🔫 Firearms: Everything you wanted to know (and the opportunity to ask if you don't)

[Israel_B]

@Mister44

the point is you can buy after market parts for just about every single part of the AR-15, from the large parts like the barrel or rail, right down to springs and the lower receiver pins. This allows one to enjoy their hobby on a different level.

This same level of customizability is what makes the AR/M4 the most popular airsoft rifle. Selling the customization gubbins basically keeps airsoft shops in business according to my friend who works at one. Furthermore he pointed out that they don’t even like to stock airsoft rifles that aren’t customizable since those are less likely to make customers come back to the shop and buy more stuff. Makes me wonder if there isn’t a similar business incentive for small gun shops in the US.

[Mister44]

@emo_pinata

That’s a lot of paranoia when all that is being collected is data.

I REALLY don’t think it is paranoia when there are several historical examples of it happening, including two fairly recently by English speaking countries who people constantly tell me we should work on emulating. And I am sure you read BB regularly, and how there is a general distrust with the government tracking us (domestic surveillance), or access to our information (back doors to devices and encryption.) Those things MIGHT makes us a little safer, but do you want to trust them with that data?

@emo_pinata

No, but I also know that handguns used in murders tend to be laundered legally and we will never know the true impact of the numbers other than what can be gleaned by the ATF failing to even keep track of their own guns they sell for sting operations.

You know, I concede that might be the one area that is impacted. But at the same time I don’t know if the ATF or who ever will actually use the data and go after people. With the current system we have, ~80,000 people were rejected for one reason or another in 2012 via the background check system. Now, some of these people I am sure are fine people. Maybe they got in to trouble 10+ years ago, didn’t realize that precluded them from owning a gun, and then moved on from there. But I have to imagine many of these people more recently got into trouble, should have known they were restricted, and continued to look for a weapon through other means.

Of those 80,000 people, take a guess how many people were investigated and prosecuted? 44. 44 people. Now again, I am not saying that all 80,000 should be locked up per se, but it seems to me that if you want to go after the people most likely to commit gun crime (95%+ of homicide suspects have prior records, at least according to several large city stats), these are those people. Yet they are not proactive in this department. So I have to question if new registration is actually going to DO anything to reduce crime, or just add to the size, cost, and pain in the ass, with the ATF or whoever not going after straw purchases etc. Can we maybe work on using the info we have now to make a difference?

@Otherbrother

For the “personal defense” scenario, please elaborate. Chalk it up to lack of imagination, but I truly can’t think of a plausible personal defense scenario that requires high capacity magazines that can be quickly changed. Frankly, if you can’t effectively defend yourself with a shotgun or revolver I have to wonder what your line of business is.

I know they make it look easy in the movies, but shooting with pistols is hard. You can see this when police shoot at someone and hit them only 10% of the time. I rifle for home defense is certainly a viable option. It is going to be much more accurate than a pistol, and more precises and easier to wield in tight corners than most shot guns (most shot guns have rather long barrels, though they make shorter ones that are defense minded.)

At any rate, you can join the countless internet arguments on which is the most viable option for defense, as there are fans of all three camps. And those who suggest a perimeter of Claymore mines, just to be sure…

@Otherbrother

I appreciate the honest response! I’ve heard so many people say that older style bolt-action rifles, etc, are JUST AS GOOD for mass shootings as AR-15s that I’ve started to wonder why the world’s armies ever bothered to upgrade from flintlock muskets.

I wouldn’t say they are “just as good”, but they can be nearly as deadly. Even old rifles like the M1 Garand from WWII or the Russian SKS have smaller capacity, non removable magazines (8 to 10) but can be loaded quickly with stripper clips. The Austin Bell Tower Sniper used primarily a bolt action, as did Oswald (not a mass shooter, but an assassin). I can imagine someone going in with even an old 1911 with 8-10 round magazines could still hurt a lot of people in a night club, and changing magazines isn’t going to really stop them, as it takes a fraction of a second with some practice. Hell, someone like Jerry Miculek can shoot 12 rounds from a 6 shot revolver in under 3 seconds (though Jerry is a god among men).

So anyway, my point is banning some guns isn’t really going to make us much safer. Going after “assault weapons” is like worrying about a splinter when you left arm is cut off and bleeding out, as they simple are not what most people are using for crime.

