manufacturers just shrugging, modifying products enough to rename them, and keeping on rollin').

It is nice that someone's at least trying to make media articles about guns less outright retarded, honestly, I appreciate what the writer is trying to do.
 
2013-01-25 10:18:54 AM  

syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.


Heck I can win this argument without even trying:

I hereby define high capacity as anything more than six. Only a fool would disagree with me. Therefore I have one the argument and you have lost.


www.ebbemunk.dk


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
 
2013-01-25 10:18:54 AM  
How many millions of AR-15's have been sold in the US? How would a weapons ban, at this point, do anything to limit their use in crime? Make people with an FFL take a course in picking up on mental derangements would do more than a weapons ban.
 
2013-01-25 10:19:06 AM  

Citrate1007: Dimensio: Citrate1007: Radical gun nuts are attracted to "assault weapons" because they get a power trip liking themselves to Rambo. This god complex is often present in sociopath so there is a reason why they are often used for mass murder. The thing is, if you deny them the shiny Rambo guns it will not stop their god complex. They will just bust a nut over whatever weapon they can find that makes them feel powerful.

Your hypothesis is interesting, and I eagerly await the references to the substantial body of supporting data that you will be able to provide.

Exhibit A


Why use a citation for someone who didn't use a firearm in the commission of his killing?
 
2013-01-25 10:19:16 AM  

Citrate1007: Dimensio: Citrate1007: Radical gun nuts are attracted to "assault weapons" because they get a power trip liking themselves to Rambo. This god complex is often present in sociopath so there is a reason why they are often used for mass murder. The thing is, if you deny them the shiny Rambo guns it will not stop their god complex. They will just bust a nut over whatever weapon they can find that makes them feel powerful.

Your hypothesis is interesting, and I eagerly await the references to the substantial body of supporting data that you will be able to provide.

Exhibit A


You have evidently misunderstood my request. You have provided reference to a single individual who used explosives to destroy a government building. I requested reference to a body of data that supports your original claim regarding the motives of "radical gun nuts". Your reference is in no way related to my request.
 
2013-01-25 10:20:44 AM  

HansoSparxx: I thought that an "Assault Weapon" was just a weapon primarily used to Assault someone with.

How many bullets does it normally take to kill a harmless fuzzy creature anyway?


Depends upon your aim, I guess. The average NRA member seems to need hundreds of tries to hit the broad side of a barn.
 
2013-01-25 10:21:26 AM  

Giltric: The answer is perception. According to a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby:

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.


I think it is becuase they are racists and many assault weapons are black.

images.politico.com
 
2013-01-25 10:21:27 AM  

DownTheRabbitHole: syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.

This.

Nj already has a limit---my Glock 19C is restricted to 15 but I believe the max is 17


15 round mags are standard capacity for a Glock 19...
 
2013-01-25 10:21:37 AM  

Frank N Stein: Also, Alton Brown says fark your gun control

[www.armoryblog.com image 600x803]


Oh. Well, I'm convinced.

Everyone go home. A Food Network personality has spoken on gun control.
 
2013-01-25 10:22:02 AM  

Dimensio: The difference is obvious.


[kbensema.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


[www.thefirearmblog.com image 590x300]

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


I said the same thing about Hummers, Lamborghini's and all the F series of trucks from the 250's and above and look where that got me.

Assault weapon looks scary because of all the modern lightweight parts on it as opposed to that old timers styled solid wood stock. One is in flat military colors while the other has a pallette of warm wood tones and polished steel. Your magazine capacities look very similar. Other than the pistol grip (which some may actually find more comfortable when shooting) you are pretty much looking at the same weapon.

Any weapon can be deadly in the hands of the wrong person. Military weaponry has been designed for environment: not only for killing another human being but rather for effeciency in its maintenance and use. It's lighter for those who require it be another appendage for most of their day, it's easy to maintain or field repair, and parts tend to be more universal for ease in service- why would a civilian not want some of these features in a weapon for non-military/assault use?
 
2013-01-25 10:22:06 AM  

syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.


that's like saying that a bugatti veyron's 1000 horsepower is "standard horsepower" for that car. that may be true, but relative to most vehicles, it is a high-horsepower car.

btw, i believe the original AR15 came with a 20-round magazine, did it not?
 
2013-01-25 10:22:25 AM  
Whatever they decide it means, a ban is only worth doing if they make it illegal to possess existing versions of those weapons.  Turn it in and melt it down, or risk a felony charge later on.
 
2013-01-25 10:22:29 AM  

trotsky: I wake up and see three gun stories in a row. What gives?


Too many people use AdBlock, they have to up the troll headlines to get their clicks.
 
2013-01-25 10:22:48 AM  

Rev.K: Frank N Stein: Also, Alton Brown says fark your gun control

[www.armoryblog.com image 600x803]

Oh. Well, I'm convinced.

Everyone go home. A Food Network personality has spoken on gun control.


I for one won't be satisfied until I know what Bobby Flay thinks about all this.
 
2013-01-25 10:23:43 AM  
Huh, the BAR isn't on that list. Because its not like that was designed for warfare or anything. Oh wait, its not a scary looking black rifle, nevermind.
 
2013-01-25 10:23:57 AM  

limeyfellow: That is always a plus. It really annoys me for some reason.


dittybopper: Even the Associated Press has taken notice: http://www.facebook.com/apstylebook/posts/508285139194577


It's kind of cute, them learning the terminology. It's like a baby trying to string together a sentence. You get what they're trying to say, but they just quite haven't gotten the language down yet. And sometimes the confusion leads to hilarious results.
 
2013-01-25 10:24:08 AM  
I went to the Aston Martin Owner's Club Race many years ago and I was standing beside a retired race car driver watching these upper class twits in a Monty Pythonesque attempt to steer their cars around the track and the guy said to me, "There's a lot more car than driver in this race".
 
2013-01-25 10:25:03 AM  

Andyr2120: Whatever they decide it means, a ban is only worth doing if they make it illegal to possess existing versions of those weapons.  Turn it in and melt it down, or risk a felony charge later on.


You are correct: such a measure is absolutely necessary to generate substantial noncompliance and political backlash.
 
2013-01-25 10:25:10 AM  
If we want to outlaw production of a weapon, it should be landmines.

We're pretty much the only country that still makes those horrible little things.
 
2013-01-25 10:26:01 AM  
So the 2nd amendment is the right to hunt?

I doubt the founding fathers intended that to be the meaning, quite the opposite.
 
2013-01-25 10:26:48 AM  

Frank N Stein: Also, Alton Brown says fark your gun control

[www.armoryblog.com image 600x803]


Has he actually said anything on the record? Doesn't appear so.
 
2013-01-25 10:26:56 AM  
That atricle is pretty well done. I have a problem with this part, though:

That's because sales between private gun owners and sales at gun shows are exempt under federal law.

Sales by dealers at gun shows are not exempt from backgraound checks. It's exactly like going to a gun store.

Sales between private owners at gun shows are just like sales between private owners anywhere else, at least in this state. There is no "gun show loophole," as people are wont to say.
 
2013-01-25 10:27:11 AM  
Meh, let people sell all the guns they want, with pretty much any modifications they want. Require them to hold insurance that covers all damages, including lose of life, that may occur through use of the weapon. Before too long the free market will lead to people manufacturing, buying, and using guns in safer manners in order to reduce insurance premiums, while still allowing those who really want to get their jollies off to absorb the extra cost.
 
2013-01-25 10:27:44 AM  

dinch: Make people with an FFL take a course in picking up on mental derangements would do more than a weapons ban.


Lanza tried to buy a weapon but was turned away by the FFL so he stole his mothers weapons after he killed her.

Your plan would not help solve anything.

Maybe we should leave the picking out the mentally deranged to teachers and employers.
 
2013-01-25 10:28:30 AM  

ph0rk: Frank N Stein: Also, Alton Brown says fark your gun control

[www.armoryblog.com image 600x803]

Has he actually said anything on the record? Doesn't appear so.


No, he just enjoys guns, like most really really rich guys.
 
2013-01-25 10:29:02 AM  

FlashHarry: syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.

that's like saying that a bugatti veyron's 1000 horsepower is "standard horsepower" for that car. that may be true, but relative to most vehicles, it is a high-horsepower car.

btw, i believe the original AR15 came with a 20-round magazine, did it not?


You may be thinking of the earlier military rifle, the m14. That had 20 round magazines but also had a larger round (7.62mm instead of 5.56mm).
 
2013-01-25 10:29:48 AM  

Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.


Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.
 
2013-01-25 10:29:56 AM  
FlashHarry:
btw, i believe the original AR15 came with a 20-round magazine, did it not?

Yep, the M-16A1 as issued in Vietnam had a 20-round magazine.  It also had fully-automatic fire capacity that lead to guys panic-firing their entire weapon in one trigger pull, so later changes were the 30-round magazine and changing the full-auto selector to a three-round burst.

I especially 'like' New York's new law.  You can own a 10-round magazine, but it's now illegal to put more than seven rounds in it.  That will certainly stop those criminals in their tracks!
 
2013-01-25 10:30:40 AM  

ph0rk: Frank N Stein: Also, Alton Brown says fark your gun control

[www.armoryblog.com image 600x803]

Has he actually said anything on the record? Doesn't appear so.


No, but his armory suggest that he's pretty pro-gun. He owns a "SCAR 17, an H&K P30, a Kahr, and a Kimber 1911. And a few dozen others." Link

He's also a pretty devout Christian, which surprised me.
 
2013-01-25 10:31:06 AM  
"Everyone who got off at Hyattsville was either heavily armed or had a bodyguard. The people loitering around the station were all armed. The police carried lasers."

"I had expected my mother to be horrified that I had killed a man, but she accepted it without comment. Rhonda clucked a little bit about our being out in a city after midnight, especially without a bodyguard. We talked on these and other topics until late at night, when Mother called her bodyguard and went off to work."



That sounds like an America I want to live in.
 
2013-01-25 10:31:32 AM  
Would Senator Feinstein's proposal cause the replacement of the barrel of my Springfield Armory XD45 Compact with a threaded barrel transform the firearm into an "assault weapon"?
 
2013-01-25 10:32:30 AM  

Frank N Stein: ph0rk: Frank N Stein: Also, Alton Brown says fark your gun control

[www.armoryblog.com image 600x803]

Has he actually said anything on the record? Doesn't appear so.

No, but his armory suggest that he's pretty pro-gun. He owns a "SCAR 17, an H&K P30, a Kahr, and a Kimber 1911. And a few dozen others." Link

He's also a pretty devout Christian, which surprised me.


I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.
 
2013-01-25 10:32:45 AM  

Thunderpipes: So the 2nd amendment is the right to hunt?

I doubt the founding fathers intended that to be the meaning, quite the opposite.


Actually the founding fathers were avid sportsmen and were really fond of hunting. I've heard that they intended to pass amendments protecting all sorts of sporting activities from government control: fishing, chess, kite flying, ballet, etc. It was very important to then that no tyrant would come of age and take these leisurely activities from the people.

They only passed the second amendment, however, as that is how fond they were of hunting.
 
2013-01-25 10:32:49 AM  

Minus 1 Charisma: Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.

Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.


the VT killer had a single 15 round mag and a backpack full of 10 round magazines. He fired over 150 shots.
 
2013-01-25 10:32:58 AM  
Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.

www.tri-eagle-firearms.com

fark an assault rifle. I'm getting a battle rifle
 
2013-01-25 10:33:07 AM  

Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.


Yeah, I agree. I'm going to feel just as fcucked, regardless of whether the guy shooting at me has a 100-round drum or three 30-round mags.
 
2013-01-25 10:33:17 AM  

Minus 1 Charisma: Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.

Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.


Uh, these gunmen are often tackled when reloading. Even if it only takes a second or two, its still a longer pause than the shotest possible time between shots on a semi-automatic, unless you're dealing with someone who is really good and highly trained.
 
2013-01-25 10:33:25 AM  

odinsposse: You may be thinking of the earlier military rifle, the m14. That had 20 round magazines but also had a larger round (7.62mm instead of 5.56mm).


www.imfdb.org

actually, i think the early versions did have a 20-round magazine.

www.nd.gov

the later versions had the 30-round mag.
 
2013-01-25 10:33:29 AM  
Bear in mind, "assault weapons" are spray fired weapons designed to be held at the hip, and designed to kill as many as people as possible in a short amount of time.

This is why the police department in every town, city, county, state across the country will still be able to buy them at will.
 
2013-01-25 10:33:47 AM  

Rich Cream: HansoSparxx: I thought that an "Assault Weapon" was just a weapon primarily used to Assault someone with.

How many bullets does it normally take to kill a harmless fuzzy creature anyway?


Please define a defensive weapon that has no offensive capability.


Keyword you used is "Weapon". Weapons assault.

Did you have a point to make?
 
2013-01-25 10:34:08 AM  

Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.

[www.tri-eagle-firearms.com image 850x558]


hey, look! clips!
 
2013-01-25 10:34:11 AM  

Dimensio: Would Senator Feinstein's proposal cause the replacement of the barrel of my Springfield Armory XD45 Compact with a threaded barrel transform the firearm into an "assault weapon"?


Yes.

The Walther P-22 is also an "assault weapon" because it has a threaded barrel.
 
2013-01-25 10:34:37 AM  
An "assault weapon" is whatever the anti's say it is. They're constantly redefining and expanding the phrase.

When the police have the same thing, they call them "patrol rifles".
 
2013-01-25 10:34:56 AM  

dinch: How many millions of AR-15's have been sold in the US? How would a weapons ban, at this point, do anything to limit their use in crime? Make people with an FFL take a course in picking up on mental derangements would do more than a weapons ban.


Best guess? Something more than 3.5 million sold.

This New York Time article says 3.2 to 3.5 million since 1986:

Gun makers do not release sales figures for specific types of firearms. But Mr. Halbrook, who compiled manufacturing estimates for a lawsuit, said that by a conservative estimate, 3.3 million to 3.5 million AR-15s were made in the United States from 1986 through the first half of this year and were not exported.

The AR-15 was first sold to civilians in 1964, so it's likely to a bit higher, and remember, those numbers are "conservative". It could be significantly higher.

The AR-15 approaches the popularity of the quintessential bolt action deer rifle, the Remington 700, of which roughly 5 million have sold since its introduction in 1962.
 
2013-01-25 10:35:09 AM  

Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.

[www.tri-eagle-firearms.com image 850x558]

fark an assault rifle. I'm getting a battle rifle


that's a pretty weapon. but personally i want a lee-enfield .303.
 
2013-01-25 10:35:58 AM  

Source4leko: Huh, the BAR isn't on that list. Because its not like that was designed for warfare or anything. Oh wait, its not a scary looking black rifle, nevermind.


I thought they banned the BAR in the 30's?
 
2013-01-25 10:36:38 AM  

FlashHarry: hey, look! clips!


BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG PING!
 
2013-01-25 10:36:39 AM  

CPennypacker: Uh, these gunmen are often tackled when reloading. Even if it only takes a second or two, its still a longer pause than the shotest possible time between shots on a semi-automatic, unless you're dealing with someone who is really good and highly trained.


They're almost never tackled while reloading.

The major ones-virginia tech and sandy hook had the shooter reloading multiple times without it apparently making a difference. At VT, he brought 19 magazines and investigators found 15 empty mags strewn about; at Sandy Hook, the shooter left half loaded magazines everywhere.
The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.

The only time anyone can say that magazines did anything at all is Tucson. Once.
 
2013-01-25 10:37:39 AM  

CPennypacker: Uh, these gunmen are often tackled when reloading


I can only think of Laughner being tackled.....who are the others?
 
2013-01-25 10:37:41 AM  

pedrop357: The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.


Ah, so if his mother had been only able to own one gun...
 
2013-01-25 10:37:53 AM  
 
2013-01-25 10:37:56 AM  
I'm so old I gave up during the engine-motor debates.
 
2013-01-25 10:38:13 AM  

tommyl66: Are we almost done with all the "I Love My Guns" and "Your Guns Are Scary" dick-waving already? Can we move on to more important things, like figuring out how we can improve mental health care so John Q. Wackadoodle gets the help he needs before he decides shooting up his office is the only choice he has?


Would impoving mental health care have prevented 9/11?
 
2013-01-25 10:38:17 AM  

ph0rk: pedrop357: The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.

Ah, so if his mother had been only able to own one gun...


Er, not his mother. Same knee-jerk point though.
 
2013-01-25 10:38:32 AM  

FlashHarry: Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.

[www.tri-eagle-firearms.com image 850x558]

hey, look! clips!


Assault clips.
 
2013-01-25 10:38:59 AM  

ph0rk: " The police carried lasers."


What year was this?
 
2013-01-25 10:39:02 AM  

Giltric: Citrate1007: Dimensio: Citrate1007: Radical gun nuts are attracted to "assault weapons" because they get a power trip liking themselves to Rambo. This god complex is often present in sociopath so there is a reason why they are often used for mass murder. The thing is, if you deny them the shiny Rambo guns it will not stop their god complex. They will just bust a nut over whatever weapon they can find that makes them feel powerful.

Your hypothesis is interesting, and I eagerly await the references to the substantial body of supporting data that you will be able to provide.

Exhibit A

If he wanted real unadulterated power he should have ran for office to exert his will on the people.


He wasn't evil enough to be a politician.
 
2013-01-25 10:39:03 AM  

Dimensio: Would Senator Feinstein's proposal cause the replacement of the barrel of my Springfield Armory XD45 Compact with a threaded barrel transform the firearm into an "assault weapon"?


That military high-capicity clip would.

Not the 10 round.
 
2013-01-25 10:39:16 AM  
Given the extra control one gets from a pistol grip, I wonder if there may be an ADA complaint to be made with any law that restricts or bans pistol grips.

Oh and Dimensio, I went with the Butler Creek folding stock in stainless steel for mine. The balance is excellent, much better than the all-plastic models.
 
2013-01-25 10:39:50 AM  

Minus 1 Charisma: Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.

Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.


It's because the left won't listen to anyone who knows anything about guns, and the right won't budge on anything about guns. So we have one side that has all the information and willfully ignorant other side who won't talk to the side with the information. Gun owning liberals like myself would happy to talk with Sen. Feinstein and VP Biden about guns. Heck, Joe could talk to his son who is in the Army (even though he's a pog). But no one will talk to anyone else. The Army trained me on how to drop mags and reload as quickly as possible. We used to do mag drills just for fun when we were bored. Overcoming magazine restrictions just takes training and someone who is dedicated can change magazines before anyone even realizes the shooting has stopped. I wish they would just ask. Not all gun owners are foaming at the mouth die-hard conservatives. I learned to love to shoot in the Army and I consider the AR I own to a tangible link to my past life as a Soldier. It also bothers me a little that the government trained me to use their most basic weapon (which I can kind of own as a civilian) but doesn't trust me anymore once I am a civilian. This is not an argument that M1 crews should be able to own a tank, or ADA can own a stinger, but I can already own an AR and I'm not likely to miss use it or be irresponsible with it.
 
2013-01-25 10:40:28 AM  
Gun farm.
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-25 10:40:29 AM  

JohnCarter: ph0rk: " The police carried lasers."

What year was this?


According to John Haldeman, around 2023.
 
2013-01-25 10:40:49 AM  
"AR" does not stand for "assult rifle".
 
2013-01-25 10:40:51 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Source4leko: Huh, the BAR isn't on that list. Because its not like that was designed for warfare or anything. Oh wait, its not a scary looking black rifle, nevermind.

I thought they banned the BAR in the 30's?


nope.

they range in price from 5k to like 20k.
 
2013-01-25 10:41:41 AM  

FlashHarry: Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.

[www.tri-eagle-firearms.com image 850x558]

fark an assault rifle. I'm getting a battle rifle

that's a pretty weapon. but personally i want a lee-enfield .303.


I've owned both, and quite frankly, I'd take the M-1 over the SMLE.

Don't get me wrong, I love me a good No 4, and owned one for two decades. If I were limited to just a bolt-action battle rifle, the SMLE would be my first pick over the Springfields, Mausers, and what-have-you. But the M-1 Garand is, well, *SPECIAL*.

Of all the guns I've owned and sold over the years, that's the one I regret selling the most.
 
2013-01-25 10:42:06 AM  

Ivandrago: It's because the left won't listen to anyone who knows anything about guns,


I think if a group knowledgeable about guns had some proposals other than "arm everyone, everywhere" people, including "the left" would listen.


But there does not appear to be any group offering that message, at least not that the public can see.
 
2013-01-25 10:42:55 AM  

impaler: FYI: the "plastic parts" are for people that have to carry a gun around on their person, for weeks at a time, in various environmental conditions (you know, soldiers). There, it's nice to have a lighter weapon.

For the nutball that picks up a gun and goes out shooting, it gives no advantage.


I agree. It's a stupid reason to buy a weapon.

It's an equally stupid reason to ban one.
 
2013-01-25 10:43:00 AM  

Deep Contact: Gun farm.
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 392x263]


I'm assuming someone spilled a bunch of 7.62x39mm in a field somewhere.
 
2013-01-25 10:43:24 AM  

Ivandrago: Gun owning liberals like myself would happy to talk with Sen. Feinstein and VP Biden about guns. Heck, Joe could talk to his son who is in the Army (even though he's a pog).


I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.

And yes, he is a pog. Even though, as a former Coast Guardsmen myself, I have no right to speak as combat wasn't our main objective.
 
2013-01-25 10:43:39 AM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: Uh, these gunmen are often tackled when reloading. Even if it only takes a second or two, its still a longer pause than the shotest possible time between shots on a semi-automatic, unless you're dealing with someone who is really good and highly trained.

They're almost never tackled while reloading.

The major ones-virginia tech and sandy hook had the shooter reloading multiple times without it apparently making a difference. At VT, he brought 19 magazines and investigators found 15 empty mags strewn about; at Sandy Hook, the shooter left half loaded magazines everywhere.
The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.

The only time anyone can say that magazines did anything at all is Tucson. Once.


LIRR Massacre - 1993

Link

Thurston High School Massacre - 1998

Link

Thats two from a 5 second google with no effort. Plus Tuscon. And I'm sure if I wanted to put the effort into it I'd find more.

But carry on with the "it wouldn't do ANYTHING so we shouldn't do it" BS
 
2013-01-25 10:44:06 AM  

Deep Contact: Gun farm.
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 392x263]


Don't fark with gunfarmers.
 
2013-01-25 10:44:29 AM  

dittybopper: Of all the guns I've owned and sold over the years, that's the one I regret selling the most.


