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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 05:06:31 PM  

dittybopper: 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.


Thought there'd be one.

I also just thought of break-action arms (double rifles, shotguns, TC Contender)...probably were never military arms. Though the M79 "Bloop Tube" is a break-action grenade thrower, but adopted long after non-military use of break-action guns. And a grenade thrower is not a firearm.
 
2013-01-25 05:07:06 PM  
This is such a great argument. The anti gunners (cfudgepacker your such a douche. I made an asshat list for you) contradicting themselves at every turn. The pro gunners (pedrop357 favorited now) unable to get through some thick skulls with reason so it devolves to namecalling on both sides. At any rate, I will judge how best to defend myself and my family. If your in my house I will grab whatever it takes to defend the wife and kids and fall back to a safe location. Unfortunately there was a spree in my area which is normally a good neighborhood a few weeks back of breakins and sexual assaults, thefts, and a few murders during robberies that went south. Multiple intruders in the non sexual breakins every time. This happened a block over from my house. And you want to tell me how to defend my family?!? You think you know best how to legislate our survival? You are high. That pistol in a fingerprinted safe next to the bed gets me to the fingerprint locked rifle cabinet, at which point I will use suppressive fire if I have to. Hell if I'm shot my kids are better shots than these panty waisted effeminate anti gunners around here. Cmon penny packer lets go to the range. I guarantee a trip to the range with me and youll have alot of fun. But we've had this argument before.
 
2013-01-25 05:07:40 PM  

CPennypacker: 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.


Why this protected item?

It seems a weird, inefficient waste of resources compared to other issues.

I'm sensing a huge mathmatics fail and massive emotional distress.
 
2013-01-25 05:11:45 PM  
By the way those burglaries were usually performed by meth heads. Please, rationalize with a meth head and get them to obey your laws. Meth isn't illegal or anything is it? Try putting down a methed up junkie with one well placed shot. It will take several. Oh look there are three meth heads in my house! I sure am glad I have this 10 ten magazing to hopefully kill two of them and the third will leave me alone while I reload behind cover....Oh look the third one is an armed meth head with an illegal gun bought off the street with an illegal high cap magazine! Surely this gentlemen will allow me ample time to reload. No sir, the ar-15 has a 30 rounder in it and the ak-74 (not 47, 74) has a 30 rounder so the wife and I can cover each other during the reload. Not kidding.
 
2013-01-25 05:12:12 PM  

CPennypacker: 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 b ...



If you use the terms "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably, then you are simply not qualified to be in a discussion of whether limiting capacity will affect kill rates. By using that term, you are letting everyone else know that you have probably never changed a magazine in real life, don't understand how fast they can be changed, and have zero tactical training. Please jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.

Even worse, we don't know if you understand the other terms in the discussion. When you say "high powered", what does that mean? Do you understand why you don't like collapsible stocks, beyond them looking scary?

So you are the equivalent of a high school student coming up to the teacher for help with a problem, the teacher asking "are you talking about real numbers or rational numbers" and the student saying "I don't know what those are and don't care - how do I solve this".

These aren't "nuances". If you don't want to get into it, just say you don't know how guns work and stay out of the discussion. It's impossible to have a conversation when one side doesn't understand what the terms mean. If you think semiautomatic magazine fed shoulder-fired weapons should be banned, that's an actual educated viewpoint that we can discuss. But when you talk about "assault weapons", all we can do is ridicule you.
 
2013-01-25 05:13:20 PM  

ZeroPly: 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.


uh, hello? the point was that they weren't trained. and i'm dense? shiat....
 
2013-01-25 05:16:40 PM  

ZeroPly: muc


I won't lie zeroply my first firefight I fumblefarked the first two mag changes bad. POG move I know...
 
2013-01-25 05:17:19 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.


Like your thinking and are getting excited.
www.latimes.com

fullmoonhorror.com
 
2013-01-25 05:17:51 PM  

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

They're using revolvers?


Perhaps, or crappy 25 ACP/32 ACP mouseguns. It was more of a statement that 500 people shot one at a time by 500 other people is just a statistic whereas 30 people shot by one person is somehow a national emergency.
 