@Otherbrother

You are correct that the statistical impact would not be huge. But since we’re talking about human lives here, it would not be insignificant! Imagine if the death toll from the worst of the mass killings could be reduced by 50%, or even by 10%. To me that’s something worth trying to do, especially if the primary negative consequence is inconveniencing a bunch of gun enthusiasts who will still get to go shoot off their rifles like they did before, just needing to reload more often.

Well, we can agree to disagree here. But I simply can’t condemn and pass laws that will mostly affect just the 80 million legal owners who hurt NO ONE. I mean with that logic, should we build a wall with Mexico if it reduces crime and car accidents from illegal immigrants? Should we deport Muslims is it stops half the future terror attack in the US? Should we let the Gov. have access to our devices, ban encryption, etc?

Alcohol is directly responsible for many deaths in both murders and accidents, as well as countless fights, rapes, and long term affects like liver damage. Drunk driving alone kills nearly as many people as gun homicides do per year. Should we ban alcohol? What about making it mandatory every car has one of those breathalyzers to start the car? I personally don’t like motorcycles. I think they are death traps waiting to happen purely for the fact you aren’t protected at all in collisions. Even the safest motorcyclist is at the mercy of road hazards and other drivers. That would save nearly 5000 deaths and nearly 100,000 injuries per year.

In short, it is easy to give something up you have little to no interest in. To suggest we should do something because it may reduced a small number of deaths to an even smaller number of deaths IMHO isn’t necessarily a good reason to do something. Especially when you can show most people who use guns/assault weapons, alcohol, motorcycles, etc manage to do so with out hurting others.

@Otherbrother

1. Full auto weapons have been used in a number of mass murders.

Eh - what are you talking about? Not recently. Back in the 1920s they were used more often. Now they are very rarely used in crime, and I have only found ONE case of a LEGAL machine gun used in a crime, and that was by a cop. (ETA - looks like someone found another one, that is one of those things I need to document better. I should start a blog/resource site that puts this all in one place.) All other examples were people who illegally converted semi-autos.

@Otherbrother

I have yet to hear of one single case where one was used for self defense

Of course they aren’t. Two main reasons:

1. They are super rare and expensive. People who can afford them typically aren’t going to be crime victims.

2. The legal and civil liability would be ENORMOUS. Using one to defend yourself would be a huge “PROSECUTE ME!/SUE ME!” sign. Especially in the less gun friendly states. I know it sounds ridiculous, but there have been people who have are in jail for defending themselves, because the gun they used was deemed too big or too powerful or some other baloney, showing they were just itching for a fight. The example I remember was a guy who had a 10mm handgun, even though the 10mm was what the FBI used for awhile.

But again, I am not trying to overturn the NFA. It would be nice if the process was faster, but what ever. I would also support opening up the registry again, because right now it is purely a rich mans sport.

@Israel_B

This same level of customizability is what makes the AR/M4 the most popular airsoft rifle. Selling the customization gubbins basically keeps airsoft shops in business according to my friend who works at one. Furthermore he pointed out that they don’t even like to stock airsoft rifles that aren’t customizable since those are less likely to make customers come back to the shop and buy more stuff. Makes me wonder if there isn’t a similar business incentive for small gun shops in the US.

Never got into airsoft but I was huge into paintball for awhile. Most guns were customized in some way, and the Autococker was king in that respect. You sell them the gun near cost, and then sell them the high marked up “upgrades”.

Yes, I am sure gun shops love selling accessories, as mark ups on guns are much lower than the mark ups on accessories.

[Israel_B]

@Mister44

Never got into airsoft but I was huge into paintball for awhile.

I’m opposite. I have three airsoft guns:

1. Tokyo Marui Uzi. This is a “collectors piece” as its long out of production. I have one working one and one boneyard one for parts. The working one was made fully operational by the techs at the airsoft shop my friend works at. In the past there was a customization full metal body option but those are long gone. Ebay only and super high prices. Since this is a collectors piece I never take it out to games, only to target shoot.
2. Ares CTAR-21. No internal customization possible but its got rails so it can be accessorized. I foolishly got a red dot sight but havent found it all that useful. Also got a light for the lower side front rail. Is actually handy in CQB games
3. Tokyo Marui Desert Eagle. There are some third party internal customizations available but I’m not that eager. I did look at an after market outer barrel replacement which adds upper and lower rails but then realized that would not be practical at all. I’m not putting an RDS or a light on a airsoft pistol!