Get yourself a CMP M1 while you can. Current supplies will probably run out within the next few years.
 
2013-01-25 10:44:45 AM  

pedrop357: Bear in mind, "assault weapons" are spray fired weapons designed to be held at the hip, and designed to kill as many as people as possible in a short amount of time.

This is why the police department in every town, city, county, state across the country will still be able to buy them at will.


Nad don't forget kiddies: the proper stance to fire a handgun is by holding it's grip on a horizontal plain (firin' gangsta) or firing at your intended target while rolling on the ground between perfectly good points of cover.

(hopefully you were being as sarcastic when you were talking about the extensive use of "hip firing" in armed conflict).
 
2013-01-25 10:44:49 AM  
Duh. An assault weapon has a shoulder thing that goes up.
 
2013-01-25 10:45:42 AM  

ph0rk: I think if a group knowledgeable about guns had some proposals other than "arm everyone, everywhere" people, including "the left" would listen.


Strawman.

No one is saying that everyone should be armed everywhere. We are "pro-choice". If you don't want to be armed, fine, I don't want to force to do be armed against your will.
 
2013-01-25 10:45:44 AM  

ph0rk: Ivandrago: It's because the left won't listen to anyone who knows anything about guns,

I think if a group knowledgeable about guns had some proposals other than "arm everyone, everywhere" people, including "the left" would listen.


But there does not appear to be any group offering that message, at least not that the public can see.


Thank you. Your response is a perfect illustration of ph0rk's statement: you entirely ignored the primary content of his statement to argue against a position that he did not take.
 
2013-01-25 10:45:48 AM  

The Smails Kid: Duh. An assault weapon has a shoulder thing that goes up.


A rocket powered grenade?
 
2013-01-25 10:46:24 AM  
You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.
 
2013-01-25 10:46:47 AM  

dittybopper: I've owned both, and quite frankly, I'd take the M-1 over the SMLE.

Don't get me wrong, I love me a good No 4, and owned one for two decades. If I were limited to just a bolt-action battle rifle, the SMLE would be my first pick over the Springfields, Mausers, and what-have-you. But the M-1 Garand is, well, *SPECIAL*.


being born and raised british, i have an affinity for the SMLE. but the garand is a great weapon for sure.
 
2013-01-25 10:47:22 AM  

boozehat: "AR" does not stand for "assult rifle".


i thought it stood for armalite - the company that developed it in the 50s.
 
2013-01-25 10:47:54 AM  

syrynxx: It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation.

An "assault weapon" is a political term only, and unless you live in a state like California or Connecticut with a state law, there is no such thing as an assault weapon under current laws.


Exactly...

Nobody will go to this link, but I am going to repost it anyway, this seems like as good a place as any...

The Truth About Assault Weapons
 
2013-01-25 10:48:22 AM  

Frank N Stein: CMP


Waiting on my Navy 7.62 M1 barrelled receiver, another H&R, and some ammunition. They're pretty backlogged.

I've been wondering if someone was going to bring up the CMP's delivery methods.
 
2013-01-25 10:48:36 AM  

Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.


then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?
 
2013-01-25 10:48:39 AM  

Dimensio: Thank you. Your response is a perfect illustration of ph0rk's statement: you entirely ignored the primary content of his statement to argue against a position that he did not take.


Who, me? I'm not contesting the basic content of Ivandrago's comment, but rather that we have plenty of avowed "gun folks" saying only what won't work, and none offering any solution that will.
If magazine restrictions won't help, what will?
 
2013-01-25 10:48:41 AM  

Dimensio: The difference is obvious.


[kbensema.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


[www.thefirearmblog.com image 590x300]

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


Nice, I wonder hoe many people will bite?
 
2013-01-25 10:49:08 AM  

Frank N Stein: I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.


You do know that Joe Biden was one of the original authors of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, right? He's just as unreasonable on this issue as Feinstein.
 
2013-01-25 10:50:27 AM  

Dave Lister: Frank N Stein: CMP

Waiting on my Navy 7.62 M1 barrelled receiver, another H&R, and some ammunition. They're pretty backlogged.

I've been wondering if someone was going to bring up the CMP's delivery methods.


Yeah, I fully expect to wait 90 days or so for my order to ship.

THEY MAIL THE GUN DIRECTLY TO YOUR HOUSE OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
 
2013-01-25 10:50:32 AM  

CPennypacker: Minus 1 Charisma: Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.

Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

Uh, these gunmen are often tackled when reloading. Even if it only takes a second or two, its still a longer pause than the shotest possible time between shots on a semi-automatic, unless you're dealing with someone who is really good and highly trained.


Yeah but the bigger the magazing the more likely it it to be a jammy piece of shiat and clearing a jam takes even longer. Also the increased weight of ammunition makes it harder to carry for long periods.

I propose a minimum magazine size of 250 rounds.
 
2013-01-25 10:51:00 AM  

Frank N Stein: Ivandrago: Gun owning liberals like myself would happy to talk with Sen. Feinstein and VP Biden about guns. Heck, Joe could talk to his son who is in the Army (even though he's a pog).

I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.

And yes, he is a pog. Even though, as a former Coast Guardsmen myself, I have no right to speak as combat wasn't our main objective.


Some Coast Guard units are pretty elite. LEDETs, PSUs, ITDs,some coasty units get lots of trigger time.
 
2013-01-25 10:51:34 AM  

dittybopper: Frank N Stein: I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.

You do know that Joe Biden was one of the original authors of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, right? He's just as unreasonable on this issue as Feinstein.


We'll, he has presidential aspirations now so he can't play his hand too big
 
2013-01-25 10:51:34 AM  

Dimensio: I have been informed that the collapsible stock aids in concealment.


Probably by the same people who also tells you that you could never use a semiauto rifle to defend a home(Even with a collapsible stock), because "it's too long". It's like the goalposts are mounted on wheels when it comes to the gun debate.
 
2013-01-25 10:51:44 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: tommyl66: Are we almost done with all the "I Love My Guns" and "Your Guns Are Scary" dick-waving already? Can we move on to more important things, like figuring out how we can improve mental health care so John Q. Wackadoodle gets the help he needs before he decides shooting up his office is the only choice he has?

Would impoving mental health care have prevented 9/11?


Yes, yes it would have. If the heads of various government agencies had the proper checkups to ensure their brains were not located too close to their rectums it could have been avoided.
 
2013-01-25 10:51:47 AM  

FlashHarry: odinsposse: You may be thinking of the earlier military rifle, the m14. That had 20 round magazines but also had a larger round (7.62mm instead of 5.56mm).

[www.imfdb.org image 500x111]

actually, i think the early versions did have a 20-round magazine.

[www.nd.gov image 546x147]

the later versions had the 30-round mag.


I did not know that. Thanks to you and syrynxx
 
2013-01-25 10:51:55 AM  

ph0rk: Ivandrago: It's because the left won't listen to anyone who knows anything about guns,

I think if a group knowledgeable about guns had some proposals other than "arm everyone, everywhere" people, including "the left" would listen.


But there does not appear to be any group offering that message, at least not that the public can see.


Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns. I consider myself to be on the left side of the spectrum politically, and I decry the right and their fanaticism that amounts to "any restriction is tyranny." My problem is that the things that Feinstein want to do will have 0 bearing on the lethality of the guns they're trying to restrict. Collapsible buttstocks aren't for concealment, they're for comfort. Pistol grips are for comfort as well. Bayonet lugs allow you to attach a bayonet. Does anyone anywhere have any evidence of a bayonet being used in a crime while attached to a rifle? Flash hides don't actually hide the flashes and many people today are using them to make the flashes bigger and look cooler (the Noveske Flaming Pig for instance is awesome http://www.riflegear.com/p-638-noveske-kx3-556-flaming-pig-flash-hider .aspx) But those are the things that they're going to ban from rifles. It's legislation that doesn't mean anything. And it doesn't mean anything but no one wants to talk about it.
 
2013-01-25 10:52:46 AM  

Giltric: Some Coast Guard units are pretty elite. LEDETs, PSUs, ITDs,some coasty units get lots of trigger time.


That is true. However, my time in the Guard was equally split between search and rescue/law enforcement and desk jockeying.
 
2013-01-25 10:52:52 AM  

kqc7011: http://www.assaultweapon.info


LOL, I just posted this, didn't see yours, sorry. Great page, too bad the anti's refuse to acknowledge it.
 
2013-01-25 10:54:38 AM  

ph0rk: I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.


I keep hearing this, but I don't understand why. The guy is entertaining and knowledgable. My wife watches it, and I can usually only take an episode or so, but he seems pretty cool, and has some great tips.
 
2013-01-25 10:54:56 AM  

Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.


Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?
 
2013-01-25 10:55:15 AM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: Uh, these gunmen are often tackled when reloading. Even if it only takes a second or two, its still a longer pause than the shotest possible time between shots on a semi-automatic, unless you're dealing with someone who is really good and highly trained.

They're almost never tackled while reloading.

The major ones-virginia tech and sandy hook had the shooter reloading multiple times without it apparently making a difference. At VT, he brought 19 magazines and investigators found 15 empty mags strewn about; at Sandy Hook, the shooter left half loaded magazines everywhere.
The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.

The only time anyone can say that magazines did anything at all is Tucson. Once.

LIRR Massacre - 1993

Link

Thurston High School Massacre - 1998

Link

Thats two from a 5 second google with no effort. Plus Tuscon. And I'm sure if I wanted to put the effort into it I'd find more.

But carry on with the "it wouldn't do ANYTHING so we shouldn't do it" BS


Read about Kip and Colin_ both had some major psychological and agressive bugs in their closets- if they had been identified and properly dealt with earlier in life, magazine capacity may have more of a significant role to play in this conversation.
 
2013-01-25 10:55:33 AM  

Mikey1969: ph0rk: I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand why. The guy is entertaining and knowledgable. My wife watches it, and I can usually only take an episode or so, but he seems pretty cool, and has some great tips.


If everyone liked the same things this thread wouldn't exist.
 
2013-01-25 10:56:07 AM  

DoomPaul: I have yet to see a weapon that cannot be used to assault someone.


I have yet to see any object that can be picked up not potentially be used to assault someone. The board game Clue has a nice assortment of random stuff that could be used to assault and kill someone and the part of the game is about figuring out which object was used as a weapon. Heck, I could probably kill someone with my keyboard; the cord can detach from the keyboard, be used to assault someone, and then be plugged back in.
 
2013-01-25 10:57:17 AM  

Thunderpipes: So the 2nd amendment is the right to hunt?

I doubt the founding fathers intended that to be the meaning, quite the opposite.


The Second Amendment gives poor people the right to own something rich people can't ignore.

During the Constitutional Congress, southern states proposed the 'states only' version so plantation owners could have private armies but still make it illegal for slaves to shoot back. The northern states had pushed for abolition, but really wanted the interstate commerce parts of the Constitution, which the southern states refused to accept until abolition was taken off the table. The southern states wanted state control of firearms so they could give the slave-owning white minority a monopoly on firepower, but didn't have the political chips to force that version. IMO, the making the Second Amendment a right of the individual was a 'screw you' from the northern states to the southern ones, at least granting slaves the potential to rise against their owners without being executed by the state for succeeding.

Today there are millions of decent and honestly moderate people whose support for gun control generalizes to something like, "let's keep guns out of the hands of undesirables." They haven't stopped to think that for at least 3/4 of US history, the word 'undesirables' was the polite term for 'negroes', or that even today the selection criteria the suggest would skew strongly toward 'low-income, black, and male'.

I have no doubt that those people would be horrified to see how easily their words could be turned into support for a new era of Jim Crow laws. I hope it doesn't have to go that far before they realize the unintended consequences could be awful.
 
2013-01-25 10:57:49 AM  

Frank N Stein: dittybopper: Frank N Stein: I would speak to Biden on the issue. He seems reasonable enough. Feinstein, however, set the gun control bar too high for me being interested in meeting her at the negotiation table.

You do know that Joe Biden was one of the original authors of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, right? He's just as unreasonable on this issue as Feinstein.

We'll, he has presidential aspirations now so he can't play his hand too big


Meh. I think he's toast as far as that goes. What gun owner is going to vote for him? The guy who wrote the original failed Assault Weapons Ban, and who went on to be Barack Obama's go-to gun control guy? Yeah, that'll go over well with the rural and suburban blue dogs, and the Democrats aren't in a place where they can completely ignore them yet.
 
2013-01-25 10:58:26 AM  

ph0rk: Mikey1969: ph0rk: I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand why. The guy is entertaining and knowledgable. My wife watches it, and I can usually only take an episode or so, but he seems pretty cool, and has some great tips.

If everyone liked the same things this thread wouldn't exist.


I like to argue so I disagree.
 
2013-01-25 10:59:12 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: ph0rk: Mikey1969: ph0rk: I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand why. The guy is entertaining and knowledgable. My wife watches it, and I can usually only take an episode or so, but he seems pretty cool, and has some great tips.

If everyone liked the same things this thread wouldn't exist.

I like to argue so I disagree.


OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
 
2013-01-25 11:00:29 AM  

Giltric: Minus 1 Charisma: Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.

Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

the VT killer had a single 15 round mag and a backpack full of 10 round magazines. He fired over 150 shots.


Hell, in Columbine, Eric Harris had a Hi-Point with 10 round mags and fired something like 96 round, while the TEC-( with 28, 32 and 52 round mags) for only 55 rounds. So the 1/3 size mag was used in a gun that fired almost twice as many rounds...
 
2013-01-25 11:01:28 AM  

ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?


Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.
 
2013-01-25 11:01:42 AM  
Tell you what, busting off a 20 round magazine in my M1A is frightening compared to a wussy little AR in .223. I have the Army issue M1 bipod and it is a very accurate rifle.

The price now for an M1A like mine has more than doubled, if you can find one at all. Cheapest I have seen was an auction starting at $2500.

I cannot find a matching numbers WW II Garand, which is my goal (to collect all the major WW II rifles from various nations, matching numbers). I keep hoping one will turn up at a backwoods store or gunshow, now that is looking like it will never happen. I recently found a matching numbers early war K98 which is beautiful, but that is bolt action and below the radar, for now. I don't doubt that will change with time.

Thanks a lot libs, for screwing up perfectly good and safe fun.
 
2013-01-25 11:02:14 AM  

Rich Cream: HansoSparxx: I thought that an "Assault Weapon" was just a weapon primarily used to Assault someone with.

How many bullets does it normally take to kill a harmless fuzzy creature anyway?


Please define a defensive weapon that has no offensive capability.


Wobbuffet.
 
2013-01-25 11:02:43 AM  

Mikey1969: kqc7011: http://www.assaultweapon.info

LOL, I just posted this, didn't see yours, sorry. Great page, too bad the anti's refuse to acknowledge it.


I could not get the link to work for me. You provided. Thanks.
 
2013-01-25 11:02:52 AM  

syrynxx: It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation


You do realize that that definition of assault rifle would not include any M-16 used by the American military between approximately 1970 and the early 2000's, don't you?
 
2013-01-25 11:03:54 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.


I like all of those things. If a real gun lobby was promoting them, they would probably get implemented (well, perhaps not mental health, as that would segue into single payer so fast people's heads would spin).

I don't expect to see a real gun lobby promoting any of those solutions, though.
 
2013-01-25 11:05:02 AM  

yingtong: The Second Amendment gives poor people the right to own something rich people can't ignore.


Correction: The Second Amendment recognizes a poor person's right to own something a rich person can't ignore.

The Constitution doesn't 'give rights to the people'. The Constitution grants powers to the government, and those powers are derived from the rights of the people.
 
2013-01-25 11:05:12 AM  

Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.



A couple hundred rounds? Each high power/service rifle/vintage rifle/Garand match uses fifty rounds, not counting sighters, and they're addictive. I'd start with a couple thousand rounds and start saving money for more. It's not like it's gonna get any cheaper.
 
2013-01-25 11:05:26 AM  

ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?


Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work. The line is nice and clear and the gun nuts can finally stop whining about normenclature. Basically the US could use the same restrictions as Canada.
 
2013-01-25 11:05:42 AM  

CtrlAltDestroy: Rich Cream: HansoSparxx: I thought that an "Assault Weapon" was just a weapon primarily used to Assault someone with.

How many bullets does it normally take to kill a harmless fuzzy creature anyway?


Please define a defensive weapon that has no offensive capability.

Wobbuffet.


I lol'ed
 
2013-01-25 11:06:52 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.


Please outline such reasonable rules, given that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws requiring the use of a trigger lock or other ways of delaying immediate access to a gun are unconstitutional.

Also, please explain how the federal government gets the right to decide if I can sell my constitutionally protected property or not.

In addition, please explain why I should get a license to practice a constitutional right. Isn't that prior restraint, something that is constitutionally frowned upon except in very narrow circumstances?
 
2013-01-25 11:07:04 AM  

kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.


Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".
 
2013-01-25 11:07:58 AM  

Karac: syrynxx: It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation

You do realize that that definition of assault rifle would not include any M-16 used by the American military between approximately 1970 and the early 2000's, don't you?


i would guess that three-round burst capability would be included as a defining characteristic of an "assault rifle."
 
2013-01-25 11:08:42 AM  

Oblio13: Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.


A couple hundred rounds? Each high power/service rifle/vintage rifle/Garand match uses fifty rounds, not counting sighters, and they're addictive. I'd start with a couple thousand rounds and start saving money for more. It's not like it's gonna get any cheaper.


And buy reloading equipment and components, if you can find them.

/I'm buying all I can, before the hoarders get them!!1
 
2013-01-25 11:08:49 AM  

kapaso: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work. The line is nice and clear and the gun nuts can finally stop whining about normenclature. Basically the US could use the same restrictions as Canada.


I can't imagine any gun lobby endorsing that position.
 
2013-01-25 11:09:10 AM  

yingtong: yingtong: The Second Amendment gives poor people the right to own something rich people can't ignore.

Correction: The Second Amendment recognizes a poor person's right to own something a rich person can't ignore.

The Constitution doesn't 'give rights to the people'. The Constitution grants powers to the government, and those powers are derived from the rights of the people.


Constitution doesn't grant rights to the government (specifically the bill of rights), it protects citizens from government.

What kind of idiot thinks a safe storage law will do anything anyway? How would you enforce that? Oh, Obama grants the ATF immunity from the 4th amendment? Brown shirts in the middle of the night busting down your door to check if you have a safe? What happens if an intruder pops in, you are going to much around with a safe?

Everything the Democrats propose is stupid, wasteful, and does not touch the problem, which is bad people in society.
 
2013-01-25 11:09:19 AM  

Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial very widespread noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".


FTFY.
 
2013-01-25 11:09:52 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Reasonable rules about storage.


Reasonable? possibly NSFW
 
2013-01-25 11:09:54 AM  

Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.


I like that a lot. The pistols are a bit much, but that might be fun to shoot, and when compared to my .45 small frame pistol, I bet there would be almost no recoil.
 
2013-01-25 11:10:03 AM  

Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".


It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.
 
2013-01-25 11:10:20 AM  

Thunderpipes: yingtong: yingtong: The Second Amendment gives poor people the right to own something rich people can't ignore.

Correction: The Second Amendment recognizes a poor person's right to own something a rich person can't ignore.

The Constitution doesn't 'give rights to the people'. The Constitution grants powers to the government, and those powers are derived from the rights of the people.

Constitution doesn't grant rights to the government (specifically the bill of rights), it protects citizens from government.

What kind of idiot thinks a safe storage law will do anything anyway? How would you enforce that? Oh, Obama grants the ATF immunity from the 4th amendment? Brown shirts in the middle of the night busting down your door to check if you have a safe? What happens if an intruder pops in, you are going to much around with a safe?

Everything the Democrats propose is stupid, wasteful, and does not touch the problem, which is bad people in society.


Replying to you is a waste of time, but what do you suggest as a way to address what the public sees as a real problem, other than arming every citizen?
 
2013-01-25 11:10:56 AM  

odinsposse: FlashHarry: syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.

that's like saying that a bugatti veyron's 1000 horsepower is "standard horsepower" for that car. that may be true, but relative to most vehicles, it is a high-horsepower car.

btw, i believe the original AR15 came with a 20-round magazine, did it not?

You may be thinking of the earlier military rifle, the m14. That had 20 round magazines but also had a larger round (7.62mm instead of 5.56mm).


The M16 I carried in the early 70s came with a 20 round magazine, although we were only allowed to put 18 rounds in them to reduce malfunctions.
 
2013-01-25 11:12:03 AM  

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.


Semi-automatic firearms are not prohibited in Canada. Please explain how a prohibition not implemented in Canada "works fine" in that nation; how can a non-existent prohibition "work" at all?

Are you claiming that restrictions upon electronically transmitted speech and that warrantless searches in automobiles are also Constitutionally viable?
 
2013-01-25 11:12:16 AM  

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.


Nor was the 4th written when computers and automobiles were around, yet they're still covered. Your point?
 
2013-01-25 11:12:17 AM  

tommyl66: Are we almost done with all the "I Love My Guns" and "Your Guns Are Scary" dick-waving already? Can we move on to more important things, like figuring out how we can improve mental health care so John Q. Wackadoodle gets the help he needs before he decides shooting up his office is the only choice he has?


You're being too sensible. Stop that.
 
2013-01-25 11:12:33 AM  

The Smails Kid: Oblio13: Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.


A couple hundred rounds? Each high power/service rifle/vintage rifle/Garand match uses fifty rounds, not counting sighters, and they're addictive. I'd start with a couple thousand rounds and start saving money for more. It's not like it's gonna get any cheaper.

And buy reloading equipment and components, if you can find them.

/I'm buying all I can, before the hoarders get them!!1


I would not worry about ammo in common hunting rifle caliber. 30-06 rounds are not going anywhere. There will be a rush to horde it now, buy up any military surplus, but I would not worry about shortages. .223 I might worry about because it is the Devil's round according to libs. I don't understand the ammo hording personally. I have maybe 200 rounds of .308. If there ever comes a situation where 200 rounds is not enough, 1,000 is not going to make a difference.
 
2013-01-25 11:14:25 AM  

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.


Neither were computers and the Internet. Perhaps we should ban them also?

Besides which, Canada doesn't have nearly as much gun ownership as the United States, and far fewer hunters. In the US, about 1 out of every 20 people buys some sort of hunting license. In Canada, it's 1 out of every 117 people.
 
2013-01-25 11:15:39 AM  

Dimensio: kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.

Semi-automatic firearms are not prohibited in Canada. Please explain how a prohibition not implemented in Canada "works fine" in that nation; how can a non-existent prohibition "work" at all?

