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  
•       •       •

10270 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 02:51:11 PM

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: But what if the Mig attacks him when he's walking around town? Why do you hate freedom?

I implied that the use of it has to stay on his property. This is inline with people making explosives and other things and not being able to just blow up stuff or shoot guns in the middle of the street.

People could carry their SAMs with them if they want, but any use outside of self-defense is serious crime.

I see, so you're OK with people carrying around surface to air missiles as long as they only use them in self defense. Just establishing baseline.


Actually, the principles of building them were established back in 1988 when a guy named George Gassaway built a model rocket that used principles similar to the Sidewinder missile to home in on the Sun.

To make an anti-aircraft missile, you merely need to replace the photocells with infrared sensitive ones, and add a warhead.

I would expect that with modern electronics, it would be much more effective, too.
 
2013-01-25 02:52:01 PM

Giltric: FlashHarry: i've actually been VERY careful to use the right terminology so far. yes, i slipped there. i apologize if you were offended, champ.

He might be offended but I am not...at least you learn from your mistakes in other threads instead of posting the same talking points of derp derp militia derp derp stuff over and over after it's been dissected and explained.


oh, i make mistakes all the time. but, yes, i do try to correct them.

i just still haven't had anyone give me a valid argument why a civilian needs to be able to fire more than ten rounds at a time. and that goes for handguns, too, not just ARs.

the closest i've seen to an argument is the almost mythical "feral hog" hunt. well, maybe in those cases, you apply for a special permit that has to be renewed every year. you get fingerprinted, background checked and you pay a fee.
 
2013-01-25 02:53:51 PM

FlashHarry: i stand corrected.

if the differences are ONLY cosmetic, why do you need an "assault weapon" other than to "play soldier?"

and if it is in fact to play soldier, then why do you need more than 10 rounds in your magazine?

i mean, i get it. guns are cool. as i mentioned, i'm on the lookout for a .303 SMLE myself. i enjoy shooting clays. i don't want to ban guns.



See, this why assumptions are bad. You assume that we want to play soldier, then because we want to play soldier we only need 10 round (read:play) magazines.

Another reason for the AR platform is wide availability of high quality replacement parts and customization. Few other firearm platforms come close to having as much inter-brand interoperability and OEM/AEM replacement and customization parts available.
 
2013-01-25 02:54:57 PM

FlashHarry: dittybopper: No you haven't. You've been told there is not difference between an "assault weapon" and a regular rifle other than cosmetics.

There is a big difference between "assault rifles" and regular rifles other than cosmetics: Assault rifles are capable of full-automatic fire, and regular rifles and "assault weapons" aren't.

i stand corrected.

if the differences are ONLY cosmetic, why do you need an "assault weapon" other than to "play soldier?"

and if it is in fact to play soldier, then why do you need more than 10 rounds in your magazine?

i mean, i get it. guns are cool. as i mentioned, i'm on the lookout for a .303 SMLE myself. i enjoy shooting clays. i don't want to ban guns.


Oh, just *SOME* guns, or at least their accessories.

You are part of Gun Culture 1.0. You might even be a Fudd.
 
2013-01-25 02:55:19 PM

FlashHarry: i just still haven't had anyone give me a valid argument why a civilian needs to be able to fire more than ten rounds at a time. and that goes for handguns, too, not just ARs.

the closest i've seen to an argument is the almost mythical "feral hog" hunt. well, maybe in those cases, you apply for a special permit that has to be renewed every year. you get fingerprinted, background checked and you pay a fee.



In which case, every feral hog hunter now has magazines over 10 rounds. What have you accomplished with this regulations-for-the-sake-regulations scheme?
 
2013-01-25 02:56:59 PM

FlashHarry: ...
i just still haven't had anyone give me a valid argument why a civilian needs to be able to fire more than ten rounds at a time. and that goes for handguns, too, not just ARs...


May I have everything in your house that I don't think you need?
 
2013-01-25 02:57:16 PM

pedrop357: See, this why assumptions are bad. You assume that we want to play soldier, then because we want to play soldier we only need 10 round (read:play) magazines.


Interesting fact: A 20 round AR magazine will only hold 10 rounds of .50 Beowulf, or 5 rounds of .450 Bushmaster.

So what then?
 
2013-01-25 02:58:59 PM

Oblio13: FlashHarry: ...
i just still haven't had anyone give me a valid argument why a civilian needs to be able to fire more than ten rounds at a time. and that goes for handguns, too, not just ARs...