I guess I fall into several of your categories. Definitely “collector” since all my airsoft guns are replica Israeli guns as well as plinker/target shooter. Not sure airsoft games really qualify for Tactical. If there was a place that had sport courses I’d love that though.

[Snowlark]

To all: please make your best effort to keep discussion expository rather than argumentative. Explanation of the shift in marketing demographics for the AR-15 is within the scope of this thread; debate over whether they should be legal is not.

[emo_pinata]

[quote=“rkt88edmo, post:36, topic:81191”]
Person to Person private property sales are not subject to the background check and record retention and are what is commonly being referred to when you hear about “the gunshow loophole”.
[/quote]Right, which is why I’m talking about a solution to that loophole.

[quote=“Mister44, post:42, topic:81191”]
Those things MIGHT makes us a little safer, but do you want to trust them with that data?
[/quote]Pretty much. Registering a handgun and keeping a certificate of ownership, regularly re-registering your armaments, and being voluntold that your data is being used to drive gun legislation is a hell of a lot better than you saying all gun laws are stupid because stupid people do things stupidly.

You’re comparing the registration of a weapon with the NSA data-mining phone conversations, justice systems collecting DNA indiscriminately, etc. There’s a difference between your significantly dangerous hobby implement being regulated in a manner that you get to have it for everything you want - including defense, and the mass collection of surveillance data. I didn’t say they would literally install electronics into a weapon to track it. Are you against EZ-Tags for toll collection too?

Whats’ worse is you advocate looking into the people turned away from gun ownership preemptively instead of simply allowing the government to track firearms more easily.

[anon26304152]

@Mister44

but I really wanted to work on my Stormtrooper armor

We see you don’t fall under the Marksmanship category…

[noahdjango]

jealous of your trip, enjoy!

your dad’s cars are super cool, too

[Otherbrother]

@rkt88edmo

Extended firefights in self defense scenarios are also extremely rare.

Yes, they are! In fact, I’ll bet I can easily list more examples of extended firefights in which the shooter was using the weapon in an offensive, mass-killing scenario than you or anyone else here can give examples of extended firefights where a civilian is using their gun in a primarily defensive scenario. I might be wrong, and I challenge you to show it! Pick whatever time frame you want, but if you go back more than a year or so it make take a while for me to put my list together.

@Mister44

Full auto weapons have been used in a number of mass murders.

Eh - what are you talking about? Not recently. Back in the 1920s they were used more often.

Ok, both you and @Max_Blancke seem to have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. I know that they haven’t been used much for mass murders recently. I attribute that to the success of the NFA in keeping automatic weapons from being widely available to the general public. I think the past mass murders committed with automatic weapons were good justification for the NFA, and that the resulting drop in machine gun murders has shown the NFA to be helpful. You don’t need to agree with the conclusion, but do you understand the point I was trying to make?

[Otherbrother]

@MikeTheBard

The other big thing for you seems to be capacity, and here’s where things break down a bit, because clips are somewhat standardized, and of all the parts of the gun, one of the easiest to fabricate- As in, give me a $30 Home Depot gift card and a couple hours in the average garage, and I’ll be able to make you a nice 30 round clip to replace the 10 round one that comes with your hunting rifle. A little bit of kludging, and I could probably whip up a drum magazine that will hold 100.

And this is one of the primary problems with gun control- That the average person who wants to see something done knows about as much about firearms as a republican senator does about women’s reproductive health.

Ok, I have to say that I find that comment pretty damn condescending. I’m all for consulting with experts for well-written, technical legislation, but how much chemistry do you think a lawmaker needs to know before advocating for restrictions on the availability of dynamite? Knowledge of the inner workings of a semi-automatic weapon are a similar issue. For the record, I’m a mechanical engineer and have plenty of experience in a machine shop. I’ve designed and built some pretty intricate machinery, and I’m absolutely certain that I’d be able to kludge together an extended magazine, or for that matter a functional (if perhaps a little crappy) home-built automatic weapon. That doesn’t mean that I think that laws restricting the availability of such things are useless. As @Brainspore likes to say, just because we can’t make obtainment of certain weaponry by bad guys impossible, that doesn’t mean we should allow it to be trivial. For whatever reason, a lot of the characters who’ve been committing these horrific acts just haven’t demonstrated some of the careful, methodical planning and skill that is associated with crafting powerful, home-built weapons. Authorities have noted finding “bomb making materials” at the homes of some recent assailants. But that extra work of DYI bomb-making seemed to be too much effort, or else the San Bernardino and Houston shooters might have been even more destructive. I’m pretty glad that the days where just anyone could by a stick of dynamite at the hardware store are over.