Are you claiming that restrictions upon electronically transmitted speech and that warrantless searches in automobiles are also Constitutionally viable?


Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?
 
2013-01-25 11:16:18 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Meh, let people sell all the guns they want, with pretty much any modifications they want. Require them to hold insurance that covers all damages, including lose of life, that may occur through use of the weapon. Before too long the free market will lead to people manufacturing, buying, and using guns in safer manners in order to reduce insurance premiums, while still allowing those who really want to get their jollies off to absorb the extra cost.


Sure, all you have to do is get the criminals to also buy this liability insurance. You know, the ones driving without car insurance or maybe licenses.
 
2013-01-25 11:16:22 AM  

Thunderpipes: The Smails Kid: Oblio13: Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.


A couple hundred rounds? Each high power/service rifle/vintage rifle/Garand match uses fifty rounds, not counting sighters, and they're addictive. I'd start with a couple thousand rounds and start saving money for more. It's not like it's gonna get any cheaper.

And buy reloading equipment and components, if you can find them.

/I'm buying all I can, before the hoarders get them!!1

I would not worry about ammo in common hunting rifle caliber. 30-06 rounds are not going anywhere. There will be a rush to horde it now, buy up any military surplus, but I would not worry about shortages. .223 I might worry about because it is the Devil's round according to libs. I don't understand the ammo hording personally. I have maybe 200 rounds of .308. If there ever comes a situation where 200 rounds is not enough, 1,000 is not going to make a difference.


You don't shoot competitions, apparently.
 
2013-01-25 11:16:32 AM  
It isn't as if you won't be able to print your own large magazines anyway. The plans/blueprints are out there and more will follow.
 
2013-01-25 11:16:33 AM  

ph0rk: Thunderpipes: yingtong: yingtong: The Second Amendment gives poor people the right to own something rich people can't ignore.

Correction: The Second Amendment recognizes a poor person's right to own something a rich person can't ignore.

The Constitution doesn't 'give rights to the people'. The Constitution grants powers to the government, and those powers are derived from the rights of the people.

Constitution doesn't grant rights to the government (specifically the bill of rights), it protects citizens from government.

What kind of idiot thinks a safe storage law will do anything anyway? How would you enforce that? Oh, Obama grants the ATF immunity from the 4th amendment? Brown shirts in the middle of the night busting down your door to check if you have a safe? What happens if an intruder pops in, you are going to much around with a safe?

Everything the Democrats propose is stupid, wasteful, and does not touch the problem, which is bad people in society.

Replying to you is a waste of time, but what do you suggest as a way to address what the public sees as a real problem, other than arming every citizen?


Families of people that are nuts need to have more tools to deal with it, and I think there should be criminal penalties for allowing a nut to have access to your weapons. I have no problem with background checks either, not sure why anyone would. However, once you start including medical records, that opens a giant can of worms. Is ADHD going to prevent you from passing a background check? PTSD? Depression? Booze? Those alone would probably disqualify almost everyone. Who would determine what level of mental illness is the limit? What about doctor-patient confidentiality? How many people would simply not talk to their doctors knowing they are just ratting them out to the feds?

Tough situation, but guns have almost nothing to do with it. I grew up with guns, everywhere. Nobody did this crap then, let alone once a month. People have changed, not guns.
 
2013-01-25 11:16:40 AM  
"Bryant entered The Broad Arrow Café on the historical site's grounds, carrying a large blue duffel bag. Upon sitting down to eat a meal in the front balcony area, he remarked "There's a lot of wasps about today" to no one in particular. Once he finished, Bryant moved towards the back of the café and set a video camera on a vacant table. He took out an Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and, firing from the hip, began shooting patrons and staff. Within 15 seconds, he had fired 17 shots, killing 12 people and wounding 10."

If some nutjob can use an AR-15 to kill and injure 29 people in 15 seconds then I don't care if you call it an "assault weapon" or not.

Next time you gun nuts are firing your substitute penis off at the range, imagine the brains being splattered over the walls every time you pull the trigger.

Your pathetic little gun hobby doesn't make these weapons something worthwhile for people to be carrying around.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:06 AM  

ph0rk: What do you suggest as a way to address what the public sees as a real problem, other than arming every citizen?


Not limited to this issue: I would suggest that using the public's perception is a piss-poor way to gauge the objective severity of a problem.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:11 AM  

ph0rk: Mikey1969: ph0rk: I never liked his show, so his positions don't really affect me. Wise of him not to say anything on-record though.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand why. The guy is entertaining and knowledgable. My wife watches it, and I can usually only take an episode or so, but he seems pretty cool, and has some great tips.

If everyone liked the same things this thread wouldn't exist.


No, what I meant was what is it about Alton Brown, I hear this relatively frequently and haven't been able to figure it out. All of the reality show "chefs", I get that, but I was just curious why people don't like Brown, that's all. Wasn't calling you a weenie for not liking him or anything like that.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:14 AM  
Well seeing how, as metioned earlier, I'm putting in the paperwork for a Garand if anyone is interested in owning a little peice of history I encourage you to google civilian marksmenship program. There, you can purchase these surplus M1s, many of which have seen action in WWII and Korea. They ship the rifle directly to you. The requirements are 1, you have to be legal to own a gun. 2, be a part of a CMP approved gun club*. And 3, have proof of some firearm training

*funfact, 4Chan has a CMP approved gun club.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:20 AM  

Thunderpipes: Families of people that are nuts need to have more tools to deal with it, and I think there should be criminal penalties for allowing a nut to have access to your weapons. I have no problem with background checks either, not sure why anyone would. However, once you start including medical records, that opens a giant can of worms. Is ADHD going to prevent you from passing a background check? PTSD? Depression? Booze? Those alone would probably disqualify almost everyone. Who would determine what level of mental illness is the limit? What about doctor-patient confidentiality? How many people would simply not talk to their doctors knowing they are just ratting them out to the feds?

Tough situation, but guns have almost nothing to do with it. I grew up with guns, everywhere. Nobody did this crap then, let alone once a month. People have changed, not guns.


I can't imagine mandated mental health checkups going over well, even if that is exactly what is required. As for what will determine the limits, also tough. Even mental health professionals have difficulty predicting violence.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:28 AM  

Karac: syrynxx: It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation

You do realize that that definition of assault rifle would not include any M-16 used by the American military between approximately 1970 and the early 2000's, don't you?


That is the only definition of assault rifle.

The M16a2 is still an assault rifle because it has 3 round burst which in select instances the rifleman can provide covering fire.

That is the key point to an assault rifle, it allows rifleman to provide covering fire. Nothing else. Which seperates it from the concept of a battle rifle, which in civilian terms is pretty much any standard hunting rifle.

Thus, the AR 15 is more of a carbine battle rifle than an assault rifle. As you do not have burst or automatic fire modes to provide cover for manuevering troops.

The use of "assault rifle" is kind of an anachronism, as modern militaries don't depend on riflemen to provide covering fire. That idea died quick (hence, burst fire). Intermediate cartridges or anything else you might hear was simply natural firearm evolution, that happened to coincide with the jump from battle rifles to assault rifles.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:28 AM  

HansoSparxx: Rich Cream: HansoSparxx: I thought that an "Assault Weapon" was just a weapon primarily used to Assault someone with.

How many bullets does it normally take to kill a harmless fuzzy creature anyway?


Please define a defensive weapon that has no offensive capability.

Keyword you used is "Weapon". Weapons assault.

Did you have a point to make?



Just that attaching "assault" to "weapon" is facetious since a weapon is a frickin weapon that can be used in an assault, no matter what you label it.
 
2013-01-25 11:18:32 AM  

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.

Semi-automatic firearms are not prohibited in Canada. Please explain how a prohibition not implemented in Canada "works fine" in that nation; how can a non-existent prohibition "work" at all?

Are you claiming that restrictions upon electronically transmitted speech and that warrantless searches in automobiles are also Constitutionally viable?

Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?


You did not address my questions.

How does a prohibition not actually implemented in Canada "work"?

If semi-automatic firearms are not Constitutionally protected due to their nonexistence at the time of the authorship of the Amendment, are other technologies also not extant at the time of authorship of Constitutional protections also not subject to those protections?
 
2013-01-25 11:18:44 AM  

The Smails Kid: Thunderpipes: The Smails Kid: Oblio13: Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.


A couple hundred rounds? Each high power/service rifle/vintage rifle/Garand match uses fifty rounds, not counting sighters, and they're addictive. I'd start with a couple thousand rounds and start saving money for more. It's not like it's gonna get any cheaper.

And buy reloading equipment and components, if you can find them.

/I'm buying all I can, before the hoarders get them!!1

I would not worry about ammo in common hunting rifle caliber. 30-06 rounds are not going anywhere. There will be a rush to horde it now, buy up any military surplus, but I would not worry about shortages. .223 I might worry about because it is the Devil's round according to libs. I don't understand the ammo hording personally. I have maybe 200 rounds of .308. If there ever comes a situation where 200 rounds is not enough, 1,000 is not going to make a difference.

You don't shoot competitions, apparently.


No, and anyone shooting competitions is using very high grade rounds, which will not have any issues being available. You are shooting competition with military surplus? You don't go to the local gunstore and buy Winchester rounds off the shelf or British military rounds for competitions.
 
2013-01-25 11:19:54 AM  

Trapper439: "Bryant entered The Broad Arrow Café on the historical site's grounds, carrying a large blue duffel bag. Upon sitting down to eat a meal in the front balcony area, he remarked "There's a lot of wasps about today" to no one in particular. Once he finished, Bryant moved towards the back of the café and set a video camera on a vacant table. He took out an Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and, firing from the hip, began shooting patrons and staff. Within 15 seconds, he had fired 17 shots, killing 12 people and wounding 10."

If some nutjob can use an AR-15 to kill and injure 29 people in 15 seconds then I don't care if you call it an "assault weapon" or not.

Next time you gun nuts are firing your substitute penis off at the range, imagine the brains being splattered over the walls every time you pull the trigger.

Your pathetic little gun hobby doesn't make these weapons something worthwhile for people to be carrying around.


Your evident obsession with male genitalia is neither relevant to the discussion nor appropriate to introduce in this discussion.
 
2013-01-25 11:20:31 AM  

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.


Canada doesn't ban semiautos.
 
2013-01-25 11:21:00 AM  

Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.


I bet when you watch movies with these guns, you get all butthurt when the firer shoots far more rounds than the gun can hold.

Which is stupid, because it only takes 0 seconds to reload. Clearly they're just reloading faster than you can notice with the naked eye.
 
2013-01-25 11:21:12 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.


I want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!
 
2013-01-25 11:21:35 AM  

Dimensio: The difference is obvious.


[kbensema.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

This is a traditional civilian rifle.


[www.thefirearmblog.com image 590x300]

This is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose.


1) They are both assault weapons.
2) With all those after market parts the bottom one is likely to jam after every 3rd round
(It is a Ruger after all)
 
2013-01-25 11:21:45 AM  

kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?


That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".
 
2013-01-25 11:22:02 AM  

The Only Sane Man In Florida: DownTheRabbitHole: syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.

This.

Nj already has a limit---my Glock 19C is restricted to 15 but I believe the max is 17

15 round mags are standard capacity for a Glock 19...


The in thinking of the Glock 17 mag capacity? Is it 17? I just know NJs limit
 
2013-01-25 11:22:36 AM  

Frank N Stein: Well seeing how, as metioned earlier, I'm putting in the paperwork for a Garand if anyone is interested in owning a little peice of history I encourage you to google civilian marksmenship program. There, you can purchase these surplus M1s, many of which have seen action in WWII and Korea. They ship the rifle directly to you. The requirements are 1, you have to be legal to own a gun. 2, be a part of a CMP approved gun club*. And 3, have proof of some firearm training

*funfact, 4Chan has a CMP approved gun club.


CMP are out of any real matching Garands. The ones you can still get are pieced together, refurbished, new barrels, etc. If you are lucky to get even a piece of one which actually served, it is fortunate. It is a good program, but the CMP long ago got rid of all the good ones. Might get a receiver made in 1955, barrel made in 1960, new stock, etc. Just really hard to find an authentic one. Ones with correct matching parts go for many thousands of dollars.
 
2013-01-25 11:22:45 AM  

Dimensio: kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.

Semi-automatic firearms are not prohibited in Canada. Please explain how a prohibition not implemented in Canada "works fine" in that nation; how can a non-existent prohibition "work" at all?

Are you claiming that restrictions upon electronically transmitted speech and that warrantless searches in automobiles are also Constitutionally viable?

Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

You did not address my questions.

How does a prohibition not actually implemented in Canada "work"?

If semi-automatic firearms are not Constitutionally protected due to their nonexistence at the time of the authorship of the Amendment, are other technologies also not extant at the time of authorship of Constitutional protections also not subject to those protections?


You didn't address mine either, and pointing that arms is broad term and that arms are already heavily restricted did address some of your endless babbling.
 
2013-01-25 11:23:00 AM  
The designer of the gun had clearly not been instructed to beat about the bush. 'Make it evil,' he'd been told. 'Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with.'
--Douglas Adams

Needs to be in the text of any law describing "assault rifles"

/actual design was to be lightweight for charging "over the top" during the Great War
//lighter than traditional main battle rifles, now pretty much replaced them
 
2013-01-25 11:23:07 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

I want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!


It's funny when liberals come into gun threads wanting registration for firearms yet biatch and moan when conservatives suggest that someone should need an ID to vote.
 
2013-01-25 11:23:13 AM  

Karac: syrynxx: It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation

You do realize that that definition of assault rifle would not include any M-16 used by the American military between approximately 1970 and the early 2000's, don't you?



The three-round burst still qualifies as the essential difference between semi-auto and full-auto - one shot per trigger pull with semi-auto, including bump-fire.  The article is well-intentioned and does point out that the terms being thrown about are ambiguous and dynamic.

The fact that the answer to "is this rifle/pistol an assault weapon?" is "well, it depends where you are standing and what year it is" shows what a stupid term it is.  Without going to any external sources, my internal definition of "assault rifle" is a weapon that fires an intermediate-power cartridge such as the 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm and is capable of selective semi-auto or full-auto fire.  My all-time favorite tweak of the '94 definition of "assault weapon" was the OA-98.

Is this a "semi-automatic assault weapon" as defined in the '94 bill?


i831.photobucket.com

The answer is "it depends on whether that magazine was shipped with the gun by the manufacturer".  If that 48 oz. gun had included a 30-round magazine, its 'manufactured weight' would have triggered one of the arbitrary cosmetic criteria for being considered an assault weapon.  So the pistol was shipped without a magazine, and it wasn't an assault weapon.  Taa daa!
 
2013-01-25 11:23:28 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

I want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!


You mean like, registering to vote? Idiot.
 
2013-01-25 11:24:00 AM  

ChuDogg: Karac: syrynxx: It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation

You do realize that that definition of assault rifle would not include any M-16 used by the American military between approximately 1970 and the early 2000's, don't you?

That is the only definition of assault rifle.

The M16a2 is still an assault rifle because it has 3 round burst which in select instances the rifleman can provide covering fire.


Yes, but three-round burst does not mean the same thing as fully-automatic. Burst, you pull the trigger and it fires three times. Fully automatic, you pull the trigger and it keeps firing until it runs dry or you release.

Tossing the Webster's dictionary definitions of assault weapon / rifle around is a pointless exercise anyway. The only place it will matter is in a bill, which will include the definition of 'assault rifle' for the purposes of that bill, after which the term will be used as a shorthand for that 3 page definition.

The commonly held meaning of the term is legally pointless. The commonly held meaning of the term 'speeding' is more than 5 miles over the limit - but that doesn't mean you can't get a ticket for 59 in a 55.
 
2013-01-25 11:25:37 AM  

kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Dimensio: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work.

Please explain how a prohibition that will result in substantial noncompliance and that would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge will "work".

It already works just fine in Canada and in case your an idiot semi autos didn't exist when the constitution was written so the 2nd clearly wasn't written with them in mind.

Semi-automatic firearms are not prohibited in Canada. Please explain how a prohibition not implemented in Canada "works fine" in that nation; how can a non-existent prohibition "work" at all?

Are you claiming that restrictions upon electronically transmitted speech and that warrantless searches in automobiles are also Constitutionally viable?

Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

You did not address my questions.

How does a prohibition not actually implemented in Canada "work"?

If semi-automatic firearms are not Constitutionally protected due to their nonexistence at the time of the authorship of the Amendment, are other technologies also not extant at the time of authorship of Constitutional protections also not subject to those protections?

You didn't address mine either, and pointing that arms is broad term and that arms are already heavily restricted did address some of your endless babbling.


Once you address my question, I will address yours.
 
2013-01-25 11:27:00 AM  

Mikey1969: No, what I meant was what is it about Alton Brown, I hear this relatively frequently and haven't been able to figure it out. All of the reality show "chefs", I get that, but I was just curious why people don't like Brown, that's all. Wasn't calling you a weenie for not liking him or anything like that.


Probably because of all the reality chefs, he is the one about which friends and acquaintances have said "you must watch his show, you will like it, it is awesome"

And I watched it and didn't like it, so now I have an opinion about him, in particular one that is negative after others built up my expectations.

I also don't like Elvis or the Beatles, so there you go.
 
2013-01-25 11:27:01 AM  
A spoon can be an assault weapon, a golf club can be an assault weapon, a sharpened tree branch can be an assault weapon; when are these going to be outlawed?
 
2013-01-25 11:27:40 AM  

FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?


Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming
 
2013-01-25 11:28:09 AM  

andrethered1: A spoon can be an assault weapon, a golf club can be an assault weapon, a sharpened tree branch can be an assault weapon; when are these going to be outlawed?


While that is true, I bet I can kill more people before being wrestled to the ground and disarmed with a few guns than a drawer full of spoons.
 
2013-01-25 11:29:52 AM  

Frank N Stein: I'm putting in the paperwork for a Garand if anyone is interested in owning a little peice of history I encourage you to google civilian marksmenship program. There, you can purchase these surplus M1s, many of which have seen action in WWII and Korea. They ship the rifle directly to you.


I got a Grade 2 Garand from the CMP about a decade or so ago for $400.  The CMP is as close to the Heller-vs-DC ruling of the 2nd Amendment as possible - after instruction and qualification with the rifle ("well-regulated"), you have the opportunity to purchase (what used to be) the standard military-issue rifle.  Fun fact - you are forbidden to resell your CMP Garand if you were crazy enough to ever consider that.
 
2013-01-25 11:30:12 AM  
By the way, for your Garand wanters?

Obama blocked the import of 800,000 M1 Garands and carbines that South Korea wanted to sell to American collectors. These would have been largely matching numbers weapons and great collector/shooter rifles.

Mainstream media didn't care, so sorry for Fox link, but this sucks. State department would rather almost a million great collectable guns be destroyed rather than fall into evil American hands. How many shootings by Garand lately, by the way?

Link
 
2013-01-25 11:31:26 AM  

dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".


Technically it's more of a  Reductio ad absurdum than straw man. He isn't claiming that's the others argument, but rather that the extreme of the others argument leads toridiculous conclusions.

*the_more_you_know.jpg*
 
2013-01-25 11:31:46 AM  

Thunderpipes: Mainstream media didn't care, so sorry for Fox link,


[haha.jpg]
 
2013-01-25 11:32:05 AM  

DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming


"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?
 
2013-01-25 11:33:43 AM  

Mikey1969: Giltric: Minus 1 Charisma: Antimatter: I think the issue will come down to how they define it. me, i'd base the bann of models, or off rate of fire + action (direct gas, gas piston, etc).

I'm not in favor of a ban, however, would be ultimately pretty pointless.

Now, magazine size restrictions could have some effect, as many crimes do involve the use of pistols with high capacity magazines, but you'd never dry up the existing supply of 10+ round mags. With 3d printing, you could quite easily make many of them as well.

Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

the VT killer had a single 15 round mag and a backpack full of 10 round magazines. He fired over 150 shots.

Hell, in Columbine, Eric Harris had a Hi-Point with 10 round mags and fired something like 96 round, while the TEC-( with 28, 32 and 52 round mags) for only 55 rounds. So the 1/3 size mag was used in a gun that fired almost twice as many rounds...


This is why a limitless mag capacity is useless. One can have a bag full of 5 round loaded mags and switch off like nothing.
 
2013-01-25 11:33:56 AM  

Mikey1969: Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.

I like that a lot. The pistols are a bit much, but that might be fun to shoot, and when compared to my .45 small frame pistol, I bet there would be almost no recoil.


Yep it is fun but under my reading of the Feinstein bill it would be considered an assault weapon. Rotating cylinder shotgun.
 
2013-01-25 11:34:53 AM  

dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".


Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?
 
2013-01-25 11:35:57 AM  

Dimensio: Glicky: It's a marketing term and therefore useless...

The term is in fact political, not commercial. .


Politics are in fact commercial, not political.
 
2013-01-25 11:36:42 AM  

limeyfellow: Frank N Stein: The renewed talks about gun control has, if anything, taught the grabbers what a magazine is.

I also heartily lol at them trying to rebrand themselves as "gun safety" advocates

That is always a plus. It really annoys me for some reason.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 344x415]


This x 10

PS - don't forget the high ammunition Magazines
 
2013-01-25 11:36:50 AM  

ph0rk: Thunderpipes: Families of people that are nuts need to have more tools to deal with it, and I think there should be criminal penalties for allowing a nut to have access to your weapons. I have no problem with background checks either, not sure why anyone would. However, once you start including medical records, that opens a giant can of worms. Is ADHD going to prevent you from passing a background check? PTSD? Depression? Booze? Those alone would probably disqualify almost everyone. Who would determine what level of mental illness is the limit? What about doctor-patient confidentiality? How many people would simply not talk to their doctors knowing they are just ratting them out to the feds?

Tough situation, but guns have almost nothing to do with it. I grew up with guns, everywhere. Nobody did this crap then, let alone once a month. People have changed, not guns.

I can't imagine mandated mental health checkups going over well, even if that is exactly what is required. As for what will determine the limits, also tough. Even mental health professionals have difficulty predicting violence.


Some have difficulty correctly diagnosing disorders. It is useless.
 
2013-01-25 11:37:34 AM  

Karac: ChuDogg: Karac: syrynxx: It would be more helpful if it clarified that the term "assault rifle", which a lot of people mis-use, is a fully-automatic-capable rifle and there are very few of them in actual circulation

You do realize that that definition of assault rifle would not include any M-16 used by the American military between approximately 1970 and the early 2000's, don't you?