May I have everything in your house that I don't think you need?


You're bad at arguments
 
2013-01-25 02:59:32 PM

FlashHarry: 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.



Well, I'd rather he have a 100 round magazine in his AR15 that's stuffed to the gills, but I'm guessing you don't know enough about guns to understand why.

Say, here's a scenario - suppose one of those combat veterans out there gets tired of explaining to you guys why guns don't work the way civilians think they do. So he goes a little crazy and spends the weekend writing a "How to be a good active shooter" PDF document with interesting information like this:

1. Best weapon and magazine combos under current law that you can use for maximum carnage.
2. Transitional fire techniques.
3. What kind of vest to use, and how to arrange max number of magazines.
4. How to do crazy fast magazine changes.
5. Using tracers so you're never surprised by magazines going empty.
6. SPORT techniques for clearing jams, how to practice them.
7. Target acquisition and controlled pair shoot and move techniques.
8. How to use bomb threats and improvised devices to keep first responders from crossing your perimeter.
9. Practical reflexive fire drills to do at the range.
10. How to use firecrackers and basic timers to conceal your position and keep people moving in all directions in total pandemonium.

#6, #7, and #8 alone should be enough to break the 50 kill mark with a few months of training. Once the new US record is set with just handguns and "low capacity" magazines, are you guys going to admit that "assault" weapon bans are stupid?
 
2013-01-25 02:59:52 PM

FlashHarry: i just still haven't had anyone give me a valid argument why a civilian needs


Because need is not a characteristic associated with arbitrary lines in the sand. Some would argue that civilians don't 'need' guns to start with.
 
2013-01-25 03:00:09 PM

FlashHarry: i'll refrain from calling you an asshole, though. it's a pity you had to stoop to that.


My notes that I keep on your profile say "definitely not an asshole"
 
2013-01-25 03:01:24 PM

pedrop357: See, this why assumptions are bad. You assume that we want to play soldier, then because we want to play soldier we only need 10 round (read:play) magazines.


well, you're saying the difference between a hunting rifle and an AR is largely cosmetic. (i know you said that the differences are also regarding comfort - but i really don't buy that. how long are you shooting these things at any given time?)

look, what i'm getting here, reading between the lines is that the main reason for wanting one is because they're cool - they're what the military uses. i get it. i think they're cool too. but if you're just buying them because they're cool, you don't need 30-round magazines. and if the only reason you do is because it's slightly more convenient to not have to reload them as much, then i'm sorry, the lives saved outweigh the convenience.

bushmaster's own advertising refers to them "renewing your man card." they know their audience better than anyone.
 
2013-01-25 03:02:08 PM

dittybopper: Interesting fact: A 20 round AR magazine will only hold 10 rounds of .50 Beowulf, or 5 rounds of .450 Bushmaster.

So what then?


If I understand right, a 5.56 magazine will hold 2/3 as many 6.8 spc rounds so there's that as well.
 
2013-01-25 03:02:59 PM

FlashHarry: ..other than to "play soldier," that is.


upload.wikimedia.org
asecular.com
 
2013-01-25 03:04:26 PM

FlashHarry: how long are you shooting these things at any given time?)


Can be for 4 or 5 hours on some of my excursions. Depends upon how 'target-rich' the area is.
 
2013-01-25 03:04:28 PM

FlashHarry: Giltric: FlashHarry: i've actually been VERY careful to use the right terminology so far. yes, i slipped there. i apologize if you were offended, champ.

He might be offended but I am not...at least you learn from your mistakes in other threads instead of posting the same talking points of derp derp militia derp derp stuff over and over after it's been dissected and explained.

oh, i make mistakes all the time. but, yes, i do try to correct them.

i just still haven't had anyone give me a valid argument why a civilian needs to be able to fire more than ten rounds at a time. and that goes for handguns, too, not just ARs.

the closest i've seen to an argument is the almost mythical "feral hog" hunt. well, maybe in those cases, you apply for a special permit that has to be renewed every year. you get fingerprinted, background checked and you pay a fee.


Average home invasion involves 4 people. if every shot is dead on all you need is 4. If every shot is not dead on...who knows how many you would need. Plus some people can take 5 shots and still not be down.

The less time I'm farking with my gear doing mag changes the better.
 
2013-01-25 03:04:56 PM
ZeroPly: derp

hypothetical situation is hypothetical.

let's talk actual shootings: did jared laughner have military training? did adam lanza? did james holmes? did dylan klebold? did eric harris?
 