[Otherbrother]

@MikeTheBard

As for your second question, I’m probably the wrong person to ask, since I’m likely to be arguing on the side of something unnecessarily dangerous.

Actually, it’s the thought process of those furthest on the “make it all legal” end of the spectrum that I’m MOST interested in hearing. My theory is that everyone (barring the insane) has some point on the weapon spectrum at which they will say “no, the destructive capacity of that particular weapon and its danger to society outweigh any possible self-defense or recreational benefits, and I believe that some restrictions should be put in place on civilian ownership.” I want to hear the logic behind how you, personally, make that distinction. I’m well aware that I won’t change any minds here. I just want to know what’s going on inside people’s heads, especially those that think most differently than I do.

Thanks

[enso]

But does it work for southpaws?

[JonasEggeater]

Yep, one of the many customizations is an ambidextrous lower receiver.

[MikeTheBard]

@Otherbrother

I find that comment pretty damn condescending. I’m all for consulting with experts for well-written, technical legislation, but how much chemistry do you think a lawmaker needs to know before advocating for restrictions on the availability of dynamite?

Well, frankly, that’s what I’m talking about with the difference between broad versus narrow legislation:

A lawmaker doesn’t need to know much of anything to pass a good effective law that says “you need a license to purchase any explosive, except fireworks already defined in statute X”. That’s a simple guideline that anyone can write, and anyone can understand well enough to enforce.

They do, however, need a requisite amount of knowledge to pass a law that specifies how many grams of which compounds are to be classified as what type of explosive, and which type of fuse is or is not allowed to be used with each. Those are technical definitions and conditions- they can’t be written without technical knowledge, and they can be challenged by anyone with a greater knowledge than the lawmaker who wrote them. To write that type of law, yes, the lawmaker needs some knowledge of chemistry.

If someone comes out and says “I don’t think civilians should be allowed to own firearms at all”, I can respect that. If they want to require training, or licensing, or background checks, or mental health evaluations, that’s fine- I can get behind that, because everybody should be able to sit down and come to a consensus about what a background check is, regardless of whether they know a .22 from a bazooka. It’s when people start talking about rate of fire and magazine capacity out of context, or use the terms “semi-auto” and “machine gun” interchangeably, that I’m just like “no, no, you have no idea what you’re talking about and are just making shit worse”.

@Otherbrother

I want to hear the logic behind how you, personally, make that distinction.

I think that citizens should have the ability to pacify their government, not the other way around. There are two parts to that: Better armed, trained, and invested civilians (think the Swiss model), and a smaller, weaker standing military.

I was going to elaborate on that, but this has me seeing red and I’m not sure I can speak rationally. I don’t want to sound like I’m advocating shooting cops or open rebellion, but ask yourself what’s the difference between this:

and this:

In one of these situations, the police can do whatever they want and know they won’t face any repercussions. In the other one, they know that if they allow the situation to escalate, they may be among the casualties. In only one of those scenarios do they have any incentive to seek a peaceful solution.

Seriously- Go to that first link. That’s not police protection. That’s an occupying army. That’s happening right now on American soil.

I believe that you and I and anyone else should physically have the ability to make that not happen.

[Mister44]

More replies later for other stuff but for you:

YES. Stag Arms is the main maker of left handed ARs, where the upper is reversed and spits the shells out on the left. IIRC the magazine, bolt release, and safety are also switched (though you can also get ambidextrous controls for ARs now.) They also recently came out with their own 9mm version.

[enso]

I hate ambidextrous controls. I learned to shoot with damned right handed weapons too.

[rkt88edmo]

The sinister handed have no rights.

[enso]

@rkt88edmo

The sinister handed have no rights.

[Mister44]

I find them very useful on pistols. Especially mag releases and safeties.

The AR controls though are more cumbersome and ugly. EXCEPT there is at least one company that makes a custom lower that has ambi controls that are actually an integrated design, not tacked on.

[enso]

All I ever wanted in life was a left handed 1911A.

That’s not actually true but it would have been nice.

That said, being a Californian citizen of Oakland and a Buddhist, I’m not sure I need another firearm.

[dave_b]

Mad minute