Gun builds and technology

yup. and there’s been zero – literally zero – change in gun technology since then. what i said was:

and guns now are exactly like they were then. /s

i can’t believe you think that gun technology hasn’t changed in the ways i stated. that would be a wild claim, and i don’t even know how to have a conversation if you pretend reality is whatever you say it is.

on that i agree.

there are literally more guns than people in the united states now ( eta: and they are less well regulated.) to pretend this is normal is ahistorical.


At one point, while the AR-15 and derivatives were banned, the IWI Tavor and the venerable SKS were not. While the SKS is a semi auto rifle, it does not come with a detachable magazine, you can get stock kits that place the receiver and barrel into a new stock that now accepts removable magazines. The Tavor is a bullpup design that uses AR style mags and has all of the same functionality, though it looks way different. I remember watching AvE where he was showing off an AR looking firearm made in Canada, but it was functionally a little different and didn’t use interchangeable parts.

This may have changed recently because I know they did add things to the prohibited list last year. But it illustrates the issue with selectively trying to whack a mole specific weapons. You ban one, but for some reason don’t add another that works more or less the same way. Or a new design comes out that is not on the list. Then you have the issue that they are now experiencing where you bought a rifle that was legally imported into Canada, you got the proper licenses etc, and they legally sold it to you, and with a stroke of a pen you now own a prohibited weapon. :confused:

Sure they were. They were using Thompsons and sawed down Browning BARs. It was why the 1934 NFA act was enacted and they were taxed out of the range of ownership for most people with what equates to a $3800 tax. But yes, there were a plethora of designs back then of semi autonomic, magazine fed rifles. Only a handful of guns from 100 years ago are remembered now, but you had dozens of makers in the US and Europe coming up with new designs every year. Same with handguns and the like.

Sure, the AR platform is more common today, but it was available and affordable for most people since the 60s. Other platforms like the Mini-14 were even more common for the longest time.

Look here - Harrods Catalog - 1912, page 460. Winchester Model 1907 or 1910, magazines fed semi-automatic rifle delivered to your door in the UK for a bit over 5 pounds - which would be about a bit under 600 pounds today - which is a bit over $800. The price of an “average” AR today.

Point is - they were available and had less restrictive laws.

Point to me a period of time where we had more restrictive gun laws and how much better the crime rate was. Which laws are you talking about and when were theses laws “gutted”? If you’re going to mention the AWB, that sunset, and it didn’t actually ban assault rifles, it banned certain features. For the most part gun laws have only have only increased. Colorado has a magazine size limit, for example, passed in 2013.

The only real loosening is the ability for people to legally CCW. Not that the laws before prevented anyone who wanted to carry from doing so.

You can say you want more restrictive laws. Fine. Go on with your bad self. But making a point that isn’t true isn’t help your point.

(Apologies-- my split went wrong. @Mister44’s post should have been first in topic, @gatto’s reply should have been second. The conversation makes more sense that way. :flushed:)


I think that detachable magazines should also be banned outright- no civilian should need more than 10 bullets for hunting or self-defense purposes.


Who wants to play Fuck, Marry, Kill?

Am I doing this right?


I agree with you in spirit, but at least in our household, the magazine is a fundamental aspect of gun safety.

Before a firearm can be brought back into the house, the magazine is removed, and the chamber is cleared, locked open, and visually verified as such from two angles. Then the weapon and the magazine are stored separately. There is no place in my home that I want a dusty pile of .22 ammo lying around, and I have no desire to load ten of those little fuckers every time I go outside to play Defender Of The Flock, considering that A) I don’t insert the magazine until after I have walked away from the house, and 2) I only chamber a round about 0.1% of the time (i.e., only when I have spotted an actual predator).

this is what the ar556 pistol configuration looks like


Here’s how it looks as a rifle.


These pictured models are configured for 5.56 NATO. Not sure why it would make much of a difference in a legal sense.


I dont know, but maybe calling what is essentially a sawed-off rifle a “pistol” allows you to concealed-carry? You know, in case the Queen invades or something.


Yeah, I looked up the Rugers, too. When I looked up the definition of “pistol” it said something about a firearm designed to be used with one hand, and I didn’t think the Ruger “pistol” qualified, but maybe I’m a weakling.
I’ll stick with my slingshot, anyway.