2013-01-25 05:19:05 PM  

ZeroPly: f you use the terms "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably, then you are simply not qualified to be in a discussion of whether limiting capacity will affect kill rates.


so, new rules:

• only ex-front-line military may discuss firearm issues
• only economists may discuss economic issues
• only ex-professional football players may discuss professional football issues.
• only women can post foobies links

boy, fark is going to be one lonely place....
 
2013-01-25 05:19:23 PM  

Dave Lister: dittybopper: 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.

Thought there'd be one.

I also just thought of break-action arms (double rifles, shotguns, TC Contender)...probably were never military arms. Though the M79 "Bloop Tube" is a break-action grenade thrower, but adopted long after non-military use of break-action guns. And a grenade thrower is not a firearm.


Would you accept the frame brake action of the Webley?
 
2013-01-25 05:19:59 PM  

FlashHarry: ZeroPly: 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.

uh, hello? the point was that they weren't trained. and i'm dense? shiat....


Yes, I think the consensus is that you're dense. Also, have you ever even fired a weapon? Because your level of cluelessness usually disappears after your first range day.

The previous active shooters were self-trained. They were not self-trained to military standards. Acquiring the additional self-training required to be effective with 10 round magazines is not difficult. Once a "high capacity" ban is passed, a prospective shooter can easily add that training so that they are then using 10 round magazines.

As an aside, we didn't run around with 100 round magazines in Afghanistan because they were more lethal. Educate yourself on the subject so you don't sound like an idiot.
 
2013-01-25 05:21:43 PM  

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"?


No, but it might be able to redefine your post asking us a question as attention-whoring.

We get it. You own a gun and you're very proud of yourself. Good job on figuring out a way to describe it to everyone in conversation when nobody asked.

/pro-gun, anti-AWB
//hate it when people hijack a conversation to show off
 
2013-01-25 05:26:59 PM  

ZeroPly: Yes, I think the consensus is that you're dense. Also, have you ever even fired a weapon? Because your level of cluelessness usually disappears after your first range day.

The previous active shooters were self-trained. They were not self-trained to military standards. Acquiring the additional self-training required to be effective with 10 round magazines is not difficult. Once a "high capacity" ban is passed, a prospective shooter can easily add that training so that they are then using 10 round magazines.


i have fired a 12-gauge shotgun many times. i have fired a bolt-action .30-06 on several occasions. both outdoors on a farm, not at a range. no i have not fired an AR15 or other "assault weapon."

and once again, my point wasn't that they couldn't be trained on 10-round magazines; my point was that THEY WEREN'T TRAINED. jesus. can you farking read?
 
2013-01-25 05:27:09 PM  

the_han: panty waisted effeminate anti gunners


NOT A FETISH.
 
2013-01-25 05:28:28 PM  

Saiga410: Dave Lister: dittybopper: 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.

Thought there'd be one.

I also just thought of break-action arms (double rifles, shotguns, TC Contender)...probably were never military arms. Though the M79 "Bloop Tube" is a break-action grenade thrower, but adopted long after non-military use of break-action guns. And a grenade thrower is not a firearm.

Would you accept the frame brake action of the Webley?


That's still a revolver though. Partial credit.

So one action type in 14 are not "Military-Type" actions, and in a couple of cases actually are.
 
2013-01-25 05:29:30 PM  

sethen320: 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"?

No, but it might be able to redefine your post asking us a question as attention-whoring.

We get it. You own a gun and you're very proud of yourself. Good job on figuring out a way to describe it to everyone in conversation when nobody asked.

/pro-gun, anti-AWB
//hate it when people hijack a conversation to show off


Do the George Jefferson dance now.
 
2013-01-25 05:30:10 PM  

the_han: panty waisted effeminate anti gunners


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-25 05:34:57 PM  

Dave Lister: Saiga410: Dave Lister: dittybopper: 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.

Thought there'd be one.

I also just thought of break-action arms (double rifles, shotguns, TC Contender)...probably were never military arms. Though the M79 "Bloop Tube" is a break-action grenade thrower, but adopted long after non-military use of break-action guns. And a grenade thrower is not a firearm.