That is the only definition of assault rifle.

The M16a2 is still an assault rifle because it has 3 round burst which in select instances the rifleman can provide covering fire.

Yes, but three-round burst does not mean the same thing as fully-automatic. Burst, you pull the trigger and it fires three times. Fully automatic, you pull the trigger and it keeps firing until it runs dry or you release.

Tossing the Webster's dictionary definitions of assault weapon / rifle around is a pointless exercise anyway. The only place it will matter is in a bill, which will include the definition of 'assault rifle' for the purposes of that bill, after which the term will be used as a shorthand for that 3 page definition.

The commonly held meaning of the term is legally pointless. The commonly held meaning of the term 'speeding' is more than 5 miles over the limit - but that doesn't mean you can't get a ticket for 59 in a 55.


You are mistaking the words assault rifle and assault weapon.

An assault rifle has a technical meaning. This isn't semantics. Words mean things. There is a very applicable and real reason why people called them assault rifles. Because the idea that every rifleman could provide covering fire was mind blowing. Outside of that, there was no other reason to keep using the terms battle rifle or even just rifle.

Also, if you simply quote the whole post and it will already clarify most of what you are responding to.

There is no need to selectively quote and ask questions I've already provided the answers for you in the same comment.
 
2013-01-25 11:38:10 AM  

kapaso: dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".

Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?


To be fair, conservatives don't understand fallacies.
 
2013-01-25 11:38:45 AM  
So doe this get covered by the ban? Seems to meet most of the criteria (telescoping stock, magazine fed, shroud, etc.)

img254.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-25 11:39:03 AM  

FlashHarry: DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming

"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?


I don't claim to switch off in 0 seconds; that was sn Army man. im just a chick w a gun. Lets say I have 2 magazines (at 40$ each).. Putting more bullets in them after firing 5 rounds (which takes seconds) is what slows me down during range time.
 
2013-01-25 11:39:14 AM  

FlashHarry: DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming

"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?


Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.
 
2013-01-25 11:40:06 AM  

HeadLever: FlashHarry: DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming

"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?

Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.


This. Lol thank you
 
2013-01-25 11:42:17 AM  

FlashHarry: DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming

"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?


Changing mags != reloading mags
 
2013-01-25 11:42:36 AM  

justtray: kapaso: dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".

Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?

To be fair, conservatives don't understand fallacies.


Ohh, an argument from authority with a hint of an ad hominem. Nice
 
2013-01-25 11:45:10 AM  

Thunderpipes: The Smails Kid: Oblio13: Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.


A couple hundred rounds? Each high power/service rifle/vintage rifle/Garand match uses fifty rounds, not counting sighters, and they're addictive. I'd start with a couple thousand rounds and start saving money for more. It's not like it's gonna get any cheaper.

And buy reloading equipment and components, if you can find them.

/I'm buying all I can, before the hoarders get them!!1

I would not worry about ammo in common hunting rifle caliber. 30-06 rounds are not going anywhere. There will be a rush to horde it now, buy up any military surplus, but I would not worry about shortages. .223 I might worry about because it is the Devil's round according to libs. I don't understand the ammo hording personally. I have maybe 200 rounds of .308. If there ever comes a situation where 200 rounds is not enough, 1,000 is not going to make a difference.


Youy remind me of people that think they will be able to retire one day.
 
2013-01-25 11:46:00 AM  

HeadLever: justtray: kapaso: dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".

Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?

To be fair, conservatives don't understand fallacies.

Ohh, an argument from authority with a hint of an ad hominem. Nice


What authority? What ad hominem?

They don't, literally. See - paul ryan. See - every conservative in these threads. See - you just now.
 
2013-01-25 11:48:57 AM  

justtray: What authority?


From the authority that you declare your blanket statement to be true.

What ad hominem?

The personal attack on conseratives.


Nice troll though. I'll give it an 8.5/10
 
2013-01-25 11:49:03 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The Smails Kid: Oblio13: Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.


A couple hundred rounds? Each high power/service rifle/vintage rifle/Garand match uses fifty rounds, not counting sighters, and they're addictive. I'd start with a couple thousand rounds and start saving money for more. It's not like it's gonna get any cheaper.

And buy reloading equipment and components, if you can find them.

/I'm buying all I can, before the hoarders get them!!1

I would not worry about ammo in common hunting rifle caliber. 30-06 rounds are not going anywhere. There will be a rush to horde it now, buy up any military surplus, but I would not worry about shortages. .223 I might worry about because it is the Devil's round according to libs. I don't understand the ammo hording personally. I have maybe 200 rounds of .308. If there ever comes a situation where 200 rounds is not enough, 1,000 is not going to make a difference.

Youy remind me of people that think they will be able to retire one day.


Why is that? Am I wrong? How many rounds do I need for my rifle? Are zombies really coming? I really hope I am realistic thinking that hunting rounds will not be banned. But then again, maybe you have a point? Maybe Obama will make hunting rounds sold by the single round, for 10 bucks each, with a background check each time, you know, for the children. I love guns. I am just realistic about the need for ammo.

Found some really good non-corrosive British ammo a while back, already loaded in stripper clips. I always seem to be able to find those deals somewhere. If not, some smaller companies make very good ammo at a decent price and I can still, even right now, buy in bulk.
 
2013-01-25 11:49:33 AM  

andrethered1: A spoon can be an assault weapon, a golf club can be an assault weapon, a sharpened tree branch can be an assault weapon; when are these going to be outlawed?


When some asshole armed with a spoon or a golf club goes into an elementary school and kills 26 people with it. Most of them children.

Fark your hobby.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:05 AM  

Giltric: PC LOAD LETTER: Source4leko: Huh, the BAR isn't on that list. Because its not like that was designed for warfare or anything. Oh wait, its not a scary looking black rifle, nevermind.

I thought they banned the BAR in the 30's?

nope.

they range in price from 5k to like 20k.


Well, depends on what you mean. The 5 to 20K range likely refers to a fully automatic BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle)

You can get a new semi-auto BAR, today, from Cabela's and other dealers.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:13 AM  

DownTheRabbitHole: ph0rk: Thunderpipes: Families of people that are nuts need to have more tools to deal with it, and I think there should be criminal penalties for allowing a nut to have access to your weapons. I have no problem with background checks either, not sure why anyone would. However, once you start including medical records, that opens a giant can of worms. Is ADHD going to prevent you from passing a background check? PTSD? Depression? Booze? Those alone would probably disqualify almost everyone. Who would determine what level of mental illness is the limit? What about doctor-patient confidentiality? How many people would simply not talk to their doctors knowing they are just ratting them out to the feds?

Tough situation, but guns have almost nothing to do with it. I grew up with guns, everywhere. Nobody did this crap then, let alone once a month. People have changed, not guns.

I can't imagine mandated mental health checkups going over well, even if that is exactly what is required. As for what will determine the limits, also tough. Even mental health professionals have difficulty predicting violence.

Some have difficulty correctly diagnosing disorders. It is useless.


That wasn't my intended point. The mental health professionals we currently have need better training in this area - they are not currently equipped to deal with either the volume of checkups needed nor are they trained to detect those likely to commit violent acts.
 
2013-01-25 11:50:29 AM  
Is the rotorooter machine they use to scramble unborn children count?
 
2013-01-25 11:50:41 AM  

HeadLever: justtray: What authority?

From the authority that you declare your blanket statement to be true.

What ad hominem?

The personal attack on conseratives.


Nice troll though. I'll give it an 8.5/10


Technically, justtray's comment was a "poisoning the well" fallacy, which a special case of the ad hominem argument.
 
2013-01-25 11:51:27 AM  

justtray: HeadLever: justtray: kapaso: dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".

Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?

To be fair, conservatives don't understand fallacies.

Ohh, an argument from authority with a hint of an ad hominem. Nice

What authority? What ad hominem?

They don't, literally. See - paul ryan. See - every conservative in these threads. See - you just now.


[maximumdeflection.jpg]
 
2013-01-25 11:52:29 AM  

HeadLever: justtray: What authority?

From the authority that you declare your blanket statement to be true.

What ad hominem?

The personal attack on conseratives.


Nice troll though. I'll give it an 8.5/10


Blanket statements are now always made from 'authority?'
General snark is now a personal attack?

Nice job failing. 10/10
 
2013-01-25 11:52:49 AM  

ph0rk: pedrop357: The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.

Ah, so if his mother had been only able to own one gun...


Then he might have picked a more capable gun and more reliable magazine. OR stolen a second gun.
 
2013-01-25 11:54:49 AM  

clowncar on fire: Nad don't forget kiddies: the proper stance to fire a handgun is by holding it's grip on a horizontal plain (firin' gangsta) or firing at your intended target while rolling on the ground between perfectly good points of cover.

(hopefully you were being as sarcastic when you were talking about the extensive use of "hip firing" in armed conflict).


That's one of the gun control group talking points. Dianne Feinstein loves to use it.
I think it's crap, but find it funny they can't even keep their story straight.
 
2013-01-25 11:56:48 AM  

CPennypacker: LIRR Massacre - 1993

Link

Thurston High School Massacre - 1998

Link

Thats two from a 5 second google with no effort. Plus Tuscon. And I'm sure if I wanted to put the effort into it I'd find more.

But carry on with the "it wouldn't do ANYTHING so we shouldn't do it" BS


So 3 times in 20 years.

The overwhelming majority have the shooter reloading at will and killing until he gets tired of it(Aurora) or FINALLY starts seeing resistance after as much as 10-15 minutes (Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, etc.).
 
2013-01-25 11:56:56 AM  

pedrop357: ph0rk: pedrop357: The Aurora shooter simply switched guns when his jammed.

Ah, so if his mother had been only able to own one gun...

Then he might have picked a more capable gun and more reliable magazine. OR stolen a second gun.


Yes, but theoretically at least there is a point where limitations of reload/firing rate would work. If all he had access to was a bolt action rifle, for example, well the Aurora shooter probably just would have used explosives.

Many people can't understand why anyone has a need to carry enough hardware to slaughter 150 people or more. The argument that, as currently worded, the 2nd amendment protects their the right to do so doesn't address the first question (why do they need to?)

I think detecting people like that early would be more beneficial, but even then there are bound to be breakdowns, and I would hope that it becomes less trivial to acquire and carry that sort of hardware, especially for disturbed people.
 
2013-01-25 11:57:10 AM  

justtray: HeadLever: justtray: kapaso: dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".

Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?

To be fair, conservatives don't understand fallacies.

Ohh, an argument from authority with a hint of an ad hominem. Nice

What authority? What ad hominem?



*starts up head thinker*

Conservipedia?
 
2013-01-25 11:58:52 AM  

dittybopper: Meh. I think he's toast as far as that goes. What gun owner is going to vote for him? The guy who wrote the original failed Assault Weapons Ban, and who went on to be Barack Obama's go-to gun control guy? Yeah, that'll go over well with the rural and suburban blue dogs, and the Democrats aren't in a place where they can completely ignore them yet.


Run him and Cuomo together and it should finish what was started with the 2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact.
 
2013-01-25 12:00:05 PM  

pedrop357: dittybopper: Meh. I think he's toast as far as that goes. What gun owner is going to vote for him? The guy who wrote the original failed Assault Weapons Ban, and who went on to be Barack Obama's go-to gun control guy? Yeah, that'll go over well with the rural and suburban blue dogs, and the Democrats aren't in a place where they can completely ignore them yet.

Run him and Cuomo together and it should finish what was started with the 2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact.


Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?
 
2013-01-25 12:00:25 PM  

dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

Please outline such reasonable rules, given that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws requiring the use of a trigger lock or other ways of delaying immediate access to a gun are unconstitutional.

Also, please explain how the federal government gets the right to decide if I can sell my constitutionally protected property or not.

In addition, please explain why I should get a license to practice a constitutional right. Isn't that prior restraint, something that is constitutionally frowned upon except in very narrow circumstances?


1) you may have up to two guns both outside of your control and outside of a safe within your residence.

2) you can still sell to anyone who passess a background check

3) I would be more worried about it being struck down on the same grounds as poll tax/voter
Id/etc. It shouldn't cost anything to get.
 
2013-01-25 12:00:35 PM  

djh0101010: Lost Thought 00: Meh, let people sell all the guns they want, with pretty much any modifications they want. Require them to hold insurance that covers all damages, including lose of life, that may occur through use of the weapon. Before too long the free market will lead to people manufacturing, buying, and using guns in safer manners in order to reduce insurance premiums, while still allowing those who really want to get their jollies off to absorb the extra cost.

Sure, all you have to do is get the criminals to also buy this liability insurance. You know, the ones driving without car insurance or maybe licenses.


This.

If the CT shooter's mother had had insurance for her guns, what would have changed?
 
2013-01-25 12:01:30 PM  

ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?


You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.
 
2013-01-25 12:03:19 PM  

Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.


Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.
 
2013-01-25 12:03:38 PM  

ph0rk: andrethered1: A spoon can be an assault weapon, a golf club can be an assault weapon, a sharpened tree branch can be an assault weapon; when are these going to be outlawed?

While that is true, I bet I can kill more people before being wrestled to the ground and disarmed with a few guns than a drawer full of spoons.


So sweeping, unconstitutional, revolution inspiring gun control might have a chance at stopping 80-120 deaths a year from mass shootings (they're about 1% of all homicides).

I frame it in terms of full out bans and confiscation because that is the only thing that has a chance (but just a chance) at stopping mass shootings.

Doesn't seem worth it to open the door for more rapes, robberies, murders, beatings, home invasions, etc. by disarming everyone.

If you only care about mass shooting deaths, you're part of the problem.
 
2013-01-25 12:03:58 PM  

HeadLever: Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.


GRCooper: Changing mags != reloading mags


pardon me - i misread the post. i realize that loading a magazine with individual bullets is not the same thing as switching out an empty mag for a full one.

so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety. stopping at intersections for one.

i still don't see how this is unreasonable. if it saves even one life because a shooter got tackled while swapping mags, then doesn't that justify the inconvenience of having to reload your magazines more often?
 
2013-01-25 12:04:07 PM  

pedrop357: djh0101010: Lost Thought 00: Meh, let people sell all the guns they want, with pretty much any modifications they want. Require them to hold insurance that covers all damages, including lose of life, that may occur through use of the weapon. Before too long the free market will lead to people manufacturing, buying, and using guns in safer manners in order to reduce insurance premiums, while still allowing those who really want to get their jollies off to absorb the extra cost.

Sure, all you have to do is get the criminals to also buy this liability insurance. You know, the ones driving without car insurance or maybe licenses.

This.

If the CT shooter's mother had had insurance for her guns, what would have changed?


It is almost Randian....

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
 
2013-01-25 12:05:10 PM  

FlashHarry: DownTheRabbitHole: FlashHarry: Minus 1 Charisma: Do you know how long it takes to switch magazines in..well..any firearm? Roughly 0 seconds. I dont understand the purpose of this at all.

then why do you need a magazine that holds more than, say 10 rounds?

Because reloading mags at the range is time consuming

"roughly 0 seconds" is time consuming?


It's a burden to reload the ammunition into the magazines far more often or to have carry a lot more to the range just so gun control supporters can feel like they're solving a problem.
 
2013-01-25 12:05:28 PM  

ph0rk: Many people can't understand why anyone has a need to carry enough hardware to slaughter 150 people or more. The argument that, as currently worded, the 2nd amendment protects their the right to do so doesn't address the first question (why do they need to?)


Why do cops need it? Are cops slaughtering 150 people or more?
 
2013-01-25 12:05:29 PM  
i'm sure i'll get hit for saying "bullets" instead of "rounds" too.
 
2013-01-25 12:05:32 PM  

pedrop357: ph0rk: andrethered1: A spoon can be an assault weapon, a golf club can be an assault weapon, a sharpened tree branch can be an assault weapon; when are these going to be outlawed?

While that is true, I bet I can kill more people before being wrestled to the ground and disarmed with a few guns than a drawer full of spoons.

So sweeping, unconstitutional, revolution inspiring gun control might have a chance at stopping 80-120 deaths a year from mass shootings (they're about 1% of all homicides).

I frame it in terms of full out bans and confiscation because that is the only thing that has a chance (but just a chance) at stopping mass shootings.

Doesn't seem worth it to open the door for more rapes, robberies, murders, beatings, home invasions, etc. by disarming everyone.

If you only care about mass shooting deaths, you're part of the problem.


If you'd have read the entire thread you'd realize that isn't the case. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of placing a spoon in the same class as a semi-automatic handgun or rifle. If, however, you think their relative killing power is equivalent, why not collect spoons instead?
 
2013-01-25 12:06:24 PM  
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says as many as 40 percent of all gun sales are completed without a background check. That's because sales between private gun owners and sales at gun shows are exempt under federal law.

This is utter BS. There is no gun show exemption. The same laws apply at a gun show as apply everywhere else.

Also, the 40% number is fiction: Link
 
2013-01-25 12:06:31 PM  

ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.


So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.
 
2013-01-25 12:06:48 PM  

pedrop357: It's a burden to reload the ammunition into the magazines far more often or to have carry a lot more to the range just so gun control supporters can feel like they're solving a problem.


as has been mentioned earlier, shooters in the past have been stopped while swapping mags. i fail to see how being a bit of a "burden" justifies the killing of more people.
 
2013-01-25 12:07:47 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: ph0rk: Many people can't understand why anyone has a need to carry enough hardware to slaughter 150 people or more. The argument that, as currently worded, the 2nd amendment protects their the right to do so doesn't address the first question (why do they need to?)

Why do cops need it? Are cops slaughtering 150 people or more?


Because civilians are doing same, obviously. Should law enforcement be less well-armed than the public? Besides, the guns that cops carry can be easily taken away: simply vote different local politicians into office and have them change the rules.
 
2013-01-25 12:08:30 PM  

justtray: kapaso: dittybopper: kapaso: Arms is very broad term and arms are already heavily restricted and it is not a constitutional issue. Do you believe I should be able to have a nuclear weapon becuase the constitution says I have a right to bear arms?

That argument you are making is known as "The Nuclear Straw Man".

Pointing out that arms is a broad term and that arms are already subject to regulation is a fallacy?

Is conservipedia your goto source for information?

To be fair, conservatives don't understand fallacies.


What would lead either of you to believe that I'm a conservative?

To dispense with it, though, you can't "bear" a nuclear weapon in the conventional sense of the term, and secondly, no right is completely unlimited. We aren't arguing whether or not there is a line past which a particular weapon is too dangerous for general civilian ownership: We all agree there are some weapons that shouldn't be commonly owned because they are too dangerous.

What we are arguing where precisely to place it that line. Currently, at the federal level, the line is between semi-automatic firearms which are OK to own, and fully automatic firearms (machine guns) and other devices like bombs and missiles.

Personally, I think that line is in a pretty decent place right now, and I don't even own a semi-automatic firearm.
 
2013-01-25 12:08:45 PM  

pedrop357: ph0rk: andrethered1: A spoon can be an assault weapon, a golf club can be an assault weapon, a sharpened tree branch can be an assault weapon; when are these going to be outlawed?

While that is true, I bet I can kill more people before being wrestled to the ground and disarmed with a few guns than a drawer full of spoons.

So sweeping, unconstitutional, revolution inspiring gun control might have a chance at stopping 80-120 deaths a year from mass shootings (they're about 1% of all homicides).

I frame it in terms of full out bans and confiscation because that is the only thing that has a chance (but just a chance) at stopping mass shootings.

Doesn't seem worth it to open the door for more rapes, robberies, murders, beatings, home invasions, etc. by disarming everyone.

If you only care about mass shooting deaths, you're part of the problem.


It's the new misogyny. Women are not allowed to be as powerful as men.

Fear!
 
2013-01-25 12:09:05 PM  

Giltric: ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.

So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.


You said political suicide. Farking the public is not necessarily political suicide - don't backpedal.

I think the history of politics in the United States shows that either party can be quite successful while also screwing the public.
 
2013-01-25 12:09:47 PM  

FlashHarry: if it saves even one life


Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?
 
2013-01-25 12:10:13 PM  

Giltric: ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.

So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.


If the Dems gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad. Unlimited spending, 20, 30, 50 trillion in debt, rights taken away at the spur of the moment, severe downgrading of US credit ratings, then interest rates change, then complete economic collapse.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:24 PM  

Thunderpipes: If the Dems any party gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad.


I don't think many folks would like an unopposed party in power.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:25 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: LIRR Massacre - 1993

Link

Thurston High School Massacre - 1998

Link

Thats two from a 5 second google with no effort. Plus Tuscon. And I'm sure if I wanted to put the effort into it I'd find more.

But carry on with the "it wouldn't do ANYTHING so we shouldn't do it" BS

So 3 times in 20 years.

The overwhelming majority have the shooter reloading at will and killing until he gets tired of it(Aurora) or FINALLY starts seeing resistance after as much as 10-15 minutes (Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, etc.).


Do you guys all have reading problems? Thats what I found after looking for 5 seconds.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:36 PM  

FlashHarry: so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety.


How is making a reloading operation more inconvienient going to imporove safety? All any shooter will need to do is pack additional (small capacity) magazines that takes literally no time to swich. Or are we going to now insall mechanisms that initiates a 'magazine waiting period' so that you need to wait 3 days from the time you take an spent magainze out of the firearm until you can load a new one? That would make more sense in this context.
 
2013-01-25 12:11:46 PM  

Thunderpipes: Giltric: ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.

So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.

If the Dems gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad. Unlimited spending, 20, 30, 50 trillion in debt, rights taken away at the spur of the moment, severe downgrading of US credit ratings, then interest rates change, then complete economic collapse.


They will still find a way to blame someone else while staring at the bottom of their glass of kool aid


/bottoms up!
 
2013-01-25 12:11:57 PM  

Giltric: FlashHarry: if it saves even one life

Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?


lolwut?

are you saying that people need 30-round magazines to defend their homes?
 
2013-01-25 12:12:24 PM  

ph0rk: pedrop357: dittybopper: Meh. I think he's toast as far as that goes. What gun owner is going to vote for him? The guy who wrote the original failed Assault Weapons Ban, and who went on to be Barack Obama's go-to gun control guy? Yeah, that'll go over well with the rural and suburban blue dogs, and the Democrats aren't in a place where they can completely ignore them yet.

Run him and Cuomo together and it should finish what was started with the 2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact.

Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?


A lot of Democrats have gone full retard on the gun control issue and went insane in New York. 2014 should be interesting.

It won't be Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, etc. who lose their seats, it will be all those foolish enough to join.

On a side note, I'm thinking the Republicans could run a nitwit like Sarah Palin against Biden and/or Cuomo and probably come out ahead.
 