2013-01-25 03:05:51 PM

FlashHarry: well, you're saying the difference between a hunting rifle and an AR is largely cosmetic. (i know you said that the differences are also regarding comfort - but i really don't buy that. how long are you shooting these things at any given time?)

look, what i'm getting here, reading between the lines is that the main reason for wanting one is because they're cool - they're what the military uses. i get it. i think they're cool too. but if you're just buying them because they're cool, you don't need 30-round magazines. and if the only reason you do is because it's slightly more convenient to not have to reload them as much, then i'm sorry, the lives saved outweigh the convenience.

bushmaster's own advertising refers to them "renewing your man card." they know their audience better than anyone.


another reason is that the military use as well as the huge civilian use of this firearm platform brings a large market of high quality (or at least widely available) replacement parts and accessories.

Your comment about how often we use things being relevant reeks of ignorance. If a small stature person wants to shoot, it's either they shoot a gun with too long a pull for them, or we shorten the stock. same thing if 5 of us are shooting at the range and don't want our hands burned after 30 or 40 rounds.
 
2013-01-25 03:08:04 PM

Giltric: Average home invasion involves 4 people.


interesting - i'm not saying it doesn't, but do you have a link to back that up?

i would have thought it were a smaller number.
 
2013-01-25 03:10:00 PM

FlashHarry: ZeroPly: derp

hypothetical situation is hypothetical.

let's talk actual shootings: did jared laughner have military training? did adam lanza? did james holmes? did dylan klebold? did eric harris?


nope, and all but laughner didn't need it as they were in gun free zones. The columbine kids could have employed basic strategy and done far more damage if they tried. Two slightly coordinated shooters, alternating positions and reloading while one shoots could have done far more.

These guys would be lucky to get few shots off at a gun show, gun store, open carry rally, gun range, police station, gun appreciation march or my house before they were stopped. Their lack of training enables them to do what they do only in areas with gun free policies and very, very, very rarely in other public places.
 
2013-01-25 03:10:44 PM

pedrop357: Your comment about how often we use things being relevant reeks of ignorance. If a small stature person wants to shoot, it's either they shoot a gun with too long a pull for them, or we shorten the stock. same thing if 5 of us are shooting at the range and don't want our hands burned after 30 or 40 rounds.


you mentioned comfort. but you're right - most of my shooting experience is with a shotgun, not a rifle. and i'm 6' tall, so i the only discomfort i've felt is in my right shoulder after going through a box of 100 clays.
 
2013-01-25 03:13:09 PM

pedrop357: The columbine kids could have employed basic strategy and done far more damage if they tried. Two slightly coordinated shooters, alternating positions and reloading while one shoots could have done far more.


so a low-capacity magazine in a similar situation would likely help as they were clearly not highly trained and would likely be unable to reload in "0 seconds."

thanks for making my point.
 
2013-01-25 03:14:02 PM

FlashHarry: you mentioned comfort. but you're right - most of my shooting experience is with a shotgun, not a rifle. and i'm 6' tall, so i the only discomfort i've felt is in my right shoulder after going through a box of 100 clays.


I've noticed a difference with my pistol grip shotgun (winchester defender 1300) over the same shotgun with no pistol grip. Having my strong hand be able to push or hold against the recoil helps save some from my shoulder. Other shooters have noticed the same thing.

For me, it also seems a more natural hand angle.
 
2013-01-25 03:15:13 PM

FlashHarry: pedrop357: The columbine kids could have employed basic strategy and done far more damage if they tried. Two slightly coordinated shooters, alternating positions and reloading while one shoots could have done far more.

so a low-capacity magazine in a similar situation would likely help as they were clearly not highly trained and would likely be unable to reload in "0 seconds."

thanks for making my point.


Nope. They weren't under any real pressure. They just walked the halls and reloaded as slowly as they wanted.
 
2013-01-25 03:17:07 PM

FlashHarry: so a low-capacity magazine in a similar situation would likely help as they were clearly not highly trained and would likely be unable to reload in "0 seconds."

thanks for making my point.


Not really. They planned it out and didn't seem stupid. Had they been in a parallel universe where there are no magazines over 10 rounds, they either acquire more or come up with a strategy to beat that.

You don't need to beat magazine capacity unless you do, so they didn't strategize around that. Once they start down that road, with the knowledge of what they're doing, they may continue developing strategy and it may become much worse.