Would you accept the frame brake action of the Webley?

That's still a revolver though. Partial credit.

So one action type in 14 are not "Military-Type" actions, and in a couple of cases actually are.


Lever action was developed and marketed with the US military in mind. 20,000 were bought within a couple of years of its invention. Union cavalry was the first customer.
 
2013-01-25 05:37:42 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.


Rights...how do they work?
 
2013-01-25 05:41:17 PM  

sethen320: 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.

Rights...how do they work?


You go down to the local government office and apply for your First Ammendment right license and then pay the fee. Piece of cake. What's to complain about?
 
2013-01-25 05:43:38 PM  

vygramul: Dave Lister: Saiga410: Dave Lister: dittybopper: 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.

Thought there'd be one.

I also just thought of break-action arms (double rifles, shotguns, TC Contender)...probably were never military arms. Though the M79 "Bloop Tube" is a break-action grenade thrower, but adopted long after non-military use of break-action guns. And a grenade thrower is not a firearm.

Would you accept the frame brake action of the Webley?

That's still a revolver though. Partial credit.

So one action type in 14 are not "Military-Type" actions, and in a couple of cases actually are.

Lever action was developed and marketed with the US military in mind. 20,000 were bought within a couple of years of its invention. Union cavalry was the first customer.


Right, the one in that "one in 14" was break-action. Can anyone think of any others? This is fun.

Point being, the idea that Joe Sixpack shouldn't have a "military-type weapon" is nonsense, because ~99.906% of all cartridge based breech-loading firearms are based on military designs.
 
2013-01-25 05:44:01 PM  

FlashHarry: ZeroPly: 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.

uh, hello? the point was that they weren't trained. and i'm dense? shiat....


It's not an inelastic world. The mass shooters, aside from being apparently nuts, were not stupid. They might have been lazy in choosing what they chose, BUT denying them 'large' magazines just means they one more small thing to adapt to.

They weren't trained because they didn't need to be. They didn't develop anything more than rudimentary strategy because they didn't need to.

If they minimally consider that the only magazines they'll be able to get are 10 rounds, then that becomes a new thing to factor in.

Why didn't the Virginia Tech shooter just bring 5 50round magazines? Because they weren't available. Did that really do much? No, he just brought 19 magazines and swapped at his convenience. He had 10-15 minutes to kill and managed 32. The Sandy Hook shooter had 14 minutes, reloaded multiple times and left half loaded magazines everywhere and killed 26.

IMO, any solution that can be skirted with 20 minutes of planning or a successful workaround figured out by a 10 year old isn't worth pursuing. It becomes feel good and burdening only to those who aren't going to hurt anyone. Worse so, it may provide a false sense of security.

Bearing in mind we're still chasing a small reduction in 1% of mass shooting deaths. Day-to-day shootings will not be affected.
 
2013-01-25 05:45:24 PM  

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 did the internet. Shut up and get off of it with your seditious speech.

Judging from your post you're going to need this link.
 
2013-01-25 05:54:33 PM  

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?


Nothing.

Are you really so scared of something which statistically will most likely never happen to you or your family that you are willing to sacrifice your rights?

"But...the children!"
Yes, it was bad, but it is by no means typical. It was an outlier and I am not willing to give up any of my rights to stop something which is less than a blip in the grand scheme. No, I'm not a "gun nut", I don't own an AR-15, and I don't carry a concealed weapon either.

Newsflash: crazy people do crazy shiat. Is this really that hard to understand? You can't legislate an entire country over the actions of a few people. Especially when their actions ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL!

Sorry, but this whole thing is absolutley ridiculous at this point.

/rant over
//Fark on
 
2013-01-25 05:55:38 PM  

vygramul: Dave Lister: Saiga410: Dave Lister: dittybopper: 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.

Thought there'd be one.

I also just thought of break-action arms (double rifles, shotguns, TC Contender)...probably were never military arms. Though the M79 "Bloop Tube" is a break-action grenade thrower, but adopted long after non-military use of break-action guns. And a grenade thrower is not a firearm.

Would you accept the frame brake action of the Webley?

That's still a revolver though. Partial credit.