2013-01-25 12:12:28 PM  

Giltric: Thunderpipes: Giltric: ph0rk: Giltric: ph0rk: Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

You are as dillusional as the GOP true believers during the Bush years.

Is that so? American politics is like running from a bear. You don't need to outrun the bear.

The Democratic party just needs to outrun the GOP - they're doing rather well at that right now.

So it's cool as long as the party doing the farking is farking the people gently?

Might as well claim your team won because the other team didn't cover the spread.

If the Dems gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad. Unlimited spending, 20, 30, 50 trillion in debt, rights taken away at the spur of the moment, severe downgrading of US credit ratings, then interest rates change, then complete economic collapse.

They will still find a way to blame someone else while staring at the bottom of their glass of kool aid


/bottoms up!


Well, as long as you able to carry on a reasonable line of argument.
 
2013-01-25 12:13:31 PM  

FlashHarry: Giltric: FlashHarry: if it saves even one life

Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?

lolwut?

are you saying that people need 30-round magazines to defend their homes?


There's that word again.
 
2013-01-25 12:14:09 PM  

pedrop357: ph0rk: pedrop357: dittybopper: Meh. I think he's toast as far as that goes. What gun owner is going to vote for him? The guy who wrote the original failed Assault Weapons Ban, and who went on to be Barack Obama's go-to gun control guy? Yeah, that'll go over well with the rural and suburban blue dogs, and the Democrats aren't in a place where they can completely ignore them yet.

Run him and Cuomo together and it should finish what was started with the 2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact.

Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

A lot of Democrats have gone full retard on the gun control issue and went insane in New York. 2014 should be interesting.

It won't be Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, etc. who lose their seats, it will be all those foolish enough to join.

On a side note, I'm thinking the Republicans could run a nitwit like Sarah Palin against Biden and/or Cuomo and probably come out ahead.


Mid terms are a long way away - I doubt the current scare will last that long, and even if it came close I'm sure the inner party strategists would push to change the strategy. It is about winning, after all. It is far too early to make predictions about 2014 or 2016.
 
2013-01-25 12:14:11 PM  

FlashHarry: Giltric: FlashHarry: if it saves even one life

Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?

lolwut?

are you saying that people need 30-round magazines to defend their homes?


Not all, but you have to be right in 100% of the cases if even one life is sacred.
 
2013-01-25 12:14:14 PM  

HeadLever: How is making a reloading operation more inconvienient going to imporove safety? All any shooter will need to do is pack additional (small capacity) magazines that takes literally no time to swich.


because they don't take "literally no time to switch." shooters in the past have been stopped when swapping mags. jared laughner, for one.
 
2013-01-25 12:14:30 PM  

FlashHarry: pedrop357: It's a burden to reload the ammunition into the magazines far more often or to have carry a lot more to the range just so gun control supporters can feel like they're solving a problem.

as has been mentioned earlier, shooters in the past have been stopped while swapping mags. i fail to see how being a bit of a "burden" justifies the killing of more people.


It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.
 
2013-01-25 12:15:30 PM  

ph0rk: pedrop357: dittybopper: Meh. I think he's toast as far as that goes. What gun owner is going to vote for him? The guy who wrote the original failed Assault Weapons Ban, and who went on to be Barack Obama's go-to gun control guy? Yeah, that'll go over well with the rural and suburban blue dogs, and the Democrats aren't in a place where they can completely ignore them yet.

Run him and Cuomo together and it should finish what was started with the 2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact.

Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?


Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban.
 
2013-01-25 12:15:49 PM  

Giltric: FlashHarry: Giltric: FlashHarry: if it saves even one life

Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?

lolwut?

are you saying that people need 30-round magazines to defend their homes?

Not all, but you have to be right in 100% of the cases if even one life is sacred.


Except for when we're talking about a gun restriction, then it has to have been able to prevent every gun death in the history of time or else its useless and a waste of time, right?
 
2013-01-25 12:15:59 PM  

pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: It's a burden to reload the ammunition into the magazines far more often or to have carry a lot more to the range just so gun control supporters can feel like they're solving a problem.

as has been mentioned earlier, shooters in the past have been stopped while swapping mags. i fail to see how being a bit of a "burden" justifies the killing of more people.

It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.


As political strategy it is likely to play rather well, however, with ample time to shift course between now and Nov. 2014 if public sentiment changes.
 
2013-01-25 12:17:59 PM  

pedrop357: It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.


toys have been taken off the market because one or two toddlers choked on them. those are rare events.

i'm sorry, but if the only justification for high-capacity magazines is that they're more convenient, then that's not justification enough.
 
2013-01-25 12:18:19 PM  

CPennypacker: Do you guys all have reading problems? Thats what I found after looking for 5 seconds.


We already know how the overwhelming majority of them turn out. A guy goes into a place where guns are banned by policy or law, shoots and kills for minutes or dozens of minutes reloading at will and only stops when he finally runs out of ammo, gets tired of killing unarmed people, or finally encounters resistance.
 
2013-01-25 12:18:20 PM  

dittybopper: Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban


Perhaps. I don't think they'll be singing the same tune this time - Gay rights and immigration will be much larger planks in the platform, and people get a lot more worked up about those issues, or have lately. I expect these bills to go nowhere fast and the issue to more or less die within six months. What they are doing now is probably just posturing, but that's the game.
 
2013-01-25 12:19:12 PM  

CPennypacker: Giltric: FlashHarry: Giltric: FlashHarry: if it saves even one life

Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?

lolwut?

are you saying that people need 30-round magazines to defend their homes?

Not all, but you have to be right in 100% of the cases if even one life is sacred.

Except for when we're talking about a gun restriction, then it has to have been able to prevent every gun death in the history of time or else its useless and a waste of time, right?


The DGU stats still outweigh the number of people killed by firearms each year no matter whos stats you use...and even if you include suicide in gun deaths,

The reason the RKBA exists is for reasons you can not see.

I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
 
2013-01-25 12:19:35 PM  

pedrop357: It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.


and talk about rare events. what percentage of americans have been killed by terrorism? yet look at how our laws changed after 9/11. look at the wars we waged.
 
2013-01-25 12:20:17 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: Do you guys all have reading problems? Thats what I found after looking for 5 seconds.

We already know how the overwhelming majority of them turn out. A guy goes into a place where guns are banned by policy or law, shoots and kills for minutes or dozens of minutes reloading at will and only stops when he finally runs out of ammo, gets tired of killing unarmed people, or finally encounters resistance.


So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions
 
2013-01-25 12:20:29 PM  

FlashHarry: toys have been taken off the market because one or two toddlers choked on them. those are rare events.


Also a silly, emotional, knee jerk reaction.
 
2013-01-25 12:20:33 PM  
We should just ban all guns. Period.

It worked so well for alcohol and drugs and prostitution and speeding and drunk driving and murder and robberies. You can't get or do any of that stuff anymore.
 
2013-01-25 12:20:40 PM  

FlashHarry: pedrop357: It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.

and talk about rare events. what percentage of americans have been killed by terrorism? yet look at how our laws changed after 9/11. look at the wars we waged.


Indeed - while it ay be bad policy to make sweeping changes after one or two high-profile events, that's how we do it.
 
2013-01-25 12:20:42 PM  
IMO, an assault gun is anything without the primary purposes of hunting or protection from wild animals.
 
2013-01-25 12:20:59 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-25 12:21:07 PM  

dittybopper: Because People in power are Stupid: It's a weapon designed for warfare. I'd much rather have a pistol gripped, high capacity, .223 AR15 in "the field" rather than the "new design" Browning Automatic Rifle.
The .300 winchester is better for taking down a moose anyway.

See:

[www.quarterbore.net image 700x291]
For wars against people

[media.liveauctiongroup.net image 640x171]
For wars against Moose.

Also effective in wars against Moose:

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

AR-15 in .50 Beowulf.

Takes all of, what, 20 seconds to convert a gun with a .223 upper to one with a .50 Beowulf, or .458 SOCOM, or .450 Bushmaster upper, all of which are effective against moose-sized ani-mules.


You would be a fool if you chose that assembly over the Browning when taking on an army of Moose.

http://www.realguns.com/Commentary/comar137.htm

The 50 Beowulf is an interesting rifle, fun to shoot, however, functionally useful only within a narrow band of applications. It is capable of throwing big 400 grain slugs 1800+ fps from a 16  ½" barrel and 3" shorter than a Marlin 1895G chambered for the 45-70 or 450 Marlin. You have to wonder why the countryside isn't populated with rifles from Alexander Arms. Setting aside the obvious hit it takes on perception and politics, it may not bring enough to the party to justify it's ownership. Available in 12", 16.5" and 24" versions, the gun is heavier than competing designs and offers no advantage in shooting capacity. It has more moving parts and is more sensitive to cleaning and maintenance and less reliable. There are too many proprietary aspects to the product and ammunition and all supply leads back to Alexander Arms alone. Product support is not great. Information isn't forthcoming and public interaction isn't very professional.

As far as I am concerned the Browning in .300 WM  is the quintessential hunting rifle. That being said, if I was put in the unlikely scenario of being on an island filled with man eating ligers -I would prefer a fully automatic .308 with large capacity magazines and possibly a bayonet (in case the animals are genetically engineered and hyper-intelligent)

762precision.files.wordpress.com
For my war against genetically engineered hyper-intelligent ligers.


But that would be an application where an assault rifle (which were advertised in magazines as such in the 80's) is used as a hunting rifle. There just shouldn't be this faux-confusion about what an assault weapon is.
 
2013-01-25 12:21:34 PM  

FlashHarry: pedrop357: It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.

and talk about rare events. what percentage of americans have been killed by terrorism? yet look at how our laws changed after 9/11. look at the wars we waged.


Yes, the PATRIOT was also passed because of highly emotional events rather than for practicality. I personally think it was a bad idea, just like Feinstein's proposal.
 
2013-01-25 12:21:38 PM  
If you don't know what those things are already subby, I doubt you care enough to join the derp-fest.
 
2013-01-25 12:21:54 PM  

FlashHarry: toys have been taken off the market because one or two toddlers choked on them. those are rare events.

i'm sorry, but if the only justification for high-capacity magazines is that they're more convenient, then that's not justification enough.


We don't have to justify it, the other side does, and the best they can come up with is that might stop a fraction of a tiny fraction of incidents. They have to justify why this is worth depriving people of the ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or in more desperate circumstances like natural disasters or riots. They also have to justify why the police should be able to have them when facing the same threats that we face first.
 
2013-01-25 12:22:17 PM  

ph0rk: StoPPeRmobile: ph0rk: Many people can't understand why anyone has a need to carry enough hardware to slaughter 150 people or more. The argument that, as currently worded, the 2nd amendment protects their the right to do so doesn't address the first question (why do they need to?)

Why do cops need it? Are cops slaughtering 150 people or more?

Because civilians are doing same, obviously. Should law enforcement be less well-armed than the public? Besides, the guns that cops carry can be easily taken away: simply vote different local politicians into office and have them change the rules.


What came first, the chicken or the egg?
I egged the chicken, and then I ate his leg
 
2013-01-25 12:22:29 PM  

FlashHarry: and talk about rare events. what percentage of americans have been killed by terrorism? yet look at how our laws changed after 9/11. look at the wars we waged.


Does that make it OK? One bad law does not justify more bad laws.
 
2013-01-25 12:22:42 PM  

FlashHarry: pedrop357: It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.

and talk about rare events. what percentage of americans have been killed by terrorism? yet look at how our laws changed after 9/11. look at the wars we waged.


And those were all unbelievably dumb things to do.
 
2013-01-25 12:23:04 PM  

CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions


I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.
 
2013-01-25 12:24:17 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.


Which is easier to pass: a bill restricting magazine sizes, or a bill mandating regular mental health checks for all citizens?
 
2013-01-25 12:24:26 PM  

pedrop357: They have to justify why this is worth depriving people of the ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or in more desperate circumstances like natural disasters or riots.


and how often do these things happen?
 
2013-01-25 12:24:35 PM  

HeadLever: FlashHarry: so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety.

How is making a reloading operation more inconvienient going to imporove safety? All any shooter will need to do is pack additional (small capacity) magazines that takes literally no time to swich. Or are we going to now insall mechanisms that initiates a 'magazine waiting period' so that you need to wait 3 days from the time you take an spent magainze out of the firearm until you can load a new one? That would make more sense in this context.


We could make them Windows based.
 
2013-01-25 12:25:54 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: You would be a fool if you chose that assembly over the Browning when taking on an army of Moose.


But I can swap out the upper chambered in .50 Beowulf for any number of chamberings at half the cost of buying a new rifle. Where as you have to buy an entire collection of firearms.
 
2013-01-25 12:25:57 PM  
At the drop of a hat they will scream to alter The Constitution.

Maybe we should bring back slavery.
 
2013-01-25 12:26:02 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: HeadLever: FlashHarry: so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety.

How is making a reloading operation more inconvienient going to imporove safety? All any shooter will need to do is pack additional (small capacity) magazines that takes literally no time to swich. Or are we going to now insall mechanisms that initiates a 'magazine waiting period' so that you need to wait 3 days from the time you take an spent magainze out of the firearm until you can load a new one? That would make more sense in this context.

We could make them Windows based.


Windows has detected you are attempting a spree killing. Would you like to search online for help?
 
2013-01-25 12:26:04 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.


Welcome to the minority
 
2013-01-25 12:26:10 PM  

FlashHarry: pedrop357: They have to justify why this is worth depriving people of the ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or in more desperate circumstances like natural disasters or riots.

and how often do these things happen?


They never happen until they do. At that point, it's a little late to wish that you had a decent sized magazine to stop the two or three men in your house, OR the looters in your neighborhood, OR the people who've been secretly growing marijuana on a section of your land.
 
2013-01-25 12:26:48 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: At the drop of a hat they will scream to alter The Constitution.

Maybe we should bring back slavery.


Funny, it seemed ok when the GOP wanted an amendment to ban gay marriage.
 
2013-01-25 12:27:13 PM  

FlashHarry: pedrop357: They have to justify why this is worth depriving people of the ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or in more desperate circumstances like natural disasters or riots.

and how often do these things happen?


If you click on a climate change thread it seems it is happening quite often and is and will only get worse.
 
2013-01-25 12:27:15 PM  

ph0rk: pedrop357: CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.

Which is easier to pass: a bill restricting magazine sizes, or a bill mandating regular mental health checks for all citizens?


How about neither?
 
2013-01-25 12:27:17 PM  

pedrop357: We don't have to justify it, the other side does, and the best they can come up with is that might stop a fraction of a tiny fraction of incidents. They have to justify why this is worth depriving people of the ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or in more desperate circumstances like natural disasters or riots. They also have to justify why the police should be able to have them when facing the same threats that we face first.


this is the "prepper" argument in a nutshell.

i hate to break it to you, but your SHTF scenario is extremely unlikely. but it is very lucrative for people selling guns, ammo, dried food and other prepper items.
 
2013-01-25 12:28:09 PM  

pedrop357: ph0rk: pedrop357: CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.

Which is easier to pass: a bill restricting magazine sizes, or a bill mandating regular mental health checks for all citizens?

How about neither?


I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?
 
2013-01-25 12:28:21 PM  

pedrop357: They never happen until they do.


the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.
 
2013-01-25 12:29:07 PM  
I went to gym (25 minutes blah blah), are lunch, went to Lowe's and checked this thread and exactly what happens when people discuss guns is happening.
People for gun control are trotting out the same tired arguments about owning nuclear weapons and stinger missiles and saying the constitution was written before repeating arms so they're not covered by the constitution.
People against gun control (usually the people who know about guns) are trying to explain that generally, the proposed legislation does very little to address the problems of gun crime and gun violence.
And this is what is so frustrating.
I am on the left side of virtually ever debate. I voted for Obama twice (the first time I stayed awake until ass late at night to watch the inauguration because I was in Iraq at the time). Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2000 (from South Carolina, so my vote didn't count anyway). But as soon as you talk about guns, the left gets all derpy.
You're not going to get the type of gun control you want. I'm very sorry, but there are enough people in the country who think differently than you do that can match your votes and keep it from happening. So instead of focusing on things that make no difference like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, folding buttstocks, or other military style features that you don't understand. Bring something to the discussion that will help. Listen to the people who know about what you're trying to regulate.
The President's executive orders are a good start. I agree with all of them. I have taken advantage of the gun show loophole myself and as much as I enjoy not having to pay a transfer fee, I can see how someone could use it to get around a background check that they cannot pass. It should go.
I'm all for licensing tests. I'd be OK with having serial numbered and registered gun safes so when they look up your background you have to have a gun safe registered with the government in order to purchase a gun. I think that could help with stolen guns being used in crimes.
The right needs to realize that not every piece of legislation dealing with guns is an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. The guns aren't going away, but you have to make sacrifices, too. If that means buying a $500 gun safe before you can purchase a gun in order to ensure it's harder to steal your gun, that's fine, too.
 
2013-01-25 12:29:24 PM  

FlashHarry: i hate to break it to you, but your SHTF scenario is extremely unlikely. but it is very lucrative for people selling guns, ammo, dried food and other prepper items


Dude, check out my bug-out bag!
 
2013-01-25 12:29:57 PM  

CPennypacker: Except for when we're talking about a gun restriction, then it has to have been able to prevent every gun death in the history of time or else its useless and a waste of time, right?


See, here's the problem: Guns are here to stay, period. So if you restrict some small subset based on cosmetic features, those who will misuse them will just substitute firearms that are available.

That's the elephant in the room: Substitution. And it *DOES* happen. The rise of so-called "Pocket Rockets", small handguns in large calibers like .45 ACP, was due in large part to the original AWB, the thinking being "If I can't have a whole bunch of smaller rounds in my gun, I'll go with a smaller number of more effective rounds".

This even happened in the UK. After the Hungerford massacre, they banned assault weapons, and not just cosmetically, but they banned any semi-auto rifles bigger than .22 LR. Then at Dunblane, the shooter used modern handguns. So they banned them. Then in the Cumbria shooting, the shooter used a shotgun and a .22 LR rifle.

The problem is where do you draw the line? What happens if we pass an assault weapons ban with actual teeth and we still have shootings? What then? You'll come back arguing for more restrictions. That's how slippery slopes actually happen in real life.
 
2013-01-25 12:30:05 PM  

FlashHarry: HeadLever: Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.

GRCooper: Changing mags != reloading mags

pardon me - i misread the post. i realize that loading a magazine with individual bullets is not the same thing as switching out an empty mag for a full one.

so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety. stopping at intersections for one.

i still don't see how this is unreasonable. if it saves even one life because a shooter got tackled while swapping mags, then doesn't that justify the inconvenience of having to reload your magazines more often?


I'm not trying to be snarky or dismissive; but I haven't seen a definition for "high capacity magazine". 10? Internal mags as well as external? Does that mean that *any* gun that ships with a magazine capacity greater than that is de facto 'banned'.

Before I get charged with worrying about semantics, let me go ahead and plead guilty. I think semantics are vital when talking about federal legislation.
 
2013-01-25 12:30:32 PM  

FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.


Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?
 
2013-01-25 12:31:48 PM  

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Except for when we're talking about a gun restriction, then it has to have been able to prevent every gun death in the history of time or else its useless and a waste of time, right?

See, here's the problem: Guns are here to stay, period. So if you restrict some small subset based on cosmetic features, those who will misuse them will just substitute firearms that are available.

That's the elephant in the room: Substitution. And it *DOES* happen. The rise of so-called "Pocket Rockets", small handguns in large calibers like .45 ACP, was due in large part to the original AWB, the thinking being "If I can't have a whole bunch of smaller rounds in my gun, I'll go with a smaller number of more effective rounds".

This even happened in the UK. After the Hungerford massacre, they banned assault weapons, and not just cosmetically, but they banned any semi-auto rifles bigger than .22 LR. Then at Dunblane, the shooter used modern handguns. So they banned them. Then in the Cumbria shooting, the shooter used a shotgun and a .22 LR rifle.

The problem is where do you draw the line? What happens if we pass an assault weapons ban with actual teeth and we still have shootings? What then? You'll come back arguing for more restrictions. That's how slippery slopes actually happen in real life.


Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.
 
2013-01-25 12:33:08 PM  

pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?


No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies
 
2013-01-25 12:33:13 PM  

ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?


Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.
 
2013-01-25 12:33:17 PM  

CPennypacker: The problem is where do you draw the line? What happens if we pass an assault weapons ban with actual teeth and we still have shootings? What then? You'll come back arguing for more restrictions. That's how slippery slopes actually happen in real life.

Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.


Unfortunately, the only thing that would really work is a pre-crime unit. Mental health checks are as close as we can come, but the cost will be high and small-govt. types will fight it tooth and nail.
 
2013-01-25 12:33:48 PM  

CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.


Longer prison terms for criminals might do more to prevent gun violence than anything esle seeing as how a majority of people committing gun violence have prior convictions.
 
2013-01-25 12:33:52 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies


Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?
 
2013-01-25 12:34:02 PM  

Thunderpipes: I cannot find a matching numbers WW II Garand, which is my goal (to collect all the major WW II rifles from various nations, matching numbers). I keep hoping one will turn up at a backwoods store or gunshow, now that is looking like it will never happen. I recently found a matching numbers early war K98 which is beautiful, but that is bolt action and below the radar, for now. I don't doubt that will change with time.


Matching numbers on any Garand is going to be a tough one. Most didn't even match from the factory - the whole reason for matching numbers was due to the parts needing to be fitted to each other (headspace being an obvious reason). By the time we got to the Garand, manufacturing and design made this sort of fiddly extra work unnecessary. Maybe a better goal would be to have one that has all the correct era parts? Original barrel, correct inspection stamps and stock, trigger internals, etc?

One of my recent Garand purchases was a WWII Springfield. Nearly everything was right, but it had the wrong stock (serif on the P was, or wasn't there, I forget which), and the trigger internals were from a Korea-era H&R. Which is funny, because my Korea-era H&R (that I got from the DCM years ago) had WWII Springfield trigger internals, and I had another random, later Garand, with the right stock for the WWII Springfield. So, wozzled all the parts around to make the WWII one as right as I could, and as far as I can tell, it's as-issued except for the bayonet and scabbard. The bore is dark and the chamber is pitted, so it's not a good shooter, but it's the most correct Garand I'll probably ever have.
 
2013-01-25 12:34:17 PM  

pedrop357: ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.


I don't want to carry a gun. In your solution, I would need to.
 