Even if they never 'expand their minds' to cover more detailed strategy, they could figure out what a 6 year old can. Get more of the smaller containers if you can't get the bigger ones.
 
2013-01-25 03:19:49 PM

odinsposse: FlashHarry: pedrop357: The columbine kids could have employed basic strategy and done far more damage if they tried. Two slightly coordinated shooters, alternating positions and reloading while one shoots could have done far more.

so a low-capacity magazine in a similar situation would likely help as they were clearly not highly trained and would likely be unable to reload in "0 seconds."

thanks for making my point.

Nope. They weren't under any real pressure. They just walked the halls and reloaded as slowly as they wanted.


Yup. I've pointed out that they are poor examples for gun control. Had they actually been restricted as far as guns or mag capacity, they may have applied more time and effort into ensuring their bombs worked OR developed better strategy.

Most people forget that they left propane bombs that failed to explode. Had they been more thorough in their bomb making, the Bath massacre would have paled.
 
2013-01-25 03:28:01 PM

FlashHarry: ZeroPly: derp

hypothetical situation is hypothetical.

let's talk actual shootings: did jared laughner have military training? did adam lanza? did james holmes? did dylan klebold? did eric harris?



Yes, let's assume the next shooter is going to do exactly what the last one did - that's some fantastic planning you have there. My point is that your average amateur these days has access to much better information than someone did 30 years ago. You can already see the evolution with items such as tactical vests, that a civilian just would not have thought of in the 80s.

What is your actual background with guns and your experience? Otherwise why do you think you know enough to have an opinion? Are you the idiot that's planning on disarming someone between magazine changes? Because I'm flat on the ground behind cover. You know, from having actual training and such...
 
2013-01-25 03:28:54 PM

odinsposse: Nope. They weren't under any real pressure. They just walked the halls and reloaded as slowly as they wanted.


pedrop357: Yup. I've pointed out that they are poor examples for gun control. Had they actually been restricted as far as guns or mag capacity, they may have applied more time and effort into ensuring their bombs worked OR developed better strategy.


the point you helped me make was that they were untrained. others have said that a trained shooter can swap mags in a heartbeat. my point is, most of these shooters aren't trained. and when they do swap mags, they can be taken down.
 
2013-01-25 03:31:37 PM

ZeroPly: #6, #7, and #8 alone should be enough to break the 50 kill mark with a few months of training.


You are someone who should never own or be around weapons of any sort. Get therapy, really.
 
2013-01-25 03:31:54 PM

ZeroPly: FlashHarry: ZeroPly: derp

hypothetical situation is hypothetical.

let's talk actual shootings: did jared laughner have military training? did adam lanza? did james holmes? did dylan klebold? did eric harris?


Yes, let's assume the next shooter is going to do exactly what the last one did - that's some fantastic planning you have there. My point is that your average amateur these days has access to much better information than someone did 30 years ago. You can already see the evolution with items such as tactical vests, that a civilian just would not have thought of in the 80s.

What is your actual background with guns and your experience? Otherwise why do you think you know enough to have an opinion? Are you the idiot that's planning on disarming someone between magazine changes? Because I'm flat on the ground behind cover. You know, from having actual training and such...


I think we know enough about dead children to have an opinion.
 
2013-01-25 03:33:05 PM

pedrop357: The columbine kids could have employed basic strategy and done far more damage if they tried. Two slightly coordinated shooters, alternating positions and reloading while one shoots could have done far more.


Actually, shooting people was Plan B. Columbine was a failed *BOMBING* attack.
 
2013-01-25 03:35:19 PM

FlashHarry: odinsposse: Nope. They weren't under any real pressure. They just walked the halls and reloaded as slowly as they wanted.

pedrop357: Yup. I've pointed out that they are poor examples for gun control. Had they actually been restricted as far as guns or mag capacity, they may have applied more time and effort into ensuring their bombs worked OR developed better strategy.

the point you helped me make was that they were untrained. others have said that a trained shooter can swap mags in a heartbeat. my point is, most of these shooters aren't trained. and when they do swap mags, they can be taken down.



Man, you're dense.

How much training do you think you need to do magazine changes? I can teach someone the basics in 30 minutes, and with 2 hours of practice a week they can be at an infantry level in a few months. It's not some secret squirrel sh*t that you pogues think is done in some top-secret room at Ft Benning. It's just a lot of very boring practice.