So one action type in 14 are not "Military-Type" actions, and in a couple of cases actually are.

Lever action was developed and marketed with the US military in mind. 20,000 were bought within a couple of years of its invention. Union cavalry was the first customer.


Another example: Spencer Carbine.
 
2013-01-25 05:55:46 PM  

FlashHarry: 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?


If all of these options you cite are functional equivalents (I'm not saying you're wrong), what good will a ban do?
 
2013-01-25 05:58:36 PM  

GRCooper: If all of these options you cite are functional equivalents (I'm not saying you're wrong), what good will a ban do?


i don't want to ban guns. but i think that a magazine capacity limit might be in order.

i do however think that a waiting period, background checks and a national gun database should be mandatory. and i think the fact that the NRA opposes this is obscene.
 
2013-01-25 05:59:41 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: sethen320: 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.

Rights...how do they work?

You go down to the local government office and apply for your First Ammendment right license and then pay the fee. Piece of cake. What's to complain about?


Like voter ID it would have to be free.

And it's not like there aren't restrictions on speech anyway.

Also, I don't care about the constitution at all.
 
2013-01-25 06:01:39 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: StoPPeRmobile: sethen320: 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.

Rights...how do they work?

You go down to the local government office and apply for your First Ammendment right license and then pay the fee. Piece of cake. What's to complain about?

Like voter ID it would have to be free.

And it's not like there aren't restrictions on speech anyway.

Also, I don't care about the constitution at all.


I think I found your problem...
 
2013-01-25 06:02:06 PM  

FlashHarry: StoPPeRmobile: What's to stop a criminals from modifying the magazine?

[www.washingtonpost.com image 580x464]

most mass shooters obtain weapons legally.

but to your question, i suppose, theoretically, it's possible that one may modify a magazine. then again, murder is illegal yet there are still murders. should murder therefore be legal?


Cite please? I've seen people claim that the Virginia Tech shooter bought his legally, but he didn't, as he lied on the 4473.
 
2013-01-25 06:06:33 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: StoPPeRmobile: sethen320: 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.

Rights...how do they work?

You go down to the local government office and apply for your First Ammendment right license and then pay the fee. Piece of cake. What's to complain about?

Like voter ID it would have to be free.

And it's not like there aren't restrictions on speech anyway.

Also, I don't care about the constitution at all.


It's just a piece of paper backed by heritage.

No your free speach license will work and cost exactly like a CCW license. Complete with background check, fingerprinting, and processing and application fee. It will be mandatory to carry with you, if you wish to excersise that right in public. Any interaction with law enforcement, you will be required to submit to a search of your person for any weapons or drugs, for the officers safety. Handcuffing and detention may also be required in the interest of society.
 
2013-01-25 06:28:43 PM  

djh0101010: 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?


No, but I think it will reduce the death count. Thats my farking point.
 
2013-01-25 06:31:05 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: CPennypacker: 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.

Why this protected item?

It seems a weird, inefficient waste of resources compared to other issues.

I'm sensing a huge mathmatics fail and massive emotional distress.


Because this protected item is what we're talking about?

Lots of things can be used to kill people. Funny how nobody opposes sensible regulation for any of them, but when it involves guns suddenly its time to scapegoat, obfuscate, exaggerate, etc.
 
2013-01-25 06:32:41 PM  

ZeroPly: CPennypacker: 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 b ...


If you use the terms "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably, then you are simply not qualified to be in a discussion of whether limiting capacity will affect kill rates. By using that term, you are letting everyone else know that you have probably never changed a magazine in real life, don't understand how fast they can be changed, and have zero tactical training. Please jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.

Even worse, we don't know if you understand the other terms in the discussion. When you say "high powered", what does that mean? Do you understand why you don't like collapsible stocks, beyond them looking scary?

So you are the equivalent of a high school student coming up to the teacher for help with a problem, the teacher asking "are you talking about real numbers or rational numbers" and the student saying "I don't know what those are and don't care - how do I solve this".

These aren't "nuances". If you don't want to get into it, just say you don't know how guns work and stay out of the discussion. It's impossible to have a conversation when one side doesn't understand what the terms mean. If you think semiautomatic magazine fed shoulder-fired weapons should be banned, that's an actual educated viewpoint that we can discuss. But when you talk about "assault weapons", all we can do is ridicule you.