2013-01-25 12:34:51 PM  

CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.


Your "sensible" restrictions should probably be effective enough that a 10 year old can't figure out to evade them in under a minute.
 
2013-01-25 12:34:59 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?


You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.
 
2013-01-25 12:35:28 PM  

ph0rk: pedrop357: ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.

I don't want to carry a gun. In your solution, I would need to.


And why is that?
 
2013-01-25 12:35:32 PM  

ph0rk: Mental health checks


For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.
 
2013-01-25 12:35:38 PM  

Thunderpipes:
No, and anyone shooting competitions is using very high grade rounds, which will not have any issues being available. You are shooting competition with military surplus? ...


Yes, surplus. Commercial ammunition will damage both Garands and M1A's (M14's). The last time I ordered from the CMP I got 10,000 rounds of Lake City. Diane Feinstein has nightmares about guys like me.
 
2013-01-25 12:35:41 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

Longer prison terms for criminals might do more to prevent gun violence than anything esle seeing as how a majority of people committing gun violence have prior convictions.


Sounds good to me if we're talking about violent criminals
 
2013-01-25 12:37:09 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.


Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.
 
2013-01-25 12:37:35 PM  

pedrop357: FlashHarry: toys have been taken off the market because one or two toddlers choked on them. those are rare events.

i'm sorry, but if the only justification for high-capacity magazines is that they're more convenient, then that's not justification enough.

We don't have to justify it, the other side does, and the best they can come up with is that might stop a fraction of a tiny fraction of incidents. They have to justify why this is worth depriving people of the ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or in more desperate circumstances like natural disasters or riots. They also have to justify why the police should be able to have them when facing the same threats that we face first.


This is where the argument fails miserably.

As was stated in Heller, the 2nd ammendment is not absolute, subject to restriction, and bans on certain 'dangerous' weapons.

It is you that has to justify why you should be allowed to have a nuke, not the other way around.
 
2013-01-25 12:38:07 PM  

ph0rk: StoPPeRmobile: At the drop of a hat they will scream to alter The Constitution.

Maybe we should bring back slavery.

Funny, it seemed ok when the GOP wanted an amendment to ban gay marriage.


To whom did it seem, "ok?"
 
2013-01-25 12:38:47 PM  

Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.


That is fricken awesome
 
2013-01-25 12:39:10 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.


Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.
 
2013-01-25 12:39:29 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?


Its not really a strawman since youve implied it in multiple ways in the last 50 posts including, but not limited to, "allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons in schools," and paraphrasing, "the end of times never happen until they do."
 
2013-01-25 12:39:37 PM  

Giltric: Because People in power are Stupid: You would be a fool if you chose that assembly over the Browning when taking on an army of Moose.

But I can swap out the upper chambered in .50 Beowulf for any number of chamberings at half the cost of buying a new rifle. Where as you have to buy an entire collection of firearms.


I have a swiss army knife with a bottle opener on it. Using the bottle opener doesn't make it any less of a swiss army knife.
 
2013-01-25 12:39:52 PM  

Giltric: ph0rk: Mental health checks

For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.


Yep, as many as 170 or so children in the 4-7 age range are killed EVERY YEAR due to child abuse. About 1200 every year under the age of 11.

Seems like we should require regular mental health screening of parents as well as their children. It's win-win-win.

We ferret out the parents abusing their kids, the ones turning them into killers, and we snag some of the future killers.
 
2013-01-25 12:40:15 PM  
Technology-based laws seem to have limited use and encourage those subject to said laws to innovate their way around the laws.

The whole "assault weapon" vs. functionally identical non-assult weapon argument is more akin to pornography vs. artistic nude arguments

Assault weapons play to the customer's inner Rambo and glorify violence. Their traditional hunting equivalents (nice wood stocks, ergonomics designed around patiently waiting for the best shot) speaks to a customer's nostalgia, heritage, etc....generally more positive things .

I don't think that the pornography vs. art argument is much easier, but it seems to be a more appropriate arena than trying to define an assault weapon based on a technical specification. (i.e. the whole 'I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it' thing)
 
2013-01-25 12:40:36 PM  

ph0rk: pedrop357: ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.

I don't want to carry a gun. In your solution, I would need to.


Why? Its hardly a society more well armed than todays and I certainly feel no need Rolodex be armed personally. This is one of the least snooty periods in American history and the numbers are still falling.
 
2013-01-25 12:42:16 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.

Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.


which implies that these people WANT to use their gun and stop the bad guy.

Some just don't want to be killed because a group of men decided that they were worthy of being raped and murdered. Some aren't thrilled with the idea that they might be killed after stumbling upon people collecting their harvest at the edge of the property.
Others just don't want to beaten, killed, or simply have everything of value stolen by looters.

Does your 'hero' claim apply to the police who also possess 'large' magazines and 'assault weapons'?
 
2013-01-25 12:43:23 PM  

ph0rk: dittybopper: Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban

Perhaps. I don't think they'll be singing the same tune this time - Gay rights and immigration will be much larger planks in the platform, and people get a lot more worked up about those issues, or have lately. I expect these bills to go nowhere fast and the issue to more or less die within six months. What they are doing now is probably just posturing, but that's the game.


They are putting an awful lot of effort into it. More than I would expect if it were just a sop to the very liberal wing.
 
2013-01-25 12:44:42 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: pedrop357: ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.

I don't want to carry a gun. In your solution, I would need to.

Why? Its hardly a society more well armed than todays and I certainly feel no need Rolodex be armed personally. This is one of the least snooty periods in American history and the numbers are still falling.


Least shooty*

/The times actually are very snooty.
 
2013-01-25 12:46:47 PM  

dittybopper: ph0rk: dittybopper: Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban

Perhaps. I don't think they'll be singing the same tune this time - Gay rights and immigration will be much larger planks in the platform, and people get a lot more worked up about those issues, or have lately. I expect these bills to go nowhere fast and the issue to more or less die within six months. What they are doing now is probably just posturing, but that's the game.

They are putting an awful lot of effort into it. More than I would expect if it were just a sop to the very liberal wing.


This.

It's not just an appeal to their base. So far, the old guard in that party appears to be willing to put it all the line just to climb onto that aging hobby horse one more time.
 
2013-01-25 12:47:15 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.

Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.

which implies that these people WANT to use their gun and stop the bad guy.

Some just don't want to be killed because a group of men decided that they were worthy of being raped and murdered. Some aren't thrilled with the idea that they might be killed after stumbling upon people collecting their harvest at the edge of the property.
Others just don't want to beaten, killed, or simply have everything of value stolen by looters.

Does your 'hero' claim apply to the police who also possess 'large' magazines and 'assault weapons'?


Protip: if you find yourself constantly in these situations, maybe you need to move.
 
2013-01-25 12:47:52 PM  

CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.


Magazine limits are a problem too. Say you limit them to 10 rounds. Then another bunch of shootings happen where a person loaded up on multiple 10 rounders instead of just a handful of 20 or 30 rounders. Then what? Pass a law like New York just did limiting them to 7 rounds?

The whole magazine limitation is silly anyway: It's based upon game laws which are designed to preserve game. I find the idea that we should extend the same protections to criminals and tyrants that we extend to deer and other game ludicrous.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:40 PM  

pedrop357: Giltric: ph0rk: Mental health checks

For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.

Yep, as many as 170 or so children in the 4-7 age range are killed EVERY YEAR due to child abuse. About 1200 every year under the age of 11.

Seems like we should require regular mental health screening of parents as well as their children. It's win-win-win.

We ferret out the parents abusing their kids, the ones turning them into killers, and we snag some of the future killers.


I call for sensable, sane, and reasonable control on parents. Maybe screening will help, as you suggested but I don't think that is enough.

1) Licensing. Renewed every 5 years.
2) Centralized, federal government controlled listing and communication of the licensed parents.
3) Periodic, random inspection at the home, work, and school.
4) Annual mental screenings.
5) Testing and qualification.
6) Increased penalties for committing crimes involving children.
7) Vigorous background investigation.
9) Ban abortion.
8) Funding for this program.

If you do not support these points in their entirety, you might as well be killing babies.
 
2013-01-25 12:49:51 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.

Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.

which implies that these people WANT to use their gun and stop the bad guy.

Some just don't want to be killed because a group of men decided that they were worthy of being raped and murdered. Some aren't thrilled with the idea that they might be killed after stumbling upon people collecting their harvest at the edge of the property.
Others just don't want to beaten, killed, or simply have everything of value stolen by looters.

Does your 'hero' claim apply to the police who also possess 'large' magazines and 'assault weapons'?

Protip: if you find yourself constantly in these situations, maybe you need to move.


Goal post move, 15 yard penalty.

Why does it have to be constant?

Does that apply to the police? Should they quit their job if they feel the need to carry 15 round magazines and AR type rifles in their trunks?
 
2013-01-25 12:50:00 PM  

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

Magazine limits are a problem too. Say you limit them to 10 rounds. Then another bunch of shootings happen where a person loaded up on multiple 10 rounders instead of just a handful of 20 or 30 rounders. Then what? Pass a law like New York just did limiting them to 7 rounds?

The whole magazine limitation is silly anyway: It's based upon game laws which are designed to preserve game. I find the idea that we should extend the same protections to criminals and tyrants that we extend to deer and other game ludicrous.


The whole point is that is creates a momentary lapse in the gunfire which gives people a chance to react, not that he can carry a smaller total of bullets
 
2013-01-25 12:51:40 PM  

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

Magazine limits are a problem too. Say you limit them to 10 rounds. Then another bunch of shootings happen where a person loaded up on multiple 10 rounders instead of just a handful of 20 or 30 rounders. Then what? Pass a law like New York just did limiting them to 7 rounds?

The whole magazine limitation is silly anyway: It's based upon game laws which are designed to preserve game. I find the idea that we should extend the same protections to criminals and tyrants that we extend to deer and other game ludicrous.


This.

We've tried arbitrary limits down to 10 without effecting any change in crime.

MD is 20
NJ is 15
CA,MA,NY (pre-2013), federal 94-04, various cities is 10
NY is now 7

What makes NY's new arbitrary number better than MD's?
 
2013-01-25 12:52:13 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

Strawman on the field, 5 yard penalty.

Who talked about being a hero?

You did, you didn't mention it specifically, but that's the fantasy, and we can see right through it.

Ahh. So you're telepathic or incapable of understanding that all self defense doesn't fall into the actively seeking trouble category.

Who's said anything about seeking trouble? Its a hero fantasy.

which implies that these people WANT to use their gun and stop the bad guy.

Some just don't want to be killed because a group of men decided that they were worthy of being raped and murdered. Some aren't thrilled with the idea that they might be killed after stumbling upon people collecting their harvest at the edge of the property.
Others just don't want to beaten, killed, or simply have everything of value stolen by looters.

Does your 'hero' claim apply to the police who also possess 'large' magazines and 'assault weapons'?

Protip: if you find yourself constantly in these situations, maybe you need to move.

Goal post move, 15 yard penalty.

Why does it have to be constant?

Does that apply to the police? Should they quit their job if they feel the need to carry 15 round magazines and AR type rifles in their trunks?


Do you really think you're funny with these fallacy jabs?

You do realize you look very stupid nitpicking logical fallacies out of sarcastic quips, right?
 
2013-01-25 12:52:57 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: pedrop357: Giltric: ph0rk: Mental health checks

For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.

Yep, as many as 170 or so children in the 4-7 age range are killed EVERY YEAR due to child abuse. About 1200 every year under the age of 11.

Seems like we should require regular mental health screening of parents as well as their children. It's win-win-win.

We ferret out the parents abusing their kids, the ones turning them into killers, and we snag some of the future killers.

I call for sensable, sane, and reasonable control on parents. Maybe screening will help, as you suggested but I don't think that is enough.

1) Licensing. Renewed every 5 years.
2) Centralized, federal government controlled listing and communication of the licensed parents.
3) Periodic, random inspection at the home, work, and school.
4) Annual mental screenings.
5) Testing and qualification.
6) Increased penalties for committing crimes involving children.
7) Vigorous background investigation.
9) Ban abortion.
8) Funding for this program.

If you do not support these points in their entirety, you might as well be killing babies.


Do you still suggest some type of 'registration' to vote, or have you herped a derp on that one?
 
2013-01-25 12:53:31 PM  

CPennypacker: The whole point is that is creates a momentary lapse in the gunfire which gives people a chance to react, not that he can carry a smaller total of bullets


Which has rarely been the case. Shooters in the last 10 or so years just bring more magazines and reload when they want.

lower capacity has the ugly side effect of forcing a person to reload more often while under attack from multiple people, or facing multiple trespassers, looters, etc.
 
2013-01-25 12:54:39 PM  

CPennypacker: Do you really think you're funny with these fallacy jabs?

You do realize you look very stupid nitpicking logical fallacies out of sarcastic quips, right?


Not as stupid as you do constantly moving the goal around.
 
2013-01-25 12:58:43 PM  

Oblio13: Thunderpipes:
No, and anyone shooting competitions is using very high grade rounds, which will not have any issues being available. You are shooting competition with military surplus? ...

Yes, surplus. Commercial ammunition will damage both Garands and M1A's (M14's). The last time I ordered from the CMP I got 10,000 rounds of Lake City. Diane Feinstein has nightmares about guys like me.


Anything but a very tight match-tuned non-JCG-match-kosher M1 won't group all that much better with fine handloads or FGMM than with Greek HXP surplus. At that point, you hafta bite the bullet and go to the M1A (or an AR if you're a sissy)
 
2013-01-25 12:59:26 PM  

pedrop357: dittybopper: ph0rk: dittybopper: Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban

Perhaps. I don't think they'll be singing the same tune this time - Gay rights and immigration will be much larger planks in the platform, and people get a lot more worked up about those issues, or have lately. I expect these bills to go nowhere fast and the issue to more or less die within six months. What they are doing now is probably just posturing, but that's the game.

They are putting an awful lot of effort into it. More than I would expect if it were just a sop to the very liberal wing.

This.

It's not just an appeal to their base. So far, the old guard in that party appears to be willing to put it all the line just to climb onto that aging hobby horse one more time.


Things *ARE* different this time, though: AR-15's are pretty much ubiquitous now unlike in 1994, and gun ownership isn't necessarily frowned upon in the popular entertainment media. Most handguns are semi-autos, and the majority of semi-auto handguns have a capacity of at least 10 rounds.

Plus, we have something we didn't have in 1994: The Heller and McDonald decisions. They don't preclude regulation, of course, but we didn't have a Supreme Court decision back in 1994 that said outright bans on common guns are unconstitutional, and we now have *TWO*.

Still, I'd much rather not have to fight it in court and possibly lose, though fighting it in court and winning would settle the matter once and for all.
 
2013-01-25 01:00:22 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: The whole point is that is creates a momentary lapse in the gunfire which gives people a chance to react, not that he can carry a smaller total of bullets

Which has rarely been the case. Shooters in the last 10 or so years just bring more magazines and reload when they want.

lower capacity has the ugly side effect of forcing a person to reload more often while under attack from multiple people, or facing multiple trespassers, looters, etc.


I gave you two examples where it happened in addition to the one you have and I looked for all of 5 seconds

pedrop357: CPennypacker: Do you really think you're funny with these fallacy jabs?

You do realize you look very stupid nitpicking logical fallacies out of sarcastic quips, right?

Not as stupid as you do constantly moving the goal around.


I better be careful not to make any more logically fallacious jokes or my face will really be red.
 
2013-01-25 01:00:54 PM  

syrynxx: forbidden


Not true. I asked them pointedly if resale was illegal or against the agreement. Answer was no, but the intent is not to be making profits off of them.

It is absolute done, and I think it's wrong, but I wouldn't sell mine unless I was too old to use them. Or if I sold them for my cost to help support a new youth marksman or something.
 
2013-01-25 01:06:37 PM  
Semantics. Call it "regulated weapon", call it "taint salad", it doesn't matter.

Now, how are you going to define "too crazy to be around guns"?
 
2013-01-25 01:09:15 PM  

Trapper439:

Fark your hobby.


Riiiight. 'Cause clearly my legal, responsible ownership of guns indicates direct causality to every tragedy.

Once again, way to pinpoint the problem.
 
2013-01-25 01:12:11 PM  

justtray: StoPPeRmobile: pedrop357: Giltric: ph0rk: Mental health checks

For who?

If even one life saved is worth all the legislation maybe make it mandatory for everyone to undergo a mental health eval.....just think of all the children you would save from abuse.

Yep, as many as 170 or so children in the 4-7 age range are killed EVERY YEAR due to child abuse. About 1200 every year under the age of 11.

Seems like we should require regular mental health screening of parents as well as their children. It's win-win-win.

We ferret out the parents abusing their kids, the ones turning them into killers, and we snag some of the future killers.

I call for sensable, sane, and reasonable control on parents. Maybe screening will help, as you suggested but I don't think that is enough.

1) Licensing. Renewed every 5 years.
2) Centralized, federal government controlled listing and communication of the licensed parents.
3) Periodic, random inspection at the home, work, and school.
4) Annual mental screenings.
5) Testing and qualification.
6) Increased penalties for committing crimes involving children.
7) Vigorous background investigation.
9) Ban abortion.
8) Funding for this program.

If you do not support these points in their entirety, you might as well be killing babies.

Do you still suggest some type of 'registration' to vote, or have you herped a derp on that one?


Every right should have safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.

Are you antisocial?
 
2013-01-25 01:12:29 PM  

ph0rk: Mikey1969: No, what I meant was what is it about Alton Brown, I hear this relatively frequently and haven't been able to figure it out. All of the reality show "chefs", I get that, but I was just curious why people don't like Brown, that's all. Wasn't calling you a weenie for not liking him or anything like that.

Probably because of all the reality chefs, he is the one about which friends and acquaintances have said "you must watch his show, you will like it, it is awesome"

And I watched it and didn't like it, so now I have an opinion about him, in particular one that is negative after others built up my expectations.

I also don't like Elvis or the Beatles, so there you go.


Fair enough... There are other shows that are better(America's Test Kitchen is awesome), but I can definitely take him over the rest of them, although I wouldn't call him "reality", there's no real behind the scenes in real life element.

I like the Beatles, not really all that excited by Elvis, so I see that as well.
 
2013-01-25 01:13:10 PM  

ph0rk: Thunderpipes: If the Dems any party gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad.

I don't think many folks would like an unopposed party in power.


I respectfully disagree. Remember, you have supposed main stream media journalists calling for the "annihilation" of the GOP party.

If Dems got complete control, almost all guns would be banned. Then the 4th amendment would go, maybe via executive action, because the ATF needs to go into your house to check, without a warrant. I can only imagine where it would lead from there. Slippery slope leads to all kinds of crazy. Remember, these are the same people who flew in to a rage because under Bush, people checking out bomb making books were going to be flagged. Now they want every legal gun owner to be booked and fingerprinted, mugshots taken, guns made illegal, taken away, and they cheer when Feinstein puts this forward. The hypocrisy is just amazing.

Does any liberal Farker here not want complete Democrat control so they can get their free stuff? I doubt it. They just don't understand that there is a limited amount of money they can take from working folks.

At least Obama just lost the NLRB case, his appointments were unconstitutional. This from a guy who is supposed to be an expert on the Constitution.... hmm.... But, given enough time, Dems could control the courts too, so the Constitution could be rewritten as they see fit. So dumbass college kids and unemployed people would have all the power. What do you think they will want? More taxes to the working, more free stuff for them, less rights for individuals.
 
2013-01-25 01:13:28 PM  

Saiga410: Mikey1969: Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.

I like that a lot. The pistols are a bit much, but that might be fun to shoot, and when compared to my .45 small frame pistol, I bet there would be almost no recoil.

Yep it is fun but under my reading of the Feinstein bill it would be considered an assault weapon. Rotating cylinder shotgun.


How much is that going for(Pre-Panic prices, of course)?
 
2013-01-25 01:14:18 PM  

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

Magazine limits are a problem too. Say you limit them to 10 rounds. Then another bunch of shootings happen where a person loaded up on multiple 10 rounders instead of just a handful of 20 or 30 rounders. Then what? Pass a law like New York just did limiting them to 7 rounds?

The whole magazine limitation is silly anyway: It's based upon game laws which are designed to preserve game. I find the idea that we should extend the same protections to criminals and tyrants that we extend to deer and other game ludicrous.

The whole point is that is creates a momentary lapse in the gunfire which gives people a chance to react, not that he can carry a smaller total of bullets


The problem with this theory is that such shooters will engineer the circumstances to minimize the danger to themselves.

The Cumbria shootings are a perfect example of that. The main weapon the shooter used was a double barrel shotgun. They only hold 2 rounds. His strategy was to shoot and move on before any resistance.

Then we have the Beltway Sniper shootings: They used an AR-15, but they only fired one or two shots at most then moved on. Magazine restrictions wouldn't have helped.

Similarly, there is the Charles Whitman shootings: He mostly used a bolt action hunting rifle.

The type of people who do this sort of thing don't just "snap". They plan for weeks, months, and in some cases even years. They will engineer the circumstances so that any magazine limitation you might come up with won't affect them.

Then too, we're pretty close to just being able to print magazines anyway, so any restrictions might just be academic.
 
2013-01-25 01:14:44 PM  

lordjupiter: Semantics. Call it "regulated weapon", call it "taint salad", it doesn't matter.

Now, how are you going to define "too crazy to be around guns"?


"Posting on Fark" plus one other feature.
 
2013-01-25 01:16:20 PM  

CPennypacker: I better be careful not to make any more logically fallacious jokes or my face will really be red.


Ahh, the old "I was just kidding" technique. Try to play it straight in a straight discussion.


I gave you two examples where it happened in addition to the one you have and I looked for all of 5 seconds

I did say last 10 years in my last post.

Two of your examples were from 93 and 98. Apparently mass shooters have learned from that and in the last 10-12 years, all seem to just carry as many magazines as they want, reload as they please, and kill until they run out of ammo or finally encounter resistance 10-30 minutes into their rampage. Magazine capacity means even less now than it did before in the area of reducing carnage in a mass shooting.
 
2013-01-25 01:19:09 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Every right should have safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.

Are you antisocial?


Agreed. The 2nd amendment and general right to bear arms doesn't protect:
-a person brandishing, pointing, or shooting firearm at another person except in cases of self defense
-firing a gun in the air,
-discharging a gun in congested areas except for self defense, firing at an indoor range, etc.

There are your safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.
 
2013-01-25 01:21:57 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: lordjupiter: Semantics. Call it "regulated weapon", call it "taint salad", it doesn't matter.

