🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Aximili86]

There's the "mass devastating weapon" thing again. Seriously, an AR?

They're really, really not this "spray bullets everywhere like in the movies" thing you seem to think they are. One trigger pull, one bullet, same deal as a pistol.

14 bullets to a modern pistol clip, as has just been seen at the Youtube thing you can fire off 50 rounds in quick succession with a few extra clips. Surely if we're doing the 'amount of bullets fired' thing, this limited-magazine-sizes schtick the gun control people are pulling, then that has to extend to handguns too. Drop capacity to 8 or something, and people can only legally possess two clips.

But...yeah, that'd be ****ing ridiculous.

And again, on the 'reasonable use' thing for an AR - you and I don't get to decide what's necessary for home defense. I actually agree, Joe & Jane suburban likely don't need one, it's probably overkill. But they decide that, not me, provided they're not crims or crazies. That's part of what a free society is.

Yeah, there's a limit on what a civilian should be able to have. That line should be "full-autos and body armor or bump-stocks for a semi-auto, or high explosives & grenades". Not...a civilian hunting rifle, semi-auto, not much more of a higher firing rate than a glock if any at all.

Again, 5 million + of these things are circulating around the country as of 2014. How many of those 5 million people do you think have shot at anyone with it? It's ****ing infinitesimal. You stop crazies from getting them, you don't stop people in general from getting them. People in general aren't shooting people. It's the headcases, which the law already forbids from possession. We need to get actually competent at seeking them out and having the balls to actually forcibly put them away for treatment, with most likely a permanent "you don't get to own guns, ever, life ban" enacted on them. Pre-emptively, once the red flags start showing, before they're able to do anything.

But...that'd be mean, right? Mental illness rights and all that jazz.

Yeaaaahhhh.

 

[Texas Zombie]

I’m from Texas. I grew up hunting dove, quail, coyote, and hog. I had a 30 30 rifle that held 6 bullets and a double barrel shotgun that held...two shells. That’s all anyone needs to hunt. No one needs a semi rifle with a magazine. If you need 15 shots to kill a deer...you suck. If you need an AR-15 to kill a deer...you suck.

I know what a semi auto is. I have a semi auto handgun in my nightstand. All handguns are pretty much semi auto. Staggered clips and extended clips should be illegal. You don’t need all of those bullets in a handgun. A shotgun is a better home protector anyways...which is in my closet. Not a fan of handguns but it was a gift. I don’t hunt anymore because I think it’s sick and sadistic so the rifle is retired.

I said a semi automatic for a hog and coyotes, btw. I never said hunt a deer with an AR-15, but there’s a billion dollars of crop damage annually done by hogs to commercial farms. Some estimates even put that number higher. People do hunt that animal with an AR-15 generally, in cases where decimation of crops is a likely outcome. Female hogs can have 2 litters a year with up to 12 offspring, and there’s over a million hog in the United States. The problem with the animal, is that they eat the roots of plants, much like goats.

That is a reasonable usage of the rifle or even smaller magazine semi automatics.

Personally I’d never own anything other than a lever action(30 30 or 30 06), a shotgun, and a handgun. I also don’t hunt anymore, but if I do, it will be with a bow.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Also I’m unsubscribing from this thread. I don’t really like to get in political debates or even discuss them with people who I don’t personally know. Either way, it’s all good, I definitely see your point and there does need to be stricter gun control laws.

 

[Hotwire]

There's the "mass devastating weapon" thing again. Seriously, an AR?

They're really, really not this "spray bullets everywhere like in the movies" thing you seem to think they are. One trigger pull, one bullet, same deal as a pistol.

14 bullets to a modern pistol clip, as has just been seen at the Youtube thing you can fire off 50 rounds in quick succession with a few extra clips. Surely if we're doing the 'amount of bullets fired' thing, this limited-magazine-sizes schtick the gun control people are pulling, then that has to extend to handguns too. Drop capacity to 8 or something, and people can only legally possess two clips.

But...yeah, that'd be ****ing ridiculous.

And again, on the 'reasonable use' thing for an AR - you and I don't get to decide what's necessary for home defense. I actually agree, Joe & Jane suburban likely don't need one, it's probably overkill. But they decide that, not me, provided they're not crims or crazies. That's part of what a free society is.

Yeah, there's a limit on what a civilian should be able to have. That line should be "full-autos and body armor or bump-stocks for a semi-auto, or high explosives & grenades". Not...a civilian hunting rifle, semi-auto, not much more of a higher firing rate than a glock if any at all.

Again, 5 million + of these things are circulating around the country as of 2014. How many of those 5 million people do you think have shot at anyone with it? It's ****ing infinitesimal. You stop crazies from getting them, you don't stop people in general from getting them. People in general aren't shooting people. It's the headcases, which the law already forbids from possession. We need to get actually competent at seeking them out and having the balls to actually forcibly put them away for treatment, with most likely a permanent "you don't get to own guns, ever, life ban" enacted on them. Pre-emptively, once the red flags start showing, before they're able to do anything.

