Four more years!

RandomGraysuit wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:So what about the 30 plus round magzines then? thats not a modification, thats a required part of the gun in that you need a magazine to fire. it has a inbuilt pistol grip, as a standard on some variants. It is semi auto. it has detachable magazines. the last two are standard on every AR15, autoatically making it an assault weapon as it only requires two from the list to be an assault weapon according to the wiki page.


and its still a tank, just a half built one, as the last parts that are supposed to be added havent been yet. its like being sold a house missing windows. still fully functional, but designed to work best with the last parts added, and there are people who will add that last part.

'30 plus round magazines'? A 'required part of the gun'? Hyperbole much? You're still in SAWOOIAGSWBBI mode. (scary assault weapon of OMG it's a gun so we'd better ban it) I can drive down to my weekend gun range and buy an assault weapon right now. (Okay, maybe not right *now* because they've been sold out since the day after Sandy Hook, but you get the idea.) I could get a 10 round magazine with it, since anything bigger is already illegal here. As I said before, I could then buy a 20 or 30 round metal box of ammunition from a private party, free spring included. I wouldn't want to buy one of those fancy 50 or 100 round magazines (Your 30+ types) because they tend to jam like crazy. Your magazine ban is obviously not very effective.

You know what else could be a SAWOOIAGSWBBI with just the slightest creative tweaking of the definition? A regular pistol. The in-grip magazine certainly detaches. By definition it has a pistol grip. It's almost certainly semi-automatic. It's a SAWOOIAGSWBBI!

Do you begin to see why the term 'assault weapon' is a bad one? There is no technical, accepted, functional definition. It depends entirely on the current law, and as we're seeing right now, that's easy enough to change. You've shown us that's it's very confusing too, since you can't tell the difference between a military-type gun like the M-16 and a SAWOOIAGSWBBI like the AR-15 even after it's been explained to you by multiple people. That's really bad, since one of them is already banned while the other looks very, very similar but functions differently.

There are better ways to deal with this issue than picking a scary-looking gun and banning it. Your own research has pointed towards some of them. Shall we discuss that, or shall we flail about in mindless, uneducated panic a little while longer?

Yes the definition is bad. but my impression of that is because the definition was written by two extremes, one wanting no legislation on this what so ever, and one wanting a really clear and definite ban, and the compromise turned wishywashy, with only lawyers benefiting.

As for the difference between an AR15 and an M16, i dont really see a difference, being as they are effectively the same gun, and would function exactly the same after a little modification. as pointed out by others, this can be done in several ways, and what are you left with at the end? is it a modded Ar15 or an M16? because those mods were on an Ar15, and you still have the same gun, only now its an effective M16.
regarding the wrong of the magazine bit, sorry. didn't quite come out right. should have meant that its a magazine, which is a required part of the gun to fire, so a magazine is not a modification.



Im not against guns, indeed i quite like them, i just think that america has gone over the top with what it allows the public to have.it just starts seeming like america is trying to overcompensate for something.

Donnachaidh wrote:All the will in the world won't help you without the right weapons. Just ask the Mujahideen (before the US started supplying them with arms) after the Russians invaded Afghanistan.

Spacekiwi wrote:The western world was never really going to win the war on terror after about the first year. this is due to the people on the other end figuring out our soldiers and leaders mentality. we were fighting for what we thought was right, they are fighting for what they 'know' is the right thing to do. we weren't on home soil, they are. there is a limited amount of fresh blood on our side, but they just need to provoke us in the right way once over there to cause an incident, and they have a whole lot of fresh new soldiers to the cause. and they are prepared to go as far as it is needed for their side to win. we have rules and laws and regulations keeping us in line, which just gives them greater freedom of fighting.

its not just the guns that allows them to keep fighting, the guns are just a bit more of a boost to their fighting.

The russians were willing to take it further then amercia is. that is probably the major difference. If the current fighters do enough, then america will give up on the middle east at some point. the russians werent going to give up and leave.