Now, how are you going to define "too crazy to be around guns"?

"Posting on Fark" plus one other feature.


Done.
 
2013-01-25 01:22:25 PM  

dittybopper: Things *ARE* different this time, though: AR-15's are pretty much ubiquitous now unlike in 1994, and gun ownership isn't necessarily frowned upon in the popular entertainment media. Most handguns are semi-autos, and the majority of semi-auto handguns have a capacity of at least 10 rounds.

Plus, we have something we didn't have in 1994: The Heller and McDonald decisions. They don't preclude regulation, of course, but we didn't have a Supreme Court decision back in 1994 that said outright bans on common guns are unconstitutional, and we now have *TWO*.

Still, I'd much rather not have to fight it in court and possibly lose, though fighting it in court and winning would settle the matter once and for all.


Internet access also means reaching a much wider audience and pointing them to the facts. it also allows for fantastic grass roots organizing as we saw on the 18th.

Unless the court goes crazy, the semi-auto ban should fail any strict scrutiny tests and any kind of common use or unusual weapons standards. It would be nice to see safe congressmen/women and a lame duck president tank the party AND open the door to those state bans they love so much being tossed out.
 
2013-01-25 01:25:48 PM  

Mikey1969: Saiga410: Mikey1969: Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.

I like that a lot. The pistols are a bit much, but that might be fun to shoot, and when compared to my .45 small frame pistol, I bet there would be almost no recoil.

Yep it is fun but under my reading of the Feinstein bill it would be considered an assault weapon. Rotating cylinder shotgun.

How much is that going for(Pre-Panic prices, of course)?


Just checked and Gander Mountain has it at ~$530.
 
2013-01-25 01:26:25 PM  
Based on this thread an assault weapon is just a feeling, not an actual gun or anything.
 
2013-01-25 01:27:46 PM  

pedrop357: StoPPeRmobile: Every right should have safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.

Are you antisocial?

Agreed. The 2nd amendment and general right to bear arms doesn't protect:
-a person brandishing, pointing, or shooting firearm at another person except in cases of self defense
-firing a gun in the air,
-discharging a gun in congested areas except for self defense, firing at an indoor range, etc.

There are your safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.


All rights!

You can't pick the ones you like today. You might get old, decrepit, and senile one day and want to own a murder machine. Society can't allow that. Society demands that feeling of safety. How else are going to get people into their 2 ton plastic and steel, deathtraps, so they can work to death like the peasants they are.

Peasant should have all rights restricted. I can't be any plainer than that. For society benefit do we all bow, except rich people. They are our superiors and only they shall dictate to us. If only we could have this perfect world.
 
2013-01-25 01:28:37 PM  

FlashHarry


shooters in the past have been stopped when swapping mags. jared laughner, for one.


And for two?

For three?
 
2013-01-25 01:28:55 PM  

Kit Fister: Does it really count as "Before" the crazy, if you, yourself, ARE the crazy?


www.ar15.com

and


sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net

you gotta do better than that Kid Fister.
/go cry
 
2013-01-25 01:29:49 PM  

pedrop357: dittybopper: Things *ARE* different this time, though: AR-15's are pretty much ubiquitous now unlike in 1994, and gun ownership isn't necessarily frowned upon in the popular entertainment media. Most handguns are semi-autos, and the majority of semi-auto handguns have a capacity of at least 10 rounds.

Plus, we have something we didn't have in 1994: The Heller and McDonald decisions. They don't preclude regulation, of course, but we didn't have a Supreme Court decision back in 1994 that said outright bans on common guns are unconstitutional, and we now have *TWO*.

Still, I'd much rather not have to fight it in court and possibly lose, though fighting it in court and winning would settle the matter once and for all.

Internet access also means reaching a much wider audience and pointing them to the facts. it also allows for fantastic grass roots organizing as we saw on the 18th.

Unless the court goes crazy, the semi-auto ban should fail any strict scrutiny tests and any kind of common use or unusual weapons standards. It would be nice to see safe congressmen/women and a lame duck president tank the party AND open the door to those state bans they love so much being tossed out.


Reminds me of how self-restricted towards adult content prior to the 1996 Telecom Act. Those idiots opened the floodgates.

/unintended consequences
 
2013-01-25 01:31:35 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: FlashHarry

shooters in the past have been stopped when swapping mags. jared laughner, for one.


And for two?

For three?


i believe someone posted the thurston high school shooting in 1993 and the subway shooting in 1998. both involved people being stopped after runnign out of ammo or reloading, thought the 1998 subway shooting was in gun control paradise NYC and the people didn't rush him until he was on his 3rd magazine.

Mass shooters in the 14 years after that subway shooting apparently learned about moving and bringing extra magazines to avoid that particular problem.
 
2013-01-25 01:31:44 PM  

pedrop357: dittybopper: Things *ARE* different this time, though: AR-15's are pretty much ubiquitous now unlike in 1994, and gun ownership isn't necessarily frowned upon in the popular entertainment media. Most handguns are semi-autos, and the majority of semi-auto handguns have a capacity of at least 10 rounds.

Plus, we have something we didn't have in 1994: The Heller and McDonald decisions. They don't preclude regulation, of course, but we didn't have a Supreme Court decision back in 1994 that said outright bans on common guns are unconstitutional, and we now have *TWO*.

Still, I'd much rather not have to fight it in court and possibly lose, though fighting it in court and winning would settle the matter once and for all.

Internet access also means reaching a much wider audience and pointing them to the facts. it also allows for fantastic grass roots organizing as we saw on the 18th.

Unless the court goes crazy, the semi-auto ban should fail any strict scrutiny tests and any kind of common use or unusual weapons standards. It would be nice to see safe congressmen/women and a lame duck president tank the party AND open the door to those state bans they love so much being tossed out.


I'm personally not worried about a semi-auto ban: That's not on the table.

What is on the table is stuff like requiring *ALL* gun purchases to go through NICS, and magazine capacity limitations. That's the kind of stuff I'm worried about.
 
2013-01-25 01:33:38 PM  

pedrop357: Englebert Slaptyback: FlashHarry

shooters in the past have been stopped when swapping mags. jared laughner, for one.


And for two?

For three?

i believe someone posted the thurston high school shooting in 1993 and the subway shooting in 1998. both involved people being stopped after runnign out of ammo or reloading, thought the 1998 subway shooting was in gun control paradise NYC and the people didn't rush him until he was on his 3rd magazine.

Mass shooters in the 14 years after that subway shooting apparently learned about moving and bringing extra magazines to avoid that particular problem.


Also: Bringing a back-up gun.

Most spree shooters nowadays pack more than one gun.
 
2013-01-25 01:36:24 PM  

CPennypacker: LIRR Massacre - 1993

Link

Thurston High School Massacre - 1998

Link

Thats two from a 5 second google with no effort. Plus Tuscon. And I'm sure if I wanted to put the effort into it I'd find more.

But carry on with the "it wouldn't do ANYTHING so we shouldn't do it" BS


Well, if you want to argue, LIPR guy fired 30 rounds before being tackled.  30-round mags may not have made any difference.  It's harder to suggest the Thurston shooter wouldn't have been hampered by a smaller mag (it sounds like he had a 50-round mag for the rifle - .22 cal is a very different beast because the rounds are so small, you can fit tons of ammo in a very small space).

And, of course, Giffords' shooter was tackled during mag swap-out.

It should be noted, though, that because we can list the times it has mattered suggests how infrequently it matters.

/Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report.  I wonder if it's out on wikipedia...
 
2013-01-25 01:37:46 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-25 01:38:15 PM  

Trapper439:

Fark your hobby.


And that, my shooting friends, is how we know we must fight this battle like it's the last one, because it is.
 
2013-01-25 01:38:20 PM  

pedrop357: StoPPeRmobile: Every right should have safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.

Are you antisocial?

Agreed. The 2nd amendment and general right to bear arms doesn't protect:
-a person brandishing, pointing, or shooting firearm at another person except in cases of self defense
-firing a gun in the air,
-discharging a gun in congested areas except for self defense, firing at an indoor range, etc.

There are your safe, sane, and reasonable restrictions, for the protection of society.


That's just one ammendment. There are plenty of others. Like the 18th ammendment. We should require licensing, medical, psychiactric, and background checks for citizens that wish to utilize their right to own and operate alcoholic beverages. Think of all the people that die, every year, due to DUI fatalities or medical conditions brought about by alcohol. The numbers of people harmed, killed, or murdered because of the excersise of this right, is simply staggering.

Or the Nineteeth Ammendment. How many mass shooting have there been since that right was secured?

The fifth ammendment is nothing more than a roadblock to the safety of society. How many murderers got away with murding innocent and helpless, woman and children?

How about the Thirteenth Ammendment to the Constitution? There were no black Military-styled AR-15 type Assualt murder death machines in the hands of civilians prior to it's passage.

I could go on.
 
2013-01-25 01:39:19 PM  

Oblio13: Trapper439:

Fark your hobby.

And that, my shooting friends, is how we know we must fight this battle like it's the last one, because it is.


It also shows how reasonable and sensible they are, and how rational and mature they are during the 'conversation' their side so desperately claims to want.
 
2013-01-25 01:39:34 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: Kit Fister: Does it really count as "Before" the crazy, if you, yourself, ARE the crazy?

[www.ar15.com image 500x346]

and


[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 420x294]

you gotta do better than that Kid Fister.
/go cry


I just observe facts, my friend. World class trolling though. :)
 
2013-01-25 01:41:31 PM  

vygramul: /Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report. I wonder if it's out on wikipedia...


IIRC he was just hanging out by his or in his car.....

He may even have had time to leave but I think he wanted the headlines and the media obliged him.
 
2013-01-25 01:45:47 PM  
Why don't we just ban murder?
 
2013-01-25 01:46:44 PM  

vygramul: CPennypacker: LIRR Massacre - 1993

Link

Thurston High School Massacre - 1998

Link

Thats two from a 5 second google with no effort. Plus Tuscon. And I'm sure if I wanted to put the effort into it I'd find more.

But carry on with the "it wouldn't do ANYTHING so we shouldn't do it" BS

Well, if you want to argue, LIPR guy fired 30 rounds before being tackled.  30-round mags may not have made any difference.  It's harder to suggest the Thurston shooter wouldn't have been hampered by a smaller mag (it sounds like he had a 50-round mag for the rifle - .22 cal is a very different beast because the rounds are so small, you can fit tons of ammo in a very small space).

And, of course, Giffords' shooter was tackled during mag swap-out.

It should be noted, though, that because we can list the times it has mattered suggests how infrequently it matters.

/Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report.  I wonder if it's out on wikipedia...


If we can list times that it matterd it also means that there are times when it matters

It kills me how many of the arguments gun nuts make cannibalize other arguments gun nuts make

Like limiting magazine size won't make a difference because it takes 0 seconds to reload, but we can't limit magazine size because x bullets in the magazine may not be enough to defend your home from murdering rapist zombie looters.

Or banning guns won't do anything because the maniacs will just use knives or hammers, which are just as deadly, but don't ban guns because I need them to defend myself, even though I have a knife and a hammer.
 
2013-01-25 01:47:20 PM  

Ivandrago: I went to gym (25 minutes blah blah), are lunch, went to Lowe's and checked this thread and exactly what happens when people discuss guns is happening.
People for gun control are trotting out the same tired arguments about owning nuclear weapons and stinger missiles and saying the constitution was written before repeating arms so they're not covered by the constitution.
People against gun control (usually the people who know about guns) are trying to explain that generally, the proposed legislation does very little to address the problems of gun crime and gun violence.
And this is what is so frustrating.
I am on the left side of virtually ever debate. I voted for Obama twice (the first time I stayed awake until ass late at night to watch the inauguration because I was in Iraq at the time). Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2000 (from South Carolina, so my vote didn't count anyway). But as soon as you talk about guns, the left gets all derpy.
You're not going to get the type of gun control you want. I'm very sorry, but there are enough people in the country who think differently than you do that can match your votes and keep it from happening. So instead of focusing on things that make no difference like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, folding buttstocks, or other military style features that you don't understand. Bring something to the discussion that will help. Listen to the people who know about what you're trying to regulate.
The President's executive orders are a good start. I agree with all of them. I have taken advantage of the gun show loophole myself and as much as I enjoy not having to pay a transfer fee, I can see how someone could use it to get around a background check that they cannot pass. It should go.
I'm all for licensing tests. I'd be OK with having serial numbered and registered gun safes so when they look up your background you have to have a gun safe registered with the government in order to purchase a gun. I think that could help with stolen guns be ...


I may be your political opposite, for real. You're a lefty who owns guns and I'm a conservative libertarian (I voted for w the first time and romney - I'm in a swing state, but all libertarians for every other election in my entire life). I am totally pro-2nd amendment and think people should be able to own fully automatic weapons and hand grenades if they want.

That said, I think you made some interesting points. Thanks.
 
2013-01-25 01:47:25 PM  

vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...


I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?
 
2013-01-25 01:47:43 PM  

DownTheRabbitHole: Please don't say "clip". It's a magazine. Always.


Well, except when I'm using my father in law's M1 Garand. Then it's a clip.
 
2013-01-25 01:49:40 PM  
 
2013-01-25 01:50:08 PM  

Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?


This. People are scaredy piss-pants that someone can fire for minutes and minutes? Throw a coat at him. Jump on him. School shooting? Why can't the teachers throw a chair or something? Just that would probably be enough to make the shooter panic.

Yes, Americans are pussies now, big time. They probably think the shooter is a bully, and they must wait to call the principal, police, or their mommies.
 
2013-01-25 01:50:16 PM  

Saiga410: Mikey1969: Saiga410: Mikey1969: Saiga410: You call that an assault weapon? Now this is a scary assault weapon.

I like that a lot. The pistols are a bit much, but that might be fun to shoot, and when compared to my .45 small frame pistol, I bet there would be almost no recoil.

Yep it is fun but under my reading of the Feinstein bill it would be considered an assault weapon. Rotating cylinder shotgun.

How much is that going for(Pre-Panic prices, of course)?

Just checked and Gander Mountain has it at ~$530.


Damn, that's not bad at all... 1st purchase will be the .357 I want, then a 10/22, and then maybe one of these things... Gonna take awhile, hope the price holds.
 
2013-01-25 01:50:43 PM  

CPennypacker: f we can list times that it matterd it also means that there are times when it matters

It kills me how many of the arguments gun nuts make cannibalize other arguments gun nuts make

Like limiting magazine size won't make a difference because it takes 0 seconds to reload, but we can't limit magazine size because x bullets in the magazine may not be enough to defend your home from murdering rapist zombie looters.

Or banning guns won't do anything because the maniacs will just use knives or hammers, which are just as deadly, but don't ban guns because I need them to defend myself, even though I have a knife and a hammer.


You seem to think that a guy shooting fish in a barrel has the same constraints as a person defending themselves against one or more attackers.

Magazine capacity matters when facing multiple attackers when any pause means being overtaken. It's not nearly as significant when it's one guy catching unarmed people by surprise.

Two people trying to attack one person with a hammer will end up inflicting significant damage on one person defending themselves with nothing more than a hammer. A person with a hammer can inflict significant damage against unarmed people.
 
2013-01-25 01:51:36 PM  

Thunderpipes: Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

This. People are scaredy piss-pants that someone can fire for minutes and minutes? Throw a coat at him. Jump on him. School shooting? Why can't the teachers throw a chair or something? Just that would probably be enough to make the shooter panic.

Yes, Americans are pussies now, big time. They probably think the shooter is a bully, and they must wait to call the principal, police, or their mommies.


More hero fantasy bullshiat. Lets see how you two react when you're in a dark, crowded theater and some maniac bursts in armed to the teeth and starts mowing people down. I'm sure you'd be the first ones to jump on him.
 
2013-01-25 01:51:40 PM  

Thunderpipes: Why don't we just ban murder?


We could do like hate crimes and make "using a weapon with the intent to kill more than 3 people in a mass murder" a federal crime and pretty much end the whole thing. Murder someone? That's a state crime. Murder 4 people with a gun from our list? Oh, now that is a federal crime.

Should work, right?
 
2013-01-25 01:52:09 PM  

Oblio13: I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?


I think the fight or flight response veers strongly towards flight when you're not armed and you realize he is. It seems like a heck of a threshold to convince yourself to cross.
 
2013-01-25 01:52:21 PM  

kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work. The line is nice and clear and the gun nuts can finally stop whining about normenclature. Basically the US could use the same restrictions as Canada.


Sure, go ahead and try that. Start with the criminals, once you have all of their guns, then we can talk about mine.
 
2013-01-25 01:53:35 PM  

Giltric: How to stop mass shootings by ColionNoir


THIS! Follow with his vids on magazine capacity and concealed carry.
 
2013-01-25 01:53:56 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: f we can list times that it matterd it also means that there are times when it matters

It kills me how many of the arguments gun nuts make cannibalize other arguments gun nuts make

Like limiting magazine size won't make a difference because it takes 0 seconds to reload, but we can't limit magazine size because x bullets in the magazine may not be enough to defend your home from murdering rapist zombie looters.

Or banning guns won't do anything because the maniacs will just use knives or hammers, which are just as deadly, but don't ban guns because I need them to defend myself, even though I have a knife and a hammer.

You seem to think that a guy shooting fish in a barrel has the same constraints as a person defending themselves against one or more attackers.

Magazine capacity matters when facing multiple attackers when any pause means being overtaken. It's not nearly as significant when it's one guy catching unarmed people by surprise.


But I thought reloading takes 0 seconds. It doesn't even matter, right? Oh, but it matters now, got it. You have to power to warp time in order to justify your crappy arguments.

Two people trying to attack one person with a hammer will end up inflicting significant damage on one person defending themselves with nothing more than a hammer. A person with a hammer can inflict significant damage against unarmed people.

As much damage as a gun? Like I said. Pick one.
 
2013-01-25 01:54:10 PM  

Frank N Stein: Any Farkers own a Garand? Putting in my order to the CMP today for an M1, a bayonet, and a couple hundred rounds of 30-06.

[www.tri-eagle-firearms.com image 850x558]

fark an assault rifle. I'm getting a battle rifle


I've got a 6 digit Springfield, but it was rebarrelled in .308. Looking through websites, the serial puts it at around Spring '42. Fantastic gun, I love to clean it and dryfire it while watching Band of Brothers.
 
2013-01-25 01:54:16 PM  

djh0101010: kapaso: Get rid of semi automatic guns, that will work. The line is nice and clear and the gun nuts can finally stop whining about normenclature. Basically the US could use the same restrictions as Canada.

Sure, go ahead and try that. Start with the criminals, once you have all of their guns, then we can talk about mine.


And the cops. When they no longer feel the need to carry semi-auto firearms to confront criminals that we encounter first, that should signal that they're no longer needed.
 
2013-01-25 01:55:15 PM  

Thunderpipes: ph0rk: Thunderpipes: If the Dems any party gain complete control, I guarantee you even Farkers will be sad.

I don't think many folks would like an unopposed party in power.

I respectfully disagree. Remember, you have supposed main stream media journalists calling for the "annihilation" of the GOP party.

If Dems got complete control, almost all guns would be banned. Then the 4th amendment would go, maybe via executive action, because the ATF needs to go into your house to check, without a warrant. I can only imagine where it would lead from there. Slippery slope leads to all kinds of crazy. Remember, these are the same people who flew in to a rage because under Bush, people checking out bomb making books were going to be flagged. Now they want every legal gun owner to be booked and fingerprinted, mugshots taken, guns made illegal, taken away, and they cheer when Feinstein puts this forward. The hypocrisy is just amazing.

Does any liberal Farker here not want complete Democrat control so they can get their free stuff? I doubt it. They just don't understand that there is a limited amount of money they can take from working folks.

At least Obama just lost the NLRB case, his appointments were unconstitutional. This from a guy who is supposed to be an expert on the Constitution.... hmm.... But, given enough time, Dems could control the courts too, so the Constitution could be rewritten as they see fit. So dumbass college kids and unemployed people would have all the power. What do you think they will want? More taxes to the working, more free stuff for them, less rights for individuals.


If dens got complete control the rats nest oh lesser evilists they laughably call a party would fly apart like a watermelon thrown from a rooftop.
 
2013-01-25 01:55:27 PM  

Oblio13: Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?


People have been conditioned to believe that the police and government are responsible for taking care of you.

Defending yourself has been legislated over the years to a person having the responsibility to run away first.
 
2013-01-25 01:56:13 PM  

pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?


there's a HUGE difference between a hurricane and a hurricane that necessitates the killing of more than 10 people at a time.
 
2013-01-25 01:56:32 PM  

Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?


Retaliation is frowned upon these day.
 
2013-01-25 01:56:47 PM  

CPennypacker: But I thought reloading takes 0 seconds. It doesn't even matter, right? Oh, but it matters now, got it. You have to power to warp time in order to justify your crappy arguments.


I never said 0 seconds, though others did and I didn't agree anywhere with that. It's more than 0 seconds more like 1-3 seconds range for a lot of shooters.

It's different when you're shooting at unarmed people, than when one or more people are actively pursuing you.

If YOU agree that it's 0 seconds (not that I agree), would you have an issue limiting the police as well?
 
2013-01-25 01:57:45 PM  

FlashHarry: there's a HUGE difference between a hurricane and a hurricane that necessitates the killing of more than 10 people at a time.


Tell that to the police in every town, city, borough, county, and state in the country.
 
2013-01-25 01:59:03 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

I want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!



Hell, we can't even get a law to stick in Wisconsin that people have to show an ID to register or vote. You need to show a picture ID to get a bus pass, but all you need to vote is to walk in and claim to be someone who lives in the district.
 
2013-01-25 01:59:56 PM  

pedrop357: We've tried arbitrary limits down to 10 without effecting any change in crime.

MD is 20
NJ is 15
CA,MA,NY (pre-2013), federal 94-04, various cities is 10
NY is now 7

What makes NY's new arbitrary number better than MD's?


ooh! ooh! i know... it's lower.

say you're in a bank with 30 other people and an armed madman has started firing at people. would you rather he had 7-round, 20-round, or 30-round magazines? the more often he has to reload, the more chances that somebody will take him out, just as jared loughner was taken out in tucson.
 
2013-01-25 02:00:07 PM  

CPennypacker: But I thought reloading takes 0 seconds. It doesn't even matter, right? Oh, but it matters now, got it. You have to power to warp time in order to justify your crappy arguments.


This guy is close to warping time.
 
2013-01-25 02:00:46 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.


