The Guns thread - Part 1

[mclay18]

Although I commend Australia for what they have done....we are the 3rd largest country in population and 4th largest in size. What works for Canada, Australia, the UK, wherever cannot simply work in our country because it has worked there....whether it is gun control, health care, whatever.......it is quite frankly comparing apples and oranges.

You are right in that respect. However, we don't know if we can get to the point where UK and Australia are if we don't get something meaningful passed. We may not be able to do a massive buyback or massive penalties for illegal gun ownership without necessary steps.

And I think part of that fault should lie on the Republicans in office who stymied gun reform legislation for over two decades. The breaking point shouldn't have been Parkland High, but in 2013 after Newtown.

People have had enough and they and their children are speaking out. Big companies are starting to withdraw support for the NRA.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Airlines cutting ties with the NRA.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43181337

 

[Thundercrack85]

The NRA has helped cause the deaths of more Americans than World War II. It's run by fanatics like Wayne Lapierre. Any organization that associates with it should be boycotted.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This is their spokeswoman. What else is there to say?

[YT]4AtOU0dDXv8[/YT]

[YT]1IDpQPW-l44[/YT]

 

[Hotwire]

There's that "military grade or close to military grade" thing again, though.

That's not what an AR-10 or AR-15 is.

People spurting this "assault rifle" or "military grade" terminology are people that the other half of the country who own these things aren't going to listen to or take seriously. It's the old Dianne Feinstein "what's a magazine?" thing. I actually approve of some of the ideas Feinstein was putting out there, but if she's asking a question like that she shouldn't be remotely anywhere near anything to do with this debate.

And it's the same with the AR thing. Anyone who equates a semi-auto hunting rifle with anything even remotely what a soldier carries, just really needs to get a hold on the basics. These things have so much more in common with the most basic handgun on the market, firing-rate wise, than an M-16 or an AK-47 or whatever. It's apples & oranges, there's nothing "military grade" or even approaching military grade about it.

Please, point out the difference between the the AR-15 and the M-16A2 (That's what I used in the Army) aside from the 3 round burst option on the M-16. Go ahead. What other differences are there? I'd like to know.

 

[Aximili86]

Hey, if you want to say you think we should ban handguns too, go for it. At least that'd be consistent. Performance-wise, the two sure as **** have more in common than an AR-10 does with a fully-auto *actually* military-grade M-16 or equivalent.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hey, if you want to say you think we should ban handguns too, go for it. At least that'd be consistent. Performance-wise, the two sure as **** have more in common than an AR-10 does with a fully-auto *actually* military-grade M-16 or equivalent.

Hotwire asked you how they are different, specifically. You avoided that question. So please answer it.

 

[chaseter]

Although I commend Australia for what they have done....we are the 3rd largest country in population and 4th largest in size. What works for Canada, Australia, the UK, wherever cannot simply work in our country because it has worked there....whether it is gun control, health care, whatever.......it is quite frankly comparing apples and oranges.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that reforms in our health care system and our gun control laws are needed NOW? Yes.....I just don't believe that comparisons of the US to this or that country are viable arguments. Histories, size of area and populations, etc....are far too different to really compare.

BUT, YES WE NEED TO FREAKING DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MILITARY TO "close to" MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS being in FAR TOO MANY HANDS along with butt loads of ammunition.....and no one knows where the hell this stuff is......

But, can we say, that hey this or that country did this or that so we should be able to do that in the US. No......it is not that simple of a solution.

Also, it is not Trump's fault, Obama's fault, Bush's fault, Clinton's fault, Bush's fault, Reagan's fault, Carter's fault......it is the fault of a bureaucracy that at the center of it all are people that are far more engaged in keeping their power than in serving the people. Because of that nothing gets done of any real significance....and therefore laws that should have been evolving to keep people safe, and also giving them the opportunity to enjoy their hobbies has grown into a monster that ONE ORGANIZATION seems to want to keep feeding, and they feed it by handing money to those in this bureaucracy that want to hold on to their power.

Australia and the UK are also islands and Canada doesn’t border South America. That makes it easier for them to control what’s coming in.

 

[TheCommissioner]

the NRA was a confrontational brand, it is now a toxic brand

and there are not many ways to recover

I also love the fact that this is happening during the weekend of CPAC (which is one of the big events that the NRA relies on to drive membership since not many other events will have them anymore)

 

[Sithborg]

Australia and the UK are also islands and Canada doesn’t border South America. That makes it easier for them to control what’s coming in.

You understand, they get their weapons from us, right?

We also don't have a border with South America, either.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This arming of teachers idea is the single most idiotic policy I have ever seen seriously proposed. What happens when we arm teachers and these shootings still happen? Are we going to arm the students next?

Anyone who proposes this needs to be checked for a brain injury.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Hey, if you want to say you think we should ban handguns too, go for it. At least that'd be consistent. Performance-wise, the two sure as **** have more in common than an AR-10 does with a fully-auto *actually* military-grade M-16 or equivalent.

You've avoided Hotwire's direct question as well as mine. Please, enlighten us on why you are such a weapons expert?

You seem to keep relying on red herring's to avoid discussing the actual issues several people have repeatedly stated so you go discuss the semantics of weapons.