Spacekiwi wrote:Yes the definition is bad. but my impression of that is because the definition was written by two extremes, one wanting no legislation on this what so ever, and one wanting a really clear and definite ban, and the compromise turned wishywashy, with only lawyers benefiting.

As for the difference between an AR15 and an M16, i dont really see a difference, being as they are effectively the same gun, and would function exactly the same after a little modification. as pointed out by others, this can be done in several ways, and what are you left with at the end? is it a modded Ar15 or an M16? because those mods were on an Ar15, and you still have the same gun, only now its an effective M16.
regarding the wrong of the magazine bit, sorry. didn't quite come out right. should have meant that its a magazine, which is a required part of the gun to fire, so a magazine is not a modification.



Im not against guns, indeed i quite like them, i just think that america has gone over the top with what it allows the public to have.it just starts seeming like america is trying to overcompensate for something.

The difference between an AR15 and an M16 is that one has burst-fire capability, the other does not. That's it. It seems too simple, too minor, doesn't it?

But then, what is the difference between a military assault rifle and a comfortable semi-automatic hunting rifle?

The most obvious is that the military weapon is going to 'look' more military. It's usually black. Maybe it has a Kevlar buttstock, an all-steel frame, or some sort of steel/plastic mix. It's going to be fairly durable-looking, probably with rails to let you add on all kinds of extra stuff. (There's a reason the M-16 is called a "Barbie doll for men") Probably a flash-hider or muzzle brake too.

But what does all that stuff actually *do*?!

It makes it more comfortable, more modular, and more durable. In other words, it makes it a little bit better to use for someone with a tiny bit of training and practice, who will probably drop the thing many times, drag it through the mud, and abuse it in any way possible. (And then, eventually, hopefully, shoot it one or more times in the direction of another person, designated "the enemy".)

Many of those functions are adaptable to use on a hunting or target shooting rifle. A box magazine? Heck yes! Kevlar stock? Sure, I'll take a durable and lightweight option, although sometimes a pretty hardwood stock is nice too. Barrel shroud? Could certainly be useful for target shooters, though a hunter won't need one.

So with all the feature bleed-over, what's the difference? Two things. First, you have the 'oh shit' mode. The idea being that if you have a lot of rounds, a whole lot of targets and not a lot of time, you can put more rounds in the general direction of targets before one of them eventually puts a bullet into you too. Burst fire, automatic, whatever. Second, and this is the big one- the the military gun looks scary!

Assault weapons are a 'close enough' definition. Anything with more than one round fired per trigger squeeze is already nearly impossible to get, so what's left is anything that looks scary. Like I said before, when they're pointed in your direction, 100% of guns look scary. 100% of guns also look scary if you're afraid of guns. I've seen a sergeant major in the US Army who fell in that category. She was scared witless of a little 9mm pistol. As far as she was concerned, all guns are terrible things.

We're obviously not going to rescind the Second Amendment and ban all guns. So what you have some people doing is trying to ban the ones that look scariest. Not the ones that are most effective or most preferred at killing lots of people in a hurry- the ones that look meaner.

Heck, I might as well paint my M-16 pink and I'll be able to carry it down Main Street in the middle of the day at this rate!

I don't like making laws based on FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt). No matter what political party you belong to, those laws are invariably bad laws. So what can we make laws based off? Maybe the best place to start is evidence and risk management. I'll toss some ideas out in the next post.

So you see no difference between a machine gun (and a select fire weapon, like an M16, is a machine gun) and a semi-automatic because they look the same and have similar mechanisms?

Your argument is that because it is technically possible ILLEGALLY modify an AR15 it is the same as an M16. By that logic we should outlaw radios (and cell phone while we're at it since they're functionally short range radios) because someone could modify them to interfere with air traffic control and emergency services radios. We should also outlaw any aftermarket parts for cars since people can use them and modify them to make cars go too fast. And, while we're at it, let's ban computers since people can use them and modify them and their software to download pirated media and execute cyber attacks.