I understand the nuances, I'm commenting on how pedantic you're being. If you're incapable of seeing that, then you're unqualified to make any argument, who cares what it's about? Get off your high horse it really is embarrassing.
 
2013-01-25 06:35:22 PM  

CPennypacker: djh0101010: 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?

No, but I think it will reduce the death count. Thats my farking point.


OK, so, stay with me here. A magazine change takes, what, somewhere between 0 and 5 seconds depending on if they've practiced it, or not. With the cops minutes away, do you feel that an extra 5 seconds is going to actually save anyone's life? If so, can you explain your plan to make the criminals obey the law saying they can only use the 10 round magazines? Because it seems to me that the one thing the criminals aren't real big on, is that whole following the laws thing. What with them on a mass murder rampage as in this example.

Or, are you saying, confiscate the millions upon millions of already existing legally owned magazines with more than 10 round capacity? Where's the part where you think this can actually work, please?
 
2013-01-25 06:37:02 PM  

CPennypacker: djh0101010: 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?

No, but I think it will reduce the death count. Thats my farking point.


It won't.
The day-to-day killings don't involve many shots.

The rare mass killings had a level of planning that would account for, and adapt to, magazine limits.
So far, they've adapted to the whole "grab him while he reloads" by bringing extra guns and reloading with one of their dozen spare mags on the move. It seems like few modern shootings happen in a place as tightly packed as a subway car. Some seem to have chosen places with one way well known exit (and less known emergency exits) and either blocked or shot at people heading towards the usual exit.
 
2013-01-25 06:37:18 PM  

CPennypacker: StoPPeRmobile: CPennypacker: 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.

Why this protected item?

It seems a weird, inefficient waste of resources compared to other issues.

I'm sensing a huge mathmatics fail and massive emotional distress.

Because this protected item is what we're talking about?

Lots of things can be used to kill people. Funny how nobody opposes sensible regulation for any of them, but when it involves guns suddenly its time to scapegoat, obfuscate, exaggerate, etc.


Regulations of other dangerous objects usually don't start out with the what are apparently the least dangerous kind of the object in question and specifically target that kind of object by having people who know nothing about the topic pick scary looking features.
 
2013-01-25 06:37:36 PM  

FlashHarry: GRCooper: If all of these options you cite are functional equivalents (I'm not saying you're wrong), what good will a ban do?

i don't want to ban guns. but i think that a magazine capacity limit might be in order.

i do however think that a waiting period, background checks and a national gun database should be mandatory. and i think the fact that the NRA opposes this is obscene.


And I'm not necessarily saying I think you're wrong. I just don't see any evidence that a limit on mag capacity will be anything other than "feel good" legislation that accomplishes nothing - something I'm against, whatever the subject.

I'm also ok with background checks and a waiting period in general, but the database is gonna have to be fleshed out in detail before I'd vote for that.

I'd also like to point out that your level of derp has been refreshing; I haven't seen any that was unprovoked. You seem like a guy I'd like to hash over this stuff over a few beers

/not just cuz I'm predisposed to like you cuz of your handle
 
2013-01-25 06:39:41 PM  

CPennypacker: I understand the nuances, I'm commenting on how pedantic you're being. If you're incapable of seeing that, then you're unqualified to make any argument, who cares what it's about? Get off your high horse it really is embarrassing.


Being pedantic is perfectly reasonable when the topic involves seeming small details that can make a person a felon.

Take a normal, everyday, semi auto shotgun and fashion a pistol grip to it, and you're now a felon under the Feinstein bill. Buy or swap to a replacement barrel that is threaded, now you're a felon
.
If small details make the difference between law abiding and felon, damn straight we're going to sweat those differences.
 
2013-01-25 06:39:53 PM  

djh0101010: CPennypacker: djh0101010: 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?

No, but I think it will reduce the death count. Thats my farking point.

