4 Likes
I don’t think gun legislation should attempt that level of specificity. I think that’s a losing game because the more specific you get, the easier it is to end round. Narrow focus on the guns rather than their effects, and systems around them leaves too little addressed. And frankly once you narrow in on the real practical nugget for stuff like assault weapons. Its often impossible to conceive of a direct way to regulate it in isolation. That would actually have any meaningful impact at all.
I do think you need to have a specific end point, or framework worked out. So that practical bits and pieces can be pushed. A pathway really. But the more I think it over the more it seems like broader is better.
1 Like
Ok, so let me ask a question. I am a gun owner, shotgun because skeet is fun, a .22 because armies of groundhogs think my garden is their salad bar. In both these endeavors, as with hunting writ large, the whole idea is precision of placement. I have never handled an assault-style rifle, but it does seem that a large capacity magazine would throw off the balance and make the weapon less precise and less useful as a tool for hunting. I am well aware that “it seems” often does not translate to “it is,” so I ask is this logic sound? And if so, does this not counter the idea of 30-100 round magazines for hunting?
2 Likes
The three vectors to look at as far as “capabilities” is rate of fire, size of magazine, and easy of reload. A fourth might be “power of cartridge”.
A lever action or pump action weapon can have medium capacity, pretty high rate of fire, but slower reload time. (See Chuck Conners in “The Rifleman” or for real life, the SASS action shooters who all shoot archaic “wild west” type weapons.)
Anything with a removable magazine makes reloading faster. IMO it almost makes magazine limits more or less moot. I shoot action pistols and purposefully limit myself to a 9 round magazine, which means I have to reload multiple times in a stage, where as someone with a standard Glock can shoot 17 rounds or more before the have to reload. The time differences between people of similar skills are negligible. There is also the issue that one can now 3D print magazines for many popular rifles and some pistols (with varying degrees of success). It’s a box of metal or plastic - it is going to be hard to regulate if there is a national ban. But there are several states that do have magazine capacity limits. (IIRC NY and CA, one can look up the others.)
Among bolt actions, the most common rifle type, you usually have slower loading, slower firing, but generally better accuracy. They do make removable magazines for some of them, but most are the internal box magazine that hold 3-5 rounds.
So i agree with your point on what one should look at, but still not sue how one would draw the lines.
Whew, you’re asking for a huge expense that is going to be low yield. While this is speculation, I am think it is a reasonable assumption to assume the average person using their guns for crime can go a whole year on a box of ammo. Where as people into sport or plinking can go through hundreds in a day/match.
I suppose if you had to show ID like you do to buy Sudafed, and it was tied to NICS, it could block sales to felons and other restricted persons. Or like the tweakers, they just get someone clean to buy it. At least it would ween out the slow ones.
I’d also contend there is little difference between someone who has 500 rounds and someone who has 10,000. You said you were in the military, right? What was your average load out? 210 rounds? Even if you doubled that you have under 500 on you. You couldn’t physically carry 10,000 rounds with you. I guess if you wanted to do some sort of Waco style shut in, you have a point, but as far as mass shooters go, worrying about 10,000 rounds is pointless.
And for anyone wondering, no, 500 rounds isn’t anything to raise an eyebrow about. 500 rounds is a good sale on 9mm. 500 rounds is what you bring to an action shoot match. My dad probably has 500 rounds made up of 25 boxes, each of a different caliber and from 5 different decades.
Split this topic if you want to get into, but an armed populace doesn’t have to actually be able to STOP a government if there is an all out war. Never mind the gunships, what sort of optics and public reaction would we have if the military started shooting armed civilians? Do you remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? Even though those two example were against wackadoos, people were pretty upset at how they were handled. Indeed it changed the FBIs protocols for those sorts of events. Again, I am not a “WOLVERINES!” sort of person. But I also don’t dismiss how an armed populace affect the power dynamics. If you want to reply to this, split the topic so I don’t get accused of derail. Thanks.
Respectfully, most of this is not minutia. This is the reality of what is out there that people are asking to regulate. I believe if one wants to have any hopes of moving something through, it needs to be very well crafted.
Ok, fair point, but the politicians have a history of crafting TERRIBLE laws. The AWB is a real world example.
Right, that’s what I’m doing, although I wouldn’t call myself an “expert” per se.
If someone says, “ban assault weapons” I just told them what they would have to ban and the scope of it. If they say, “ban military grade weapons”, I just told them what that entails. I also told them what people would shift to in that event.