Do you see the problem with your logic yet? There's legal ways to use all of those things and that's how most people use them, it's only the minority that use things illegally.

That doesn't mean I'm not okay with reasonable gun control laws. Frankly I'm just fine with limiting magazine size to 10 rounds, that's all I ever load in higher capacity magazines anyway. I'm also okay with not allowing automatic weapons, I've shot them before and they're definitely fun but I don't really have a problem with banning them. I'm also okay with banning things like grenade launchers and other such things. What bothers me about the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (I was only a kid at the time and didn't get into target shooting until after the ban was lifted) is that aside from the magazine restrictions it seemed to focus on cosmetic and incidental things rather than actual functional things. Whether or not my gun has a pistol grip doesn't change my ability to hit a target quickly, they just make it more comfortable. The same with a collapsible stock, it doesn't let me shoot better, it lets me shooting with just the right size stock.

Spacekiwi wrote:

RandomGraysuit wrote:'30 plus round magazines'? A 'required part of the gun'? Hyperbole much? You're still in SAWOOIAGSWBBI mode. (scary assault weapon of OMG it's a gun so we'd better ban it) I can drive down to my weekend gun range and buy an assault weapon right now. (Okay, maybe not right *now* because they've been sold out since the day after Sandy Hook, but you get the idea.) I could get a 10 round magazine with it, since anything bigger is already illegal here. As I said before, I could then buy a 20 or 30 round metal box of ammunition from a private party, free spring included. I wouldn't want to buy one of those fancy 50 or 100 round magazines (Your 30+ types) because they tend to jam like crazy. Your magazine ban is obviously not very effective.

You know what else could be a SAWOOIAGSWBBI with just the slightest creative tweaking of the definition? A regular pistol. The in-grip magazine certainly detaches. By definition it has a pistol grip. It's almost certainly semi-automatic. It's a SAWOOIAGSWBBI!

Do you begin to see why the term 'assault weapon' is a bad one? There is no technical, accepted, functional definition. It depends entirely on the current law, and as we're seeing right now, that's easy enough to change. You've shown us that's it's very confusing too, since you can't tell the difference between a military-type gun like the M-16 and a SAWOOIAGSWBBI like the AR-15 even after it's been explained to you by multiple people. That's really bad, since one of them is already banned while the other looks very, very similar but functions differently.

There are better ways to deal with this issue than picking a scary-looking gun and banning it. Your own research has pointed towards some of them. Shall we discuss that, or shall we flail about in mindless, uneducated panic a little while longer?

Yes the definition is bad. but my impression of that is because the definition was written by two extremes, one wanting no legislation on this what so ever, and one wanting a really clear and definite ban, and the compromise turned wishywashy, with only lawyers benefiting.

As for the difference between an AR15 and an M16, i dont really see a difference, being as they are effectively the same gun, and would function exactly the same after a little modification. as pointed out by others, this can be done in several ways, and what are you left with at the end? is it a modded Ar15 or an M16? because those mods were on an Ar15, and you still have the same gun, only now its an effective M16.
regarding the wrong of the magazine bit, sorry. didn't quite come out right. should have meant that its a magazine, which is a required part of the gun to fire, so a magazine is not a modification.



Im not against guns, indeed i quite like them, i just think that america has gone over the top with what it allows the public to have.it just starts seeming like america is trying to overcompensate for something.

Nationalized mental health / felon database for firearm background checks - Believe it or not, this isn't complete across all states. While seeing a shrink for depression or marriage counseling isn't that uncommon these days, being diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic should probably send up red flags. Ditto most felonies.

Mandatory safety equipment. We've already seen a law that mandates that firearms must be stored disassembled or with a trigger lock struck down, so that's not an option. But can you mandate that someone *purchases* safety equipment such as a trigger lock or a gun safe? Can you create a law that says if your unsecured firearm is stolen or used to commit a crime, you can be considered civilly or criminally liable? Those might be options to pursue.