OK, so, stay with me here. A magazine change takes, what, somewhere between 0 and 5 seconds depending on if they've practiced it, or not. With the cops minutes away, do you feel that an extra 5 seconds is going to actually save anyone's life? If so, can you explain your plan to make the criminals obey the law saying they can only use the 10 round magazines? Because it seems to me that the one thing the criminals aren't real big on, is that whole following the laws thing. What with them on a mass murder rampage as in this example.

Or, are you saying, confiscate the millions upon millions of already existing legally owned magazines with more than 10 round capacity? Where's the part where you think this can actually work, please?


Again, if its so quick and easy to change a magazine please tell me what difference it is to you if they limit the size. It's just a quick change, right? Not even an issue.

I think for something like this you need to do a phased turn over that takes place over a period of time. Say, over 5 years,starting with a good cash incentive and then reducing it every year until the 5th when it becomes criminal to have one and it carries very harsh penalties.
 
2013-01-25 06:41:30 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: I understand the nuances, I'm commenting on how pedantic you're being. If you're incapable of seeing that, then you're unqualified to make any argument, who cares what it's about? Get off your high horse it really is embarrassing.

Being pedantic is perfectly reasonable when the topic involves seeming small details that can make a person a felon.

Take a normal, everyday, semi auto shotgun and fashion a pistol grip to it, and you're now a felon under the Feinstein bill. Buy or swap to a replacement barrel that is threaded, now you're a felon
.
If small details make the difference between law abiding and felon, damn straight we're going to sweat those differences.


Tell you what, save the pedantry for the actual bill writing and spare us all when we're just tossing around ideas. Unless you think any senators read this derp.
 
2013-01-25 06:43:32 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: CPennypacker: StoPPeRmobile: CPennypacker: 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.

Why this protected item?

It seems a weird, inefficient waste of resources compared to other issues.

I'm sensing a huge mathmatics fail and massive emotional distress.

Because this protected item is what we're talking about?

Lots of things can be used to kill people. Funny how nobody opposes sensible regulation for any of them, but when it involves guns suddenly its time to scapegoat, obfuscate, exaggerate, etc.

Regulations of other dangerous objects usually don't start out with the what are apparently the least dangerous kind of the object in question and specifically target that kind of object by having people who know nothing about the topic pick scary looking features.


I guarantee you that if we're on the tail end of over 30 years of school hammer mass killings that came to its apex with a mass murder of 20 little kids with hammers, but general murder rates with hammers were pretty low, we would all still want to talk about hammers. This all or nothing dismissal is unhealthy.
 
2013-01-25 06:44:26 PM  

CPennypacker: djh0101010: CPennypacker: djh0101010: 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?

No, but I think it will reduce the death count. Thats my farking point.

OK, so, stay with me here. A magazine change takes, what, somewhere between 0 and 5 seconds depending on if they've practiced it, or not. With the cops minutes away, do you feel that an extra 5 seconds is going to actually save anyone's life? If so, can you explain your plan to make the criminals obey the law saying they can only use the 10 round magazines? Because it seems to me that the one thing the criminals aren't real big on, is that whole following the laws thing. What with them on a mass murder rampage as in this example.

Or, are you saying, confiscate the millions upon millions of already existing legally owned magazines with more than 10 round capacity? Where's the part where you think this can actually work, please?

Again, if its so quick and easy to change a magazine please tell me what difference it is to you if they limit the size. It's just a quick change, right? Not even an issue.

I think for something like this you need to do a phased turn over that takes place over a period of time. Say, over 5 years,starting with a good cash incentive and then reducing it every year until the 5th when it becomes criminal to have one and it carries very harsh penalties.


A lot like many tyrannical governments have done. Great job! That's a lovely butt cheek shaped hat you have donned. I would like to regulate your free speech, but not all at once. Over a period of say, 5 years. We will start with banning harsh language...and the 5th year prepostions will be a punishable crime. See how your argument looks to us?
 
2013-01-25 06:45:15 PM  

CPennypacker: Again, if its so quick and easy to change a magazine please tell me what difference it is to you if they limit the size. It's just a quick change, right? Not even an issue.

I think for something like this you need to do a phased turn over that takes place over a period of time. Say, over 5 years,starting with a good cash incentive and then reducing it every year until the 5th when it becomes criminal to have one and it carries very harsh penalties.