There is no private sales loophole. But we can close up what you believe to be a loophole as soon as we start regulating the sale of anything else that can be used to kill or harm someone relatively easily. Kitchen knives, Chainsaws, baseball bats, cars, tire irons, lawn mowers, etc. In order to sell such things to someone you will have to have them fill out a form and put that information into an internet site (or call it in) and find out if the person is safe to sell to or not. You will have to pay $5 for each such check. Then you will have to keep the paperwork for the rest of your life. To purchase such items and have them shipped across state lines you will have to go through a registered agent who will charge you $30 or so to process the paperwork.

Same thing for storage of the dangerous items mentioned above. All such items will have to be securely locked away in a safe and things that make them more dangerous, like gas for a chainsaw, will have to be locked in a separate safe.

Also, I am all for a gun license. We shouid do it at the same time we pass some other important licensing laws, like licenses to:

Let you say what you want. Without it you would go to prison for saying anything someone else doesn't like.
Let you refuse a voluntary search of your home and person. Without it the police could strip search you and your family anytime they like.
Let you have due process of law and a speedy trial by a jury of your peers. Without it a judge could find you guilty of a crime at any time for any reason without a trial, or even you being present or aware you are being accused of something.
Let you turn away soldiers who decide they want to take over your home and live there. Without it, you are out, they live in your home, you still have to pay the bills and make sure they get fed.

There would be a separate fee for each license, so poor people couldn't afford them all. Only US citizens of appropriate age would be able to get these licenses. Illegal and legal immigrants and foreign tourists would be ineligible. Felons would of course be entirely unable to get any of these licenses. All licenses would require a mental health check, and if you didn't pass then no license for you. Also, believing in the flying spaghetti monster, or any other made up being is obviously a sign of poor mental health, so anyone who is, or ever has been, religious, would be unable to get a license.

What a wonderful world it will be.
 
2013-01-25 02:01:16 PM  

pedrop357: FlashHarry: there's a HUGE difference between a hurricane and a hurricane that necessitates the killing of more than 10 people at a time.

Tell that to the police in every town, city, borough, county, and state in the country.


lolwut?

a) THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB.
b) when have we had a hurricane that necessitated the killing of more than ten people at a time (between magazine changes) by civilians? did that even happen during katrina?
 
2013-01-25 02:01:45 PM  

CPennypacker: Thunderpipes: Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

This. People are scaredy piss-pants that someone can fire for minutes and minutes? Throw a coat at him. Jump on him. School shooting? Why can't the teachers throw a chair or something? Just that would probably be enough to make the shooter panic.

Yes, Americans are pussies now, big time. They probably think the shooter is a bully, and they must wait to call the principal, police, or their mommies.

More hero fantasy bullshiat. Lets see how you two react when you're in a dark, crowded theater and some maniac bursts in armed to the teeth and starts mowing people down. I'm sure you'd be the first ones to jump on him.


Damn right I would. Ya, I might poop myself, but unless he gets me first, and if I am anywhere near? Hell ya. Sure not going to let him shoot people for 5-10 minutes.

Now think about this. How many kids today, grow up getting into fights at all? I have a step son in 3rd grade right now, I have never even once heard of any incident at all. Of course people today will cower. That is what they are taught. Want to prevent mass murders? Teach people to instantly attack shooters with anything around them. Obviously would not work well in Sandy Hook, but the theater shooting was just terrible.
 
2013-01-25 02:01:54 PM  
I prefer the term 'Comfort Rifle'.
 
2013-01-25 02:02:04 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: CPennypacker: But I thought reloading takes 0 seconds. It doesn't even matter, right? Oh, but it matters now, got it. You have to power to warp time in order to justify your crappy arguments.

This guy is close to warping time.


how many mass shooters have that kind of training?
 
2013-01-25 02:02:13 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: But I thought reloading takes 0 seconds. It doesn't even matter, right? Oh, but it matters now, got it. You have to power to warp time in order to justify your crappy arguments.

I never said 0 seconds, though others did and I didn't agree anywhere with that. It's more than 0 seconds more like 1-3 seconds range for a lot of shooters.

It's different when you're shooting at unarmed people, than when one or more people are actively pursuing you.

If YOU agree that it's 0 seconds (not that I agree), would you have an issue limiting the police as well?


I'm fine limiting the police as long as theres a lagtime to account for non-compliance and specialized teams like SWAT still have access to more powerful weaponry for extenuating circumstances.

And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.
 
2013-01-25 02:03:05 PM  

djh0101010: StoPPeRmobile: Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

I want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!


Hell, we can't even get a law to stick in Wisconsin that people have to show an ID to register or vote. You need to show a picture ID to get a bus pass, but all you need to vote is to walk in and claim to be someone who lives in the district.


It's ridiculous. It's why Americans aren't safer. Close the voting loophole.
 
2013-01-25 02:05:10 PM  

FlashHarry: pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

there's a HUGE difference between a hurricane and a hurricane that necessitates the killing of more than 10 people at a time.


The fact that he goes right to killing as a solution speaks loads to his psyche.
 
2013-01-25 02:06:24 PM  

CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.


No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.
 
2013-01-25 02:06:51 PM  

FlashHarry:

say you're in a bank with 30 other people and an armed madman has started firing at people. would you rather he had 7-round, 20-round, or 30-round magazines? the more often he has to reload, the more chances that somebody will take him out, just as jared loughner was taken out in tucson.


Lemme get this straight: You're expecting the mass murderer to obey the 7-round limit?
 
2013-01-25 02:06:58 PM  

FlashHarry: StoPPeRmobile: CPennypacker: But I thought reloading takes 0 seconds. It doesn't even matter, right? Oh, but it matters now, got it. You have to power to warp time in order to justify your crappy arguments.

This guy is close to warping time.

how many mass shooters have that kind of training?


So, we should require licensing an/or banning of that kind of training?
 
2013-01-25 02:07:15 PM  

FlashHarry: a) THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB.
b) when have we had a hurricane that necessitated the killing of more than ten people at a time (between magazine changes) by civilians? did that even happen during katrina?


When was the last time anything, anywhere necessitated the police killing 10 or more people at one time?
 
2013-01-25 02:07:57 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.


How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez
 
2013-01-25 02:08:21 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.


It's great for the criminal. The criminal just has to wait for you to reload and BLAM!.
 
2013-01-25 02:08:48 PM  

Oblio13: FlashHarry:

say you're in a bank with 30 other people and an armed madman has started firing at people. would you rather he had 7-round, 20-round, or 30-round magazines? the more often he has to reload, the more chances that somebody will take him out, just as jared loughner was taken out in tucson.

Lemme get this straight: You're expecting the mass murderer to obey the 7-round limit?


That, and he thinks everybody dies after being shot once, and that only the police should be able to possess things that (in his words) are for killing 10 or people at a time.
 
2013-01-25 02:09:54 PM  

CPennypacker: Like limiting magazine size won't make a difference because it takes 0 seconds to reload, but we can't limit magazine size because x bullets in the magazine may not be enough to defend your home from murdering rapist zombie looters.

Or banning guns won't do anything because the maniacs will just use knives or hammers, which are just as deadly, but don't ban guns because I need them to defend myself, even though I have a knife and a hammer.


I bet the number of times someone needed more than 10 rounds to defend his home is probably fewer than the times someone was able to intervene during a magazine swap.  But the cannibalizing of arguments works both ways.  "You're going to be too scared to shoot back," and, "You can just tackle the guy with the gun when he swaps magazines," seem pretty contradictory in premise.

Banning all guns will do something.  Banning a small subset of guns won't.  Banning high-capacity magazines will probably never do anything for a variety of reasons.  Maybe a ban 30 years ago would, by now, matter.  But between the glut of mags and 3-D printing in the relatively near future, magazine bans are simply unlikely to matter much.

I'd rather people not ban something that is only responsible for 3% of murders (if that) and then declare victory.  It's insulting.
 
2013-01-25 02:10:10 PM  

Thunderpipes: CPennypacker: Thunderpipes: Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

This. People are scaredy piss-pants that someone can fire for minutes and minutes? Throw a coat at him. Jump on him. School shooting? Why can't the teachers throw a chair or something? Just that would probably be enough to make the shooter panic.

Yes, Americans are pussies now, big time. They probably think the shooter is a bully, and they must wait to call the principal, police, or their mommies.

More hero fantasy bullshiat. Lets see how you two react when you're in a dark, crowded theater and some maniac bursts in armed to the teeth and starts mowing people down. I'm sure you'd be the first ones to jump on him.

Damn right I would. Ya, I might poop myself, but unless he gets me first, and if I am anywhere near? Hell ya. Sure not going to let him shoot people for 5-10 minutes.

Now think about this. How many kids today, grow up getting into fights at all? I have a step son in 3rd grade right now, I have never even once heard of any incident at all. Of course people today will cower. That is what they are taught. Want to prevent mass murders? Teach people to instantly attack shooters with anything around them. Obviously would not work well in Sandy Hook, but the theater shooting was just terrible.


You sure would, you're in internet badass. If only you were there.
 
2013-01-25 02:10:26 PM  

CPennypacker: How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez


Ahhh, the old "why do you need that?" line.

How about letting me carry the 16 my magazine holds instead of artificially limiting me to 10 in the same form factor. I hope I never know if those 'extra' 6 make a difference.
 
2013-01-25 02:10:49 PM  

arentol: Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

There is no private sales loophole. But we can close up what you believe to be a loophole as soon as we start regulating the sale of anything else that can be used to kill or harm someone relatively easily. Kitchen knives, Chainsaws, baseball bats, cars, tire irons, lawn mowers, etc. In order to sell such things to someone you will have to have them fill out a form and put that information into an internet site (or call it in) and find out if the person is safe to sell to or not. You will have to pay $5 for each such check. Then you will have to keep the paperwork for the rest of your life. To purchase such items and have them shipped across state lines you will have to go through a registered agent who will charge you $30 or so to process the paperwork.

Same thing for storage of the dangerous items mentioned above. All such items will have to be securely locked away in a safe and things that make them more dangerous, like gas for a chainsaw, will have to be locked in a separate safe.

Also, I am all for a gun license. We shouid do it at the same time we pass some other important licensing laws, like licenses to:

Let you say what you want. Without it you would go to prison for saying anything someone else doesn't like.
Let you refuse a voluntary search of your home and person. Without it the police could strip search you and your family anytime they like.
Let you have due process of law and a speedy trial by a jury of your peers. Without it a judge could find you guilty of a crime at any time ...


Posts dont get much dumber than this.
 
2013-01-25 02:11:22 PM  

vygramul: CPennypacker: Like limiting magazine size won't make a difference because it takes 0 seconds to reload, but we can't limit magazine size because x bullets in the magazine may not be enough to defend your home from murdering rapist zombie looters.

Or banning guns won't do anything because the maniacs will just use knives or hammers, which are just as deadly, but don't ban guns because I need them to defend myself, even though I have a knife and a hammer.

I bet the number of times someone needed more than 10 rounds to defend his home is probably fewer than the times someone was able to intervene during a magazine swap.  But the cannibalizing of arguments works both ways.  "You're going to be too scared to shoot back," and, "You can just tackle the guy with the gun when he swaps magazines," seem pretty contradictory in premise.

Banning all guns will do something.  Banning a small subset of guns won't.  Banning high-capacity magazines will probably never do anything for a variety of reasons.  Maybe a ban 30 years ago would, by now, matter.  But between the glut of mags and 3-D printing in the relatively near future, magazine bans are simply unlikely to matter much.

I'd rather people not ban something that is only responsible for 3% of murders (if that) and then declare victory.  It's insulting.


I'm OK with reducing murders 3% if the only cost is that you have to reload two more times at the range.
 
2013-01-25 02:11:42 PM  

Oblio13: Lemme get this straight: You're expecting the mass murderer to obey the 7-round limit?


if the guns were obtained legally - as seems to be the case with most mass shootings - then, yes, i would expect the mass murderer to use whatever was obtainable legally. if only 10-round magazines were available, i would imagine he (and it's always a he) would use 10-round magazines.

obviously a 10-round limit passed today wouldn't get rid of the high-capacity mags floating around, but it would be a start.
 
2013-01-25 02:11:42 PM  

syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.


world.guns.ru
100 rounds. Standard.
 
2013-01-25 02:12:18 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: djh0101010: StoPPeRmobile: Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

I want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!


Hell, we can't even get a law to stick in Wisconsin that people have to show an ID to register or vote. You need to show a picture ID to get a bus pass, but all you need to vote is to walk in and claim to be someone who lives in the district.

It's ridiculous. It's why Americans aren't safer. Close the voting loophole.


You mean registration?

I keep asking what youre talking about, you keep dodging it. You already have to register to vote. Do you have to register to buy a gun?

Now shut up
 
2013-01-25 02:12:38 PM  

FlashHarry: ... THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB...


There are long, long moments between when a crime occurs and the police can arrive to save you, even assuming that there's a way to summon them and that they don't choke on their donuts or wet themselves. During the critical phase of violence, you are on your own.
 
2013-01-25 02:13:11 PM  

CPennypacker: I'm OK with reducing murders 3% if the only cost is that you have to reload two more times at the range.


Magazine capacity is barely a factor in mas shootings that account for 1% of homicides, and probably minimal or nothing all for the more day-to-day shootings no one seems to care about.

The 3% number undoubtedly comes from the percentage of ALL rifles used in homicides.
 
2013-01-25 02:13:20 PM  

pedrop357: FlashHarry: a) THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB.
b) when have we had a hurricane that necessitated the killing of more than ten people at a time (between magazine changes) by civilians? did that even happen during katrina?

When was the last time anything, anywhere necessitated the police killing 10 or more people at one time?


The hostage crisis last week.
 
2013-01-25 02:13:31 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.

How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez


So a limit on capacity for conceal carried weapons? OK, that should be withing the regulatory power of the states.
 
2013-01-25 02:14:09 PM  

Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?


I am not going to judge someone in that situation - I just can't.  I've never been in combat, but I've been told by plenty of people who have that you simply don't know how you're going to react the first time.  It's a scary, confusing situation with a lot of chaos and frequently someone whose safety you're responsible for.

I'm not going to judge them.
 
2013-01-25 02:14:39 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.

How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez


Ask some rich people with armed security.

/but but thats different
 
2013-01-25 02:15:28 PM  

Oblio13: FlashHarry: ... THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB...

There are long, long moments between when a crime occurs and the police can arrive to save you, even assuming that there's a way to summon them and that they don't choke on their donuts or wet themselves. During the critical phase of violence, you are on your own.


He moved the goalposts.

he went from "there's a HUGE difference between a hurricane and a hurricane that necessitates the killing of more than 10 people at a time."

To 'it's their job' when I said to tell that to the police.

Apparently job of the police is to kill 10 or more people a time. But i guess we're all paranoid for wanting to be sufficiently armed against such stuff.
 
2013-01-25 02:15:33 PM  

pedrop357: Oblio13: I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

I think the fight or flight response veers strongly towards flight when you're not armed and you realize he is. It seems like a heck of a threshold to convince yourself to cross.


It definitely is, but if you are in the same room as an active shooter, active resistance against them, even *UNARMED* active resistance, is better than passive behavior.

Even the government says that's the best option when you've run out of other options.

There is some actual evidence that "civilian" resistance to active shooters results in fewer deaths overall.
 
2013-01-25 02:16:54 PM  

CPennypacker:
How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez


In some of my walkabouts, I'll shoot 200 to 300 rounds. What is your point?
 
2013-01-25 02:16:59 PM  

Oblio13: FlashHarry: ... THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB...

There are long, long moments between when a crime occurs and the police can arrive to save you, even assuming that there's a way to summon them and that they don't choke on their donuts or wet themselves. During the critical phase of violence, you are on your own.


but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.

nobody is talking about taking ALL guns. hell, i'm not even talking about banning "assault weapons," as it has been pointed out to me on many a fark thread that they're really just regular hunting rifles dressed up so people can run around playing army. i'm saying that you can have a 10-round magazine that LOOKS like a 30-round magazine, so you can still pretend to be a green beret at the shooting range.
 
2013-01-25 02:18:28 PM  

FlashHarry: but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.

nobody is talking about taking ALL guns. hell, i'm not even talking about banning "assault weapons," as it has been pointed out to me on many a fark thread that they're really just regular hunting rifles dressed up so people can run around playing army. i'm saying that you can have a 10-round magazine that LOOKS like a 30-round magazine, so you can still pretend to be a green beret at the shooting range.



Who are you to decide what people need in every circumstance?
 
2013-01-25 02:19:00 PM  

vygramul: Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

I am not going to judge someone in that situation - I just can't.  I've never been in combat, but I've been told by plenty of people who have that you simply don't know how you're going to react the first time.  It's a scary, confusing situation with a lot of chaos and frequently someone whose safety you're responsible for.

I'm not going to judge them.


Indeed not. Some judgement perhaps can be cast on the society that produced them though. And also produced their killer, for that matter.
 
2013-01-25 02:19:08 PM  

pedrop357: he went from "there's a HUGE difference between a hurricane and a hurricane that necessitates the killing of more than 10 people at a time."

To 'it's their job' when I said to tell that to the police.

Apparently job of the police is to kill 10 or more people a time. But i guess we're all paranoid for wanting to be sufficiently armed against such stuff.


the police could conceivably be in a situation (a gang shootout, for instance) that would require them to have a high-capacity weapon. the chance that YOU would ever be in that situation is next to ZERO.

again - i don't want to ban guns. i don't want to ban "assault weapons." i just don't see why civilians need more than 10 rounds in a magazine.
 
2013-01-25 02:19:22 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez

Ahhh, the old "why do you need that?" line.

How about letting me carry the 16 my magazine holds instead of artificially limiting me to 10 in the same form factor. I hope I never know if those 'extra' 6 make a difference.


Personally, I don't think we need guns at all, but I don't think we should take them all away or that that will necassarily fix anything. But if limiting magazine size will result in even one less massacre death and your only response is, "hurr, I hope I never know if those extra 6 make a difference," I'll err on the side of saving the life. Because at the end of the day, you still get to carry a gun.
 
2013-01-25 02:19:55 PM  

FlashHarry: but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.


That would work well for thing within a couple yards. The AR woudl be more suited for targets at a further distance (over 50 yards or so).
 
2013-01-25 02:20:23 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.

How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez

Ask some rich people with armed security.

/but but thats different


What do I care about some rich guy's armed security detail?
 
2013-01-25 02:20:33 PM  

pedrop357: Who are you to decide what people need in every circumstance?


i'm not making any decision. that's for the government. i'm merely stating my position on the issue. this is fark. we do that here. try to keep up.
 
2013-01-25 02:20:35 PM  

FlashHarry: but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.


Can my any of my clip fed shotguns have a 30 rd mag?
 
2013-01-25 02:20:53 PM  

FlashHarry: the police could conceivably be in a situation (a gang shootout, for instance) that would require them to have a high-capacity weapon. the chance that YOU would ever be in that situation is next to ZERO.

again - i don't want to ban guns. i don't want to ban "assault weapons." i just don't see why civilians need more than 10 rounds in a magazine.


I do see why. They face the same threats the police do before the police do. Gang shootouts are surprisingly rare.

Not everyone is stopped with one shot. Not every attack is one-on-one.
 
2013-01-25 02:21:31 PM  

HeadLever: FlashHarry: but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.

That would work well for thing within a couple yards. The AR woudl be more suited for targets at a further distance (over 50 yards or so).


when are you shooting humans at greater than 50 yards? and even if you are, why can't you use a bolt-action .30-06?
 
2013-01-25 02:21:33 PM  

CPennypacker: Personally, I don't think we need guns at all, but I don't think we should take them all away or that that will necassarily fix anything. But if limiting magazine size will result in even one less massacre death and your only response is, "hurr, I hope I never know if those extra 6 make a difference," I'll err on the side of saving the life. Because at the end of the day, you still get to carry a gun.


How convenient for you to suggest that decision be made for everyone.
 
2013-01-25 02:21:50 PM  

FlashHarry: i would imagine he (and it's always a he)


No it isn't
 
2013-01-25 02:22:45 PM  

FlashHarry: when are you shooting humans at greater than 50 yards? and even if you are, why can't you use a bolt-action .30-06?


Probably because they have an AR? Why do I have to use something else when the thing I have will work just fine?
 
2013-01-25 02:23:07 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: Personally, I don't think we need guns at all, but I don't think we should take them all away or that that will necassarily fix anything. But if limiting magazine size will result in even one less massacre death and your only response is, "hurr, I hope I never know if those extra 6 make a difference," I'll err on the side of saving the life. Because at the end of the day, you still get to carry a gun.

How convenient for you to suggest that decision be made for everyone.


Isn't that what a regulation is?
 
2013-01-25 02:23:32 PM  

FlashHarry: when are you shooting humans at greater than 50 yards? Why can't you use a bolt-action .30-06


Ask Lon Horiuchi
 
2013-01-25 02:23:38 PM  

pedrop357: Oblio13: I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

I think the fight or flight response veers strongly towards flight when you're not armed and you realize he is. It seems like a heck of a threshold to convince yourself to cross.


Indeed, and that's the best option IF you have a way out and IF there's no one you mind leaving behind. The initial reactions to extreme violence are panic and confusion. But there comes a point when people understand what's going on and they are capable of making conscious decisions. The same briefing covered Columbine, and there, too, no one made any attempt to resist. People cowered under desks in puddles of urine and waited for the barrel to be put to their heads. No one can know how they'd react until they've been there, but I was unpleasantly surprised that there wasn't at least some jock who threw a chair.
 
2013-01-25 02:23:56 PM  

pedrop357: I do see why. They face the same threats the police do before the police do. Gang shootouts are surprisingly rare.


no they don't. not by a long-shot. where in the united states do civilians face the same threats the police do on a regular basis?

and as for gang shootouts, i live in omaha. we have gang drive-bys in north omaha on a fairly regular basis. our gang task force wears body armor and carries assault weapons. as well they should. and that's in li'l ol' omaha. i imagine that in los angeles or chicago, this would be even more necessary.
 
2013-01-25 02:24:24 PM  

CPennypacker: Isn't that what a regulation is?


Sure, but I'm questioning your position that it's OK to limit the self defense options of everyone everywhere simply to maybe save one life in a mass shooting.

If that's the standard, how about we allow concealed carriers to carry in schools like they do everywhere else, if it'll save a single life?
 
2013-01-25 02:25:15 PM  

dittybopper: FlashHarry: i would imagine he (and it's always a he)

No it isn't


you found one girl who did it 34 years ago. i stand corrected.