I agree with this. We already ban felons from possession, and domestic violence, even misdemeanor offenses, gets you removed. There is a problem where reporting of these offenses to the NICS registry isn’t always 100%. Nor do they usually follow up with ownership after a domestic violence conviction.
I am a bit wary of a red flag law, but if it was properly crafted, I could get behind it. If one can lose their rights just because a neighbor knows you have guns and doesn’t like it - that’s bad. If one can lose their rights because they have been menacing or making threats or close family/friends worry about suicide, I could see that being a temporary measure to put a pause on rights. But it HAS to go beyond just that.
Is someone suicidal or possibly mentally ill? They need mandated help. You can’t just put their rights in limbo and then abandon them. Is this a temporary thing due to a break up or a job loss, or a chronic thing? Is this some mental disorder that will never be “cured” and it should be a permanent suspension? Was someone making threats or acting menacing? They need to be actually tried and convicted and make it official. Make some of these misdemeanors that are still tied to the suspension of rights. Or are they bad enough they should be a felony threat?
I disagree with this logic because so many laws crafted in effort to do something for security have just robbed people of civil liberties, though I do understand the point of view.
Most likely, yes. And some token law, like the bump stock ban, really does nothing to make anyone safer. There is this uphill battle because of the 2nd Amendment making it a right, so anything broad is going to face a constitutional challenge.
I am thinking a licensing system would be the most likely thing that would pass a constitutional challenge. It also is something people like me would grumble about, but not actually march in the street for. I already have two firearm related licenses.
I still contend that requiring private sales to go through NICS isn’t going to curb much crime. People who are knowingly selling to shady people aren’t going to stop doing that because it’s against the law (they are already breaking the law.) It may stop a guy from selling to a restricted person, not knowing they were restricted. We don’t have any data on how often that happens, but anecdotally, when BST groups were a thing on FB shady characters were scorned and booted. Most people wanted to see a CCW permit.
But as far as new laws go, requiring NICS on private, face to face sales would leave me grumbling, but not in the streets with a sign. Although I would request that NICS check could be run by citizens on the web and a receipt of the check could be presented with the sale.
I believe this to be true as well.
Yeah, now, with the AR platform a big as it is, they have changed it to meet the new market.
I mean, technically back in the day they did have versions that had all those features. Ever watch the A-Team? That’s what they used, folding stock Mini-14s. In 1994 the most popular model was the wood stocked version and it had the reputation of being a “ranch gun”. Something fairly rugged and reliable, so-so accuracy but cheaper and less “what do you need THAT for” than an AR-15. You’re right in that the capabilities are basically the same. The AWB was largely semantics. The whole “10 round” limit is from a comment Bill Ruger made that “no one needs more than 10 rounds” - something he was crucified for later.
BTW “what do you need THAT for?” was the most common reaction for military style weapons by the average gun owner in the 90s. IMO, the ban actually propelled them into popularity.
Why not? The potential is there. We had a goddamn president assassinated with one. You’re right that if one were to chose, they might stick to an AR style weapon. But if that was not an option, the bolt action rifle is extremely capable. For mass shootings, your standard Glock type pistol - which has been used in the past. Or shot guns. At those types of ranges, buck shot is just terrible. You’re never going to remove the danger if the zeitgeist is now “I want to go out and hurt a lot of people.” They will use the best method available.
You’re right, the designated marksman are on the 5.56 platform with Mk 12s and the like. Snipers use a mix of the old bolt action M24s, updated M-14s, or the new M110 based on the AR-10. They also updated their bolt actions to include the Mk 21 in .338 Lapua (I won’t get into the Barretts) So yes, they have transitioned to semi-autos, but are also using bolt actions. For over 100 years they were using bolt actions, many of them with accuracy that if you had today in a new rifle you would return it for having a defective barrel.
A 30 round magazine doesn’t throw off the balance because it was designed for it. Something like that 100 round cmag makes it more front heavy, yes. Honestly the barrel is the biggest factor on the weight and balance. Do you have bolt actions with tapered and bull barrels? Same sort of thing. The military styled barrels tend to be lighter. The make heavier barrels for sport and hunting. Typically the thicker the barrel the more consistent the accuracy is and the less likely it is to move as the barrel heats up. And then people throw crap on the fronts and back shifting the weight because it’s like legos and they swap parts all the time.