 

[moviefreak]

The problem with that thinking is the FBI statistics don't show any drastic increase in murders using rifles (single-shot and semi-autos are lumped together so can't tell which does more) since the AWB was not renewed. The average number during the AWB was like 425 per year and the average since 2004 is like 450 per year. In comparison, from 1994 to now, shotguns are used to kill roughly 500 people per year. People never ask for a ban on those even though shotguns kill more people than rifles.

You do realize an AR-15 (AR meaning Armilite, the name of the manufacturer) IS A SINGLE shot, single pull Semi-automatic weapon. NOT A FULL AUTO capable machine gun..
As per the dictionary (Miram webster), and CNBC
An Assault rifle is "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."

The frequency of mass shooting where multiple fatalities (10+) were involved has increased and became more deadly. Also, the incidents of active shooters continue to rise, I'm sure that you can find it in the FBI's stat for the period between 2000 - 2013.

The end result still is that a large number of people still get killed within a short period of time that's equivalent of a small war zone. Despite what some of you trying to telling me about whether a weapon is a single shot or not, the fact of matter is that in my opinion no sane person should own a gun --any gun at all. Btw, when I said 'assault rifle' ---it mean automatic or semi-automatic with large magazines designed originally for military use. Furthermore, a semi-auto can be converted into an auto one even though it's illegal. Need to start a strong regulation with this type of weapon first before considering any legislation on others like hunting type rifle, handguns and such.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The frequency of mass shooting where multiple fatalities (10+) were involved has increased and became more deadly. Also, the incidents of active shooters continue to rise, I'm sure that you can find it in the FBI's stat for the period between 2000 - 2013.

The end result still is that a large number of people still get killed within a short period of time that's equivalent of a small war zone. Despite what some of you trying to telling me about whether a weapon is a single shot or not, the fact of matter is that in my opinion no sane person should own a gun --any gun at all. Btw, when I said 'assault rifle' ---it mean automatic or semi-automatic with large magazines designed originally for military use. Furthermore, a semi-auto can be converted into an auto one even though it's illegal. Need to start a strong regulation with this type of weapon first before considering any legislation on others like hunting type rifle, handguns and such.

Assault rife is by definition not semiautomatic-only. Stop misusing that term. You look like you don't know what you are talking about and discredit people trying to get gun legislation passed.

 

[moviefreak]

Assault rife is by definition not semiautomatic-only. Stop misusing that term. You look like you don't know what you are talking about and discredit people trying to get gun legislation passed.

Just to be more explicit about the terminology around 'assault rifle', the actual meaning according to US Defense Department's Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html#fnb21

"assault rifles" are "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]

While the Defense Intelligence Agency's term of art "assault rifle" has a precise and technical meaning, the phrase "assault weapon" has a less certain meaning. No "assault rifle" (by Defense Intelligence Agency definition) is an "assault weapon" because all "assault rifles" are automatic, while no "assault weapons" are automatic.[26] "Assault rifles" are used by the military, whereas no "assault weapon" is used by the military.[27] "Assault rifles" are all rifles, but "assault weapons" include semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, revolver-action shotguns, semiautomatic handguns, and semiautomatic airguns.

In other words, 'assault rifle' can be either semi-auto or auto.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Just to be more explicit about the terminology around 'assault rifle', the actual meaning according to US Defense Department's Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html#fnb21





In other words, 'assault rifle' can be either semi-auto or auto.

No.

 

[moviefreak]

No.

Let's be clear, you're saying that 'assault rifle' can only be semi-automatic?

 

[squeekness]

the NRA was a confrontational brand, it is now a toxic brand

and there are not many ways to recover

I also love the fact that this is happening during the weekend of CPAC (which is one of the big events that the NRA relies on to drive membership since not many other events will have them anymore)

Fine by me. They've really gotten away from supporting hunting into a lot of far right policies I can't support.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Let's be clear, you're saying that 'assault rifle' can only be semi-automatic?

No. Read my first post. By definition an assault rifle is not semiautomatic only. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not capable of selective fire.

 

[Hotwire]

Hey, if you want to say you think we should ban handguns too, go for it. At least that'd be consistent. Performance-wise, the two sure as **** have more in common than an AR-10 does with a fully-auto *actually* military-grade M-16 or equivalent.

The M-16 is not full-auto. It has three settings: Safe, Semi, Burst. That's it! Soldiers are even prohibited from making it full-auto. As for my question, you seem to have ignored explaining the difference between the two, without bringing up the burst option.

 

[TheCommissioner]

I can make an AR-15 a fully automatic rifle with 10 minutes and 2 springs

I would consider that an "assault" weapon

 

[Thundercrack85]

Which is illegal.

Bu you're missing the point. Misusing terminology - besides misusing it - creates the impression that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[TheCommissioner]

it is a modification that anyone can perform

yes it is illegal, but its not exactly a secret

the more someone insists they NEED to own an AR-15, the less im inclined to believe they are of sound mind

everyone wants the right to own a weapon, but none of the responsibility

 

[TheCommissioner]

im a veteran, ive seen what AR-15, AK-47s and weapons like that can do to the human body, and I was in the Navy, I was nowhere near a combat zone, but Ive helped transport wounded Marines and sailors to medical off choppers and 3 rounds from an AR-15 type weapon can tear a limb apart

 

[TheCommissioner]

Kentucky Rep Chris Harris speaks against NRA, supports gun regulations

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/wa...rump-country-sides-students-gives-rating-nra/