'gun show loophole'- This says that private parties don't have to do background checks when transferring a firearm. Makes sense, otherwise Grandpa has to pay to investigate you before he can pass on his antique M1 Garand. All well and good until your private party starts doing a few dozen transfers a year at gun shows. This law would have to be very narrowly crafted to make sure it only applies to private party transactions done in conjunction with a trade show.

Large magazines - No. Just no. They're too cheap, with too many in circulation for this to make a difference any time in the next 20 or 30 years. Yes, the nutjob in the Giffords shooting was tackled only when he ran out of ammo and tried to reload- on his 30 round extended magazine for his pistol.

Large caliber rounds - California already banned .50 caliber rifles. Barrett responded by banning all sales, service agreements and other dealings with California police and government agencies. Then they created a .416 rifle that looks an awful lot like the .50, but is legal in California. Too bad large caliber rifles aren't used to commit crimes because they're so big and expensive in the first place.

Donnachaidh wrote:So you see no difference between a machine gun (and a select fire weapon, like an M16, is a machine gun) and a semi-automatic because they look the same and have similar mechanisms?

Your argument is that because it is technically possible ILLEGALLY modify an AR15 it is the same as an M16. By that logic we should outlaw radios (and cell phone while we're at it since they're functionally short range radios) because someone could modify them to interfere with air traffic control and emergency services radios. We should also outlaw any aftermarket parts for cars since people can use them and modify them to make cars go too fast. And, while we're at it, let's ban computers since people can use them and modify them and their software to download pirated media and execute cyber attacks.

Do you see the problem with your logic yet? There's legal ways to use all of those things and that's how most people use them, it's only the minority that use things illegally.

That doesn't mean I'm not okay with reasonable gun control laws. Frankly I'm just fine with limiting magazine size to 10 rounds, that's all I ever load in higher capacity magazines anyway. I'm also okay with not allowing automatic weapons, I've shot them before and they're definitely fun but I don't really have a problem with banning them. I'm also okay with banning things like grenade launchers and other such things. What bothers me about the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (I was only a kid at the time and didn't get into target shooting until after the ban was lifted) is that aside from the magazine restrictions it seemed to focus on cosmetic and incidental things rather than actual functional things. Whether or not my gun has a pistol grip doesn't change my ability to hit a target quickly, they just make it more comfortable. The same with a collapsible stock, it doesn't let me shoot better, it lets me shooting with just the right size stock.

I do see a difference, i just see the difference in the opposite way to you. you see it as a rifle that has to be modded to fire in full auto and burst, i see it as a selective fire gun that has been modded down to semi auto, and with a second mod to counter the first, is back to its original design. I see it as like an engine chip in your car that limits the power. remove it, and the car is fully available, and yet despite the removal of the chip, it is still the same car before and after the removal, whether or not your chip has been removed.


I agree with a 10 round mag limit, and the other restrictions you propose as well. My opinion is, if you are using more than that on shooting at something, you either need a bigger caliber, marksmen lessons, or both. And the cosmetic thing was probably down to cosmetics and people who would prefer to ban all types of guns and shooting going against people who dont want anyone else having a say regarding them and their guns. after all, the smart-alec definition of a comprimise is getting the worst of both worlds...

Guys where i grew up i would have been ashamed to admit to using more than one bullet when going hunting and guys who hunted with semi automatics was looked on as people who had trouble tying their own shoes. I distinctly recall my dad and grandad showing me how to "bark" a squirrel or to bag a deer with a .22. Yes that can be done but you just have to aim very carefully in both cases.

Just snipped for brevity. And the fact that interspersed posts are not worth the time for me to decompose to respond to individual points(I spend more than an hour on most of my posts as I do think to much, very little actually makes to the screen without multiple rewrites). For instance which "They're" in the unsnipped part are you referring to. As I addressed multiple periods in history and various locations I can make a guess, which will most likely be wrong.