The heaviest one I have seen was one set up for National Match, with a 20" bull barrel and lead weights in the butt stop and forearem. But those are heavy because of their marksman use, you wouldn’t want to lug that in the woods.
As to your last question, how far does the speedometer go in your car? Would you ever get that needle all the way to the right of the dial on the highway?
First off, in some states, they have ammo limits when hunting - depending on the game. Like a lot of bird hunting you can have 3 shells in the shot gun. Deer hunting you can have 5 rounds. They make 5 round mags for ARs, or even if there is no restriction, no one is actually loading up a full 30 rounder. A 5 or 10 round magazine will not snag in the brush as much. So just because you gun CAN carry 100 rounds, doesn’t mean you actually USE it that way when hunting. (And for comparison, a lever action .357 holds 10 rounds in its tubular magazine.)
Which we should turn over to people who study these issues, both with a working knowledge of gun violence, gun control, and gun minutia. Do you really expect the entire population to be consumate experts in every single piece of legislation that comes up? We can be more knowledgeable, sure, but we don’t need to be Phd level experts on every single thing that gets voted on. That is part of the reason why we have a division of labor in a deeply complicated society, because it is literally impossible to be an expert at everything.
Because often times, they are driven by ideology instead of facts. When politicians do their job properly, and manage to balance their political views with actual facts grounded in robust research, they do a much better job in creating legislation.
Again, do I have to be an expert on that to know that we need to DO something, and that gun control needs to be part of that? Or do I have to shut the fuck up if I don’t need the ins and outs of every little bit of information regarding guns? Because If I have to shut up, we no longer live in a democracy…
6 Likes
Clearly the Second Amendment nuts out there have never bothered to read it. It’s only 27 words long and the second and third words are, “well regulated”.
7 Likes
Any mention of Negativland deserves more than the 1 like that I can give.
5 Likes
You have participated in enough discussions on the subject to be aware that there are many people here who own guns and have a good working knowledge of them. Heck, even I know not to call a rifle a gun, but let’s not nitpick.
As for the rest of the users, even those who couldn’t tell a trigger sear from a magazine follower spring know that guns fire little pieces of metal (“bullets”) that can kill and maim, which is why we are talking about them here.
Exactly. Fiddling around with narrow definitions of specific firearms or features is accepting the other side’s definition of the problem and their fatalistic argument that nothing will work because people will just do [ x ]. You don’t go into a negotiation starting from the other guy’s position. You state your own.
@Mister44, you have repeatedly stated your position: essentially no change to existing gun accessibility.
Here’s mine:
-
Handguns. Ban them. Semiautos, revolvers, single shot, ban them all. There is no reason for civilians to have handguns compelling enough to outweigh the harm they do.
1(a). “Aha,” you say, “Gotcha already. Define a handgun.” Good point. I’ll rephrase. Ban all firearms that in their shortest configuration have a length less than 24 inches (US units for obvious reasons).
-
Semiautomatics. (This term has been so frequently discussed in mainstream media that I won’t bother with a definition.) Ban them. Ban them all.
-
Removable magazines. Ban them. This will stop Mr. Clever Gun Tinkerer looking at clause 2 above and producing a .30-30 lever action with a 100-round drum magazine (“The gun that won the Walmart”).
-
Ban firearms that can hold more than two or three rounds, individually fed.
-
Require licencing of owners and registration of all firearms.
-
Second Amendment? Here we go. Throw it out. It didn’t come from God. It’s a document created by men for the conditions applying in the 18th century, and misinterpreted in the latter half of the 20th century.
What are we left with? Conventional rifles and shotguns, such as the majority of hunting weapons. It’s hard to make the argument that a shotgun is inadequate for home defense. Defense on the street? Sorry, you don’t get to carry your guns on the street. We are all safer if that’s not allowed.
Issues of registration, background checks, red flags, exceptions for special requirements, etc to be worked out by the legislators.
A radical dream? No, I’ve just described laws not very different from those in most civilized countries. Will it fly in America? Of course not, silly, because Americans. I’m perfectly aware of that.
13 Likes
Describe the function of each part shown here, and submit draft legislation for each to address the issue of gun violence. Then we’ll talk. /s
9 Likes
“Belongs to NRA”—that’s a huge red flag right there.
1 Like
Every one needs to stop thinking about this in terms of stopping crime. If the measure of a criminal law was whether it can prevent all instances of the act it criminalizes, or preclude the violation of the law itself. We’d have legalized murder by now.