But...that'd be mean, right? Mental illness rights and all that jazz.

Yeaaaahhhh.

So, it's the same as a pistol? So, why aren't soldiers given pistols instead of the rifles they're issued? It's the same thing, right? Maybe we should compare other aspects as well. Things like effective range, and muzzle velocity. Maybe look at the article someone posted from an er doctor comparing bullet wounds from handguns and the 5.56 round.

You want to assume the stance that a pistol is the same as an AR, you're actually shooting yourself in the proverbial foot in defending the need for it.

 

[Hotwire]

Bro you’re completely misguided on firearms.

There are literally semi automatic firearms without clips where every bullet has to be loaded. If you’re going to kill three hogs you need a semi automatic or even two coyotes.

You do know that there are semi automatic firearms that don’t even have clips, guns that have 7-8 round capacity.

Um, the very definition of semi-automatic is that it is self-loading. That's the point. Every trigger pull uses either the recoil or a mechanical part to load the next round into the chamber. The gun does it so the shooter doesn't have to. If you have to work a mechanism or load the round yourself, it's not semi-automatic.

 

[Aximili86]

So, it's the same as a pistol? So, why aren't soldiers given pistols instead of the rifles they're issued?

They're not given civilian-model neutered AR-10s/15s, either. Rather the military editions, which aren't the same ****ing thing.

Also, soldiers *are* given pistols as sidearms. Close-quarters stuff, by someone who knows what they're doing, a pistol with extra ammunition is more than capable of shooting up a mall or school or whatever. And it's happened.

But...cool for civilians, 'cause we know the public would roll their eyes and tell us to go **** ourselves if we ever proposed banning them.

 

[Sithborg]

You haven't exactly been paying attention, have you?

I think you would find there would not be a whole lot of opposition to restriction of clip capacity in hand guns.

 

[Aximili86]

Sure there would. The only people cool with limiting that stuff would be the people calling for "gun control" in the abstract anyway, the rest of the country's going to see pistol stuff as a redline.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sure there would. The only people cool with limiting that stuff would be the people calling for "gun control" in the abstract anyway, the rest of the country's going to see pistol stuff as a redline.

You mean the vast majority of the country. Because it has 70% support.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/gun-control-polling-parkland-430099

 

[Sithborg]

Sure there would. The only people cool with limiting that stuff would be the people calling for "gun control" in the abstract anyway, the rest of the country's going to see pistol stuff as a redline.

You keep on pretending what we saw at the march for our lives was the minority. Just like those who continued to ignore the message of the woman's march.

 

[Aximili86]

That's stricter gun laws in general (with the connotation in the current climate basically being ARs), not pistols specifically.

That 68% figure is dropping dramatically if you take out the ARs as a focus and you're rather talking pistols or bolt-action rifles.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's stricter gun laws in general (with the connotation in the current climate basically being ARs), not pistols specifically.

That 68% figure is dropping dramatically if you take out the ARs as a focus and you're rather talking pistols or bolt-action rifles.

This is a question on extended mags specifically. Is your argument that if they specified it for pistols most of the US would agree with you?

 

[Sithborg]

AR's are the popular talking point, sure. But I have seen a lot of talk about limiting clip size. I would say probably the #2 goal after a semi-auto ban.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

AR's are the popular talking point, sure. But I have seen a lot of talk about limiting clip size. I would say probably the #2 goal after a semi-auto ban.

Yep. Because of their implication in mass shootings. How much more devastation they allow for.

 

[Aximili86]

This is a question on extended mags specifically. Is your argument that if they specified it for pistols most of the US would agree with you?

The point is the article you linked is gun control in general, not mag limits for pistols.

"Gun control" as a discussion now is basically focused on ARs.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The point is the article you linked is gun control in general, not mag limits for pistols.

"Gun control" as a discussion now is basically focused on ARs.

So you just didn't read it? Because it ask specific questions. A gun registry for gun sales in general is only about AR-15s? Preventing all sales of guns to those who have been cited as a danger by mental health providers? How?

 

[Aximili86]

How the hell is that different now though? If you're certified nuts now, technically you don't get to buy a gun.

That's not "further gun control", that's "getting better at enforcing the laws we have".

 

[DarthSkywalker]

How the hell is that different now though? If you're certified nuts now, technically you don't get to buy a gun.

That's not "further gun control", that's "getting better at enforcing the laws we have".

You said it was only about AR-15's. Would you like to explain that reasoning?

 

[Aximili86]

Generally speaking, yeah, the people calling for further gun laws - both in the wake of Parkland and before that - are focusing in on semi-auto rifles rather than handguns.

What's not to get? While we're using snarky tones.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Generally speaking, yeah, the people calling for further gun laws - both in the wake of Parkland and before that - are focusing in on semi-auto rifles rather than handguns.

What's not to get? While we're using snarky tones.