Here is the legal differences of the two and why:

When the 1934 NFA was being crafted, along with fully automatic firearms, they wanted to restrict handguns as well. Basically anything easily concealable they wanted to add to the NFA registry. They crafted language to include Short Barreled Rifles (SBR) and Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS), setting minimums for both barrel sizes and overall length. This would prevent people from working around the restrictions, and making their rifle or shot gun too short easier to conceal.

The language for restricting handguns was dropped from the NFA, but the SBR and SBS language was left in. In most states you can still get an SBR or SBS, you can even build one yourself, but you have to register it with the ATF, pay a $200 tax, and wait 6-9months on average for a background check.

Before 2013, if you wanted a super short AR, you bought a “pistol”, which is very short AR with no stock, but the needed buffer tube sticking out.(See the top part of the pic below.) Even though I used quotes around pistol, these are classified federally as pistols and thus fall under the same restrictions of other handguns (must be over 21,etc).

In 2013 Sig Sauer came out with the Sig Brace (See the bottom part of the pic). This was a device designed to wrap around the forearm and help brace the pistol for one handed shooting. The ATF approved the device. People then of course asked the question, “What if I put this on my shoulder and use it as a stock?” And after a bit of waffling, the ATF concluded that if the device was designed and approved to be used as a brace, then it is a pistol brace, even if there was “incidental use” of it as a shoulder stock. Basically they can’t stop you from using it wrong.

So, since then several more companies make similar braces, most of them approved by the ATF, and the ATF more or less made the SBR designation redundant.

So the reason for the top item is it is $200 cheaper and you don’t have to wait 6-9months to own one.

I don’t think its classification as a pistol would matter in regards to being able to legally conceal carry it. I am not aware of a state that has language that allows CCW, but does not allow that weapon to be a rifle. I could be wrong on that.

Some of you may be pleased to know that the legality of that brace could literally change overnight with the ATF changing their decision on the matter and saying adding a brace to your pistol would make it an SBR. This is what happened with the “bump stocks” under Trump. Anyone owning one would have to remove it, and then register their lower as an SBR if they wanted to add it or a regular stock back on.


Of course there has been manufacturing improvements, as well as performance improvements. But the improvements aren’t so drastic that the technology to shoot a bunch of people didn’t exist back then. That is my point. Even if I concede this point that older guns weren’t in the same class - the AR-15 was out in the 1960s. The technology is literally so old you can buy AR-15s made before 1971 with a Curios and Relics license and not have to go through a traditional FFL.

Their availability, in that more people own them, is greater now, true. But anyone who wanted one could buy an AR for over the last 50s years, or similarly capable firearm for over the last 100 years.

The existence or availability of the thing isn’t what is new.

I am not really sure your two posts back up your assertion that gun laws have been “gutted”.

First off, the National Firearms Act of 1934 the first article mentions at first is still in full force, and more restrictive thanks to the additions in the FOPA law. Thanks for the interesting article though, as I was not aware that 7-10 states defined machine guns differently and/or included semi-autos in their bans. My question is - when were those laws changed? It must have been decades and decades ago. Not in the more recent times when mass shooting have become more prevalent.

The wild west laws I was aware of - and there are still municipalities who have their own different restrictions. I did say the one area where we have enumerated more rights was CCW laws.

Are you really citing laws from the 1930s or late 1800s that were change decades ago as what you meant by “gutting” gun control laws? Do the dozens (hundreds) of state and federal laws passed since then not add to my point?

There may be more guns, but the percentage of gun owners is actually down in the last 50 years (ownership data is murky, but here are two sources.)

1 Like

What if you’re defending yourself from the national guard or 30-50 feral hogs (cops run in packs after all)


Oops! No worries. Thanks for the split.

ETA - I already replied to that question before I saw there was a split. If you want to shove all of them in go ahead.

Let’s face it. The REAL ACTUAL REASONS people want high capacity magazine ARs with all the bells and whistles is:

  1. They are a fun toy designed for killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
  2. Afraid dick is too smol.
  3. Wild fantasies of feeling good shooting other people.
  1. If one’s identity itself is tied up in firearms, then one cannot be harmed despite causing harm to others. An AR-15 feels no pain.

dildo range


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.