You're also wrong about the shooters being untrained. They WERE trained, just not to military standards. They knew how their weapons operated, and how to shoot. That is what training is. When you make "high capacity" magazines illegal, and they can't get any, they'll just add one more item to their training checklist: how to change magazines faster.
 
2013-01-25 03:36:04 PM

FlashHarry: the point you helped me make was that they were untrained. others have said that a trained shooter can swap mags in a heartbeat. my point is, most of these shooters aren't trained. and when they do swap mags, they can be taken down.


Theoretically, I suppose. Practically they weren't resisted and usually find a situation where people won't fight back and they can reload as much as they like. They shooters pretty much fold whenever they face resistance. There was that mall shooting a little while after Newton where a CCW holder drew his weapon and the shooter shot himself.

I don't think we should making sweeping legislation just on the off chance that someone might be willing to jump on a gun man.
 
2013-01-25 03:40:16 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: ZeroPly: #6, #7, and #8 alone should be enough to break the 50 kill mark with a few months of training.

You are someone who should never own or be around weapons of any sort. Get therapy, really.


The Army made me that way. It's hard for me to relate to you pogues now. I want to see pistol grips lugs as scary, but I just can't do it...
 
2013-01-25 03:42:38 PM

ZeroPly: You're also wrong about the shooters being untrained. They WERE trained, just not to military standards. They knew how their weapons operated, and how to shoot. That is what training is.


So very much this.

I knew how to shoot before I joined the Army. In fact, so did all of the "country boys" in my platoon. The drill sergeants said that "city boys are easier to train how to shoot" because they didn't have any "bad habits" to unlearn, but when the dust settled, it was the "country boys" in the platoon who got high sharpshooter and expert.
 
2013-01-25 03:45:02 PM

ZeroPly: Are you the idiot that's planning on disarming someone between magazine changes? Because I'm flat on the ground behind cover.


Are you the idiot that's planning on shooting up a school?
 
2013-01-25 03:47:42 PM

FlashHarry: ... look, what i'm getting here, reading between the lines is that the main reason for wanting one is because they're cool - they're what the military uses...


After using one for twenty years in the Marines, not only do I think they're cool, but I'm pretty good with them. How cool is that?
 
2013-01-25 03:57:49 PM

ZeroPly: Because People in power are Stupid: ZeroPly: #6, #7, and #8 alone should be enough to break the 50 kill mark with a few months of training.

You are someone who should never own or be around weapons of any sort. Get therapy, really.

The Army made me that way. It's hard for me to relate to you pogues now. I want to see pistol grips lugs as scary, but I just can't do it...


That's not it. You want to see some loon shoot 50 or more people using small round magazines. This will prove some point that you are trying to make.
 
2013-01-25 03:58:28 PM

Oblio13: FlashHarry: ... look, what i'm getting here, reading between the lines is that the main reason for wanting one is because they're cool - they're what the military uses...

After using one for twenty years in the Marines, not only do I think they're cool, but I'm pretty good with them. How cool is that?


Consider this: Military arms pretty much always bleed into civilian use, and vice-versa. The military rifle of yesterday is the sporting rifle of today.
 
2013-01-25 03:59:59 PM

FlashHarry: Giltric: Average home invasion involves 4 people.

interesting - i'm not saying it doesn't, but do you have a link to back that up?

i would have thought it were a smaller number.


Not at the moment...I ran across it during the CT home invasion/rape/murder or the redskins football player home invasion/murder.

I will googles for its laters
 
2013-01-25 04:13:13 PM

dittybopper: Oblio13: FlashHarry: ... look, what i'm getting here, reading between the lines is that the main reason for wanting one is because they're cool - they're what the military uses...

After using one for twenty years in the Marines, not only do I think they're cool, but I'm pretty good with them. How cool is that?

Consider this: Military arms pretty much always bleed into civilian use, and vice-versa. The military rifle of yesterday is the sporting rifle of today.


Is there a cartridge loading system that wasn't either first adopted by a military or was sold concurrently commercially? Trapdoor, falling-block, rolling-block, bolt-action, pump action, long and short stroke gas piston, direct gas impingement, straight blowback, locked breech, single then double action revolver.

Lever action is the only kind I can think of, and I could be wrong.

Aside from lever action rifles, possibly, there is no such thing as a non-military-type firearm.
 
2013-01-25 04:16:19 PM
 
2013-01-25 04:19:39 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: ZeroPly: Because People in power are Stupid: ZeroPly: #6, #7, and #8 alone should be enough to break the 50 kill mark with a few months of training.