You mean most of America. That is who is calling for it. And I think most of them do realize pistols qualify as guns when talking about tracking all sales, full background checks for all gun purchases and keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill.

There is even two separate questions about 21 years olds. One about assault weapons specifically, the other for all gun purchases before the age of 21. 82% to 81%.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/gun-control-polling-parkland-430099

So again, in general, how does that match with what you are saying?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

You said it was only about AR-15's. Would you like to explain that reasoning?

Darth... You and I both know this is Chinatown, Jake. You're better off just going to sleep than argue with the disingenuous.


And yes... The "I don't want more gun laws, I just want the ones on the books enforced" argument is just part of the disingenuousness on display. I've heard that my whole life and yet the NRA backed GOP and it's rank and file members along with elected officials keep on doing their best to prune the laws and regs on the books. That's all they've ever done ALONG with stopping new laws despite as you have already pointed out, POPULAR support for said regs and laws.

 

[Aximili86]

The NRA's for an expansion of background check laws, and is open to bump-stock bans.

But yeah, just stifling all new law proposals. Riiiiiiight.

 

[Hotwire]

They're not given civilian-model neutered AR-10s/15s, either. Rather the military editions, which aren't the same ****ing thing.

Also, soldiers *are* given pistols as sidearms. Close-quarters stuff, by someone who knows what they're doing, a pistol with extra ammunition is more than capable of shooting up a mall or school or whatever. And it's happened.

But...cool for civilians, 'cause we know the public would roll their eyes and tell us to go **** ourselves if we ever proposed banning them.

Aside from the burst fire option, which soldiers don't even use, what are the differences between the AR and the M? Please list them. I'll wait.

Some soldiers, not all, are given sidearms. However, you didn't really answer my question. Why is the pistol not the primary weapon for a soldier since its the same as the rifle? I know the answer, I'm waiting to see if you do.

 

[Aximili86]

Of course a rifle's better for primary military engagements, the range is better. These school shootings aren't long-range affairs though, that's the thing. A loon in a school hallway with a glock/equivalent and 40 extra bullets is still going to be an absolute massacre. Again, Virginia Tech.

As for differences between the civilian and military variants, the M4A1's capable of fully-auto fire along with the burst, from what I understand. And soldiers do use the burst, even if it's not the standard default way they're trained to fire in regular circumstances. According to google the M4 has a shorter barrel than is allowed in civilian weapons too.

The civilian lacks the burst, and lacks the full-auto. So, basically, it's semi-auto like any other semi-auto, pistols included. Yeah, velocity's higher, firing rate might be a little higher (unsure on that - but it's still within the semi-auto category), but that makes sense being a rifle.

Basically my only point here is it seems to be a sticking issue here of "semi-auto rifles are beyond the pale due to killing power!", when we've seen incidents where the massacres go down anyway. VT, twice the death toll of Parkland, the loon used two handguns. So, what, a psycho without a crim/psych record who'd fly under the radar now, suddenly can't get his hands on an AR so he's going to abandon his ****ed-up plans? God no, he's just going to get pistols or some other carbine instead, and do the same damage.

Where's the debate go then? "All semi-autos have gotta go?" Because in the wrong hands they're a terrible thing? That goes for any modern easily-reloadable weapon.

 

[Hotwire]

Of course a rifle's better for primary military engagements, the range is better. These school shootings aren't long-range affairs though, that's the thing. A loon in a school hallway with a glock/equivalent and 40 extra bullets is still going to be an absolute massacre. Again, Virginia Tech.

As for differences between the civilian and military variants, the M4A1's capable of fully-auto fire along with the burst, from what I understand. And soldiers do use the burst, even if it's not the standard default way they're trained to fire in regular circumstances. According to google the M4 has a shorter barrel than is allowed in civilian weapons too.

The civilian lacks the burst, and lacks the full-auto. So, basically, it's semi-auto like any other semi-auto, pistols included. Yeah, velocity's higher, firing rate might be a little higher (unsure on that - but it's still within the semi-auto category), but that makes sense being a rifle.

Basically my only point here is it seems to be a sticking issue here of "semi-auto rifles are beyond the pale due to killing power!", when we've seen incidents where the massacres go down anyway. VT, twice the death toll of Parkland, the loon used two handguns. So, what, a psycho without a crim/psych record who'd fly under the radar now, suddenly can't get his hands on an AR so he's going to abandon his ****ed-up plans? God no, he's just going to get pistols or some other carbine instead, and do the same damage.

Where's the debate go then? "All semi-autos have gotta go?" Because in the wrong hands they're a terrible thing? That goes for any modern easily-reloadable weapon.

Full-auto went away with the M-16A1 because it was a waste of ammo. Only having 28 rounds and firing at over 700 rounds per minute, will empty the mag in around 2-3 seconds. It's the same reason we were trained not to use burst. The rifle is also designed to be fired for extended periods of time without causing fatigue due to recoil.