There's a difference between a mass shooter attacking unarmed people in what amount to a kill zone, and a person defending themselves from an active threat. Mass shooters bring a lot of magazines and it's one time, one way trip for them. They don't carry a backpack full of magazines everyday, nor do they have to worry about bringing it back to the car.

A self defense situation may have 12 shots fired at 2 assailants. That extra round could mean the difference between life and death for someone who doesn't have room on their body to carry a second magazine.

If it doesn't stop crime and doesn't impact criminals, there's ZERO justification to impose it on us even without a 2nd amendment protected right. It needs to have a significant effect on a significant amount of crime before it might justify making felons out of people for possessing 11 round magazines.

Also, The 'why not?' rational is tiring.
 
2013-01-25 06:47:32 PM  

the_han: CPennypacker: djh0101010: CPennypacker: djh0101010: 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?

No, but I think it will reduce the death count. Thats my farking point.

OK, so, stay with me here. A magazine change takes, what, somewhere between 0 and 5 seconds depending on if they've practiced it, or not. With the cops minutes away, do you feel that an extra 5 seconds is going to actually save anyone's life? If so, can you explain your plan to make the criminals obey the law saying they can only use the 10 round magazines? Because it seems to me that the one thing the criminals aren't real big on, is that whole following the laws thing. What with them on a mass murder rampage as in this example.

Or, are you saying, confiscate the millions upon millions of already existing legally owned magazines with more than 10 round capacity? Where's the part where you think this can actually work, please?

Again, if its so quick and easy to change a magazine please tell me what difference it is to you if they limit the size. It's just a quick change, right? Not even an issue.

I think for something like this you need to do a phased turn over that takes place over a period of time. Say, over 5 years,starting with a good cash incentive and then reducing it every year until the 5th when it becomes criminal to have one and it carries very harsh penalties.

A lot like many tyrannical governments have done. Great job! That's a lovely butt cheek shaped hat you have donned. I would like to regulate your free speech, but not all at once. Over a period of say, 5 years. We will start with banning harsh language...and the 5th year prepostions will be a punishable crime. See how your argument looks to us?


No, I'm talking about specific items, say we're making the magazine limit 7, all larger magazines are collected and phased out that way.

And free speech isn't unlimited. So it's a rather crap analogy.
 
2013-01-25 06:48:40 PM  

CPennypacker: Tell you what, save the pedantry for the actual bill writing and spare us all when we're just tossing around ideas. Unless you think any senators read this derp.


The whole point of this IS the details and (in)significance of those details in stopping crime, preventing mass shootings, etc. The details are the whole point of this.
 
2013-01-25 06:50:47 PM  

CPennypacker: No, I'm talking about specific items, say we're making the magazine limit 7, all larger magazines are collected and phased out that way.

And free speech isn't unlimited. So it's a rather crap analogy.



I don't recall a limit on the number of books I may possess, the number of books on my tablet/kindle or limits on how much paper my printer's 'magazine' may hold at one time. Free speech isn't unlimited, but it's not limited like you would suggest with guns, so the analogy is not crap.
 
2013-01-25 06:51:58 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: No, I'm talking about specific items, say we're making the magazine limit 7, all larger magazines are collected and phased out that way.

And free speech isn't unlimited. So it's a rather crap analogy.


I don't recall a limit on the number of books I may possess, the number of books on my tablet/kindle or limits on how much paper my printer's 'magazine' may hold at one time. Free speech isn't unlimited, but it's not limited like you would suggest with guns, so the analogy is not crap.


Well they really are very different things; why would we regulate them the same way?
 
2013-01-25 06:53:57 PM  

CPennypacker: Or, are you saying, confiscate the millions upon millions of already existing legally owned magazines with more than 10 round capacity? Where's the part where you think this can actually work, please?

Again, if its so quick and easy to change a magazine please tell me what difference it is to you if they limit the size. It's just a quick change, right? Not even an issue.


Because, I haven't done anything wrong, and because it wouldn't help anything. What possible reason is there to do something that won't help the problem in any credible or meaningful way, and only affects the people who aren't a problem in the first place?
 
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