You are someone who should never own or be around weapons of any sort. Get therapy, really.

The Army made me that way. It's hard for me to relate to you pogues now. I want to see pistol grips lugs as scary, but I just can't do it...

That's not it. You want to see some loon shoot 50 or more people using small round magazines. This will prove some point that you are trying to make.



What I want is for you guys to understand how firearms work, including the terminology, so that you can actually discuss the issue without sounding like idiots. Once you do that, you'll realize that your methods such as banning pistol grips or "high capacity" magazines are largely useless in stopping a mass shooting.

But from a purely epistemological viewpoint, a 50+ killing with handguns would prove my point quite nicely. While not desirable to me, it would be quite instructive to all of you "think of the dead children" types who feel that emotion qualifies you to have an opinion. I am trying to get you to understand that training and practice are what you need to be afraid of, not a scary looking weapon.

You don't have to actually kill the cat to discuss quantum mechanics. This is hypothetical, and thanks to the media, the active shooter record is just as real as the 100m record.
 
2013-01-25 04:28:24 PM

ZeroPly: Because People in power are Stupid: ZeroPly: Because People in power are Stupid: ZeroPly: #6, #7, and #8 alone should be enough to break the 50 kill mark with a few months of training.

You are someone who should never own or be around weapons of any sort. Get therapy, really.

The Army made me that way. It's hard for me to relate to you pogues now. I want to see pistol grips lugs as scary, but I just can't do it...

That's not it. You want to see some loon shoot 50 or more people using small round magazines. This will prove some point that you are trying to make.


What I want is for you guys to understand how firearms work, including the terminology, so that you can actually discuss the issue without sounding like idiots. Once you do that, you'll realize that your methods such as banning pistol grips or "high capacity" magazines are largely useless in stopping a mass shooting.

But from a purely epistemological viewpoint, a 50+ killing with handguns would prove my point quite nicely. While not desirable to me, it would be quite instructive to all of you "think of the dead children" types who feel that emotion qualifies you to have an opinion. I am trying to get you to understand that training and practice are what you need to be afraid of, not a scary looking weapon.

You don't have to actually kill the cat to discuss quantum mechanics. This is hypothetical, and thanks to the media, the active shooter record is just as real as the 100m record.


Complaining about the different nuances in terminology is only relevant when it actually has an impact on the discussion; when it affects the exchange of information. If someone tells you they think there should be a clip size limit, and you understand that what they mean is that there should be a magazine size limit, then their communication was successful. Argue against the point, because the point was succesfully made to you. Correct the terminology if you want, but it doesn't disqualify their opinion, because both of you know what they are referring to. You just come off as pedantic and nitpicky if you operate as though you feel we all need to be trained firearms experts in order to have this discussion and have it be meaningful. I understand when a number is bigger than the other, and when we're talking about the need to pause and reload, thats pretty much all I need to know; smaller number means he has to stop shooting sooner to replenish his ammunition.

And we're not talking about what we "need to be afraid of." That is where you guys go off the rails in these discussions. We are looking at the history of violence and trying to find ways to reduce the damage. That is all. And if your only argument against any given point has to do with semantics or with how you would be mildly inconvenienced by the regulation, and thats enough to shoot it down because it won't completely stop all gun violence immediately, you're missing the point.
 
2013-01-25 04:35:57 PM

CPennypacker: We are looking at the history of violence and trying to find ways to reduce the damage. That is all.


No, you're not.  You are looking at a tiny percentage of the history of violence which has received a huge amount of media coverage.  How would a magazine size limit stop any of the hundreds of killings a year from gang violence?  Why do you care more about what the media tells you you should care about than ten or twenty times more deaths you never hear about explicitly?
 
2013-01-25 04:45:07 PM

syrynxx: How would a magazine size limit stop any of the hundreds of killings a year from gang violence?


They're using revolvers?
 
2013-01-25 04:45:37 PM

pedrop357: 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.


You know, that is a VERY good point. Thank you, I'll be using that.
 
2013-01-25 04:57:16 PM

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.


Do you really believe that?
 
2013-01-25 04:59:22 PM

Dave Lister: Aside from lever action rifles, possibly, there is no such thing as a non-military-type firearm.


Winchester Model 95 lever action was used by the Russian Army.
 
2013-01-25 05:00:22 PM

CPennypacker: 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.



So you're telling us that you seriously think that banning people who follow laws from buying 20 round magazines, will stop criminals from murdering people? Really?
 
Displayed 50 of 694 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report