Equating the ability to destroy with the ability to govern is a common failing. Of course bowing down to the ability to destroy is a common human response just not universal for which I thank God as then there would be no USA for me to actually have served in the military of.

To actually govern you need to have people on the ground. If you bomb all the things/people that generate the wealth that allow you to govern, you have no money to have all those wonderful weapons of destruction. Everything is interconnect and the law of unintended consequences bites hard in the end. Those people on the ground become very vulnerable to firearms.

The attitude you are espousing is a wonderful way to go back to serfs and knights. After all the knight had more chance than a smart bomb or a jet of actually governing and a much larger relative disparity in capabilities.

I would really recommend that you read some of the inspirational writings of the American Revolution (and think about why they had to say these things). Maybe Patrick Henry. Such as a speech the included something like "... If not now, when ..." think I got it somewhat right. They would be very informative of how someone with a completely different viewpoint on the world and the way it works (much better than I could ever hope to be). It also sort of shows that many people at that time had the same view of the British as regards of the ability to actually successfully rebel.

To paraphrase an ancient philosopher, "What rational man goes to war?" Think about that. I have and concluded I really am not rational in this respect or alone in that either.

To be honest in my opinion all the modern stuff just make it more likely that the people without the modern stuff to use boxcutters (or some other stone aged tool) to respond as they have no other way to strike back. The ability to do so doesn't really seem to be significantly reduced by smart bombs.

I didn't really mean to do on so long but it will most likely be my last public post on this topic drift. And this post took me overnight and then another 2 hours to put together.

PM me if you wish to continue. Or anyone can as well. It may take me quite a while to get back to you as I think about what a person says and formulate a response.

Enjoy,
T2M

Eyal wrote:They're using heavy weapons and IEDs, not rifles.

...snip...

viciokie wrote:Guys where i grew up i would have been ashamed to admit to using more than one bullet when going hunting and guys who hunted with semi automatics was looked on as people who had trouble tying their own shoes. I distinctly recall my dad and grandad showing me how to "bark" a squirrel or to bag a deer with a .22. Yes that can be done but you just have to aim very carefully in both cases.

I ran a qualification range recently and had a bunch of officers show up. (This is where you know it's about to be good.)

One of them aimed a pistol at a target 25 meters away, about 1 meter tall and 1 meter off the ground. The dust on the ground 3 meters ahead of her exploded. Every single safety on the range stopped watching their areas and turned to stare. Normally, I'd have yelled at them to watch their own lanes. But in this case, maybe it was best that they keep their eyes on the highest-risk person on the range. Besides, I was too busy gawking along with them.

Another aimed a rifle at a similar target. The sandbags the rifle was resting on suddenly turned into a spray of plastic and damp sand. Turns out the rifle was actually nestled in the sandbag being used as a rest.

Sometimes, you get people who shouldn't be allowed out in public without adult supervision who want to carry a firearm.

Spacekiwi wrote:I agree with a 10 round mag limit, and the other restrictions you propose as well. My opinion is, if you are using more than that on shooting at something, you either need a bigger caliber, marksmen lessons, or both. And the cosmetic thing was probably down to cosmetics and people who would prefer to ban all types of guns and shooting going against people who dont want anyone else having a say regarding them and their guns. after all, the smart-alec definition of a comprimise is getting the worst of both worlds...

I was the one who actually proposed a series of potential restrictions- and the large-caliber and low-capacity magazine restrictions were the ones I specifically pointed out as bad ideas. One isn't used to commit crimes, the other *might* make a difference in 50 years, but my money is on a 3d printer blueprint for extended magazines getting common before that point. In the meantime, it's just plain annoying.

The problem with this topic is, I get the idea you're in favor of whatever might be up for discussion, but banning SAWOOIAGSWBBIs altogether is the ideal option. Am I wrong in that?