More over most of the things we regulate in the ways that people are suggesting we regulate guns aren’t regulated with that in mind at all, or as the major driver. We don’t regulate cars and driving due to their potential use in crime. We do so primarily for public safety, and a host of other factors like environmental impact. Even things like explosives and dangerous chemicals are not primarily regulated on grounds of crime, even as that’s a consideration in precisely how we regulate particular explosive and chemicals.
The tendency to boils this all down to crime and whether it can prevent it in general, as opposed to mitigating its impacts and format. Is a canard. A canard that does two things. It re-frames the conversation down to one of those very specific things, that becomes practically impossible to effect. Because substantially laws do not prevent crimes. They can disincentive particular actions by making them criminal, and offer legal redress when they happen anyway.
And of course it shoves the determination back down into the personal protection mentality. Where crime is everywhere, everyone is always at risk from unpreventable violent crime. And guns are the solution. Basically its a approach to looking at the issue that ensures only one side of it gets heard.
Meanwhile the crime rate is the lowest its every been, and we are well aware that such things track more with social and economic issues and are more impacted by policing methods and policy level stuff like regulatory frame works than they are by putative criminal justice and whether every house is armed to the teeth. A disproportionate amount of fire arms deaths in this country are the result of suicides and accidents. Which are for the most part non-criminal. Those criminal shootings we have happen disproportionately within households or close associates. And in particular with in romantic relationships with a history of domestic violence.
While mass and spree killings are still comparatively rare in terms of individual risk, a disproportionate amount of them in the US (as compared to other nations) involve not just guns, but very particular guns. And that is both in terms of classic, often personally motivated, spree killings (where blunt object, fire, and knives are often most common) and in the terror attacks (where vehicles, bombs, and sabotagey things like fire and derailings are more frequent outside the US, even in places with access to guns).
So “crime” of the type we’re supposed to focus on in this, is very much not the issue. As random street crime and even organized crime aren’t a particularly big driver of the safety issues here, and frankly aren’t all that much of a presence for most individuals. Or even the population in total. But sticking to those shootings for a moment. At this point we’re used to hearing that these people would have passed a background check, or been able to get a permit, and required their gun (technically) legally. Though there have been exceptions. But a good portion of these shooters did not pass a background check, and did not have a permit. They did not even undergo one, and a permit was not required for one reason or another. And this is a little more pertinent to the background checks. But even though most of these guys could have easily acquired a gun through the background check system, they did not. They still sought out a background check-less purchase, whether private or gun show to acquire that gun. This is apparently a much bigger issue in those domestic violence shootings, where even where there is a record and rulings barring some one from owning guns (or at least purchasing new ones). They always seem to end up getting them back, or pop up with a gun acquired through personal transfer, or a trip out of state.
That’s the entire thing behind the whole straw purchase thing, every transfer involved there may be entirely legal. But the entire idea is exploit the mish mash of inconsistent regulations we have, which vary heavily even within states to avoid these sorts of checks. And often enough to do so legally. Even outside that system (which yes does involve a lot of illegal sales, and gun running for organized crime). There’s an awful lot of people ordering online, seeking out gun shows, pulling private sales on the secondary market, the whole home built/ghost gun thing, who are specifically doing so to avoid the paper trail. Even though they don’t need to. And while a fair bit of that is probably standard anti-government paranoia, and ultimately harmless. For the shooters and our wive beaters there’s a pretty obvious reason why.
You can’t seize a gun if you don’t know or can’t establish that it exists. And warnings about risky behavior and threats carry a lot less weight when there’s no “holy shit he just bought 12 guns” moment.
What you’re looking at is a massive inter-state commerce problem, where the laws of one area are undermined by another. As well as a big gaping, often totally legal hole in the practical apparatus for enforcement, and practical attempts to impact public safety and the real crime modalities that are a day to day problem. Which is exactly the sort of thing that is the purview of the federal government, and requires plugging those holes nationally.
Do we though? Cause domestic violence is a curiously common precursor to that vast bulk of murders and shootings that are perpetrated by some one closely known to the victim (and almost always a significant other statistically).
While conviction with certain charges related to domestic violence will prevent you from passing a background check, and see a fire arms license revoked and guns seized/surrendered. That is a very hard thing to make happen. Aside from cultural and institutional bars to actually carrying it out. Most domestic violence goes unreported and uncharged. While the sort of no-charges filed, repeated police report history most habitual abusers have creates a paper trail and a public record. What it typically doesn’t do is flag a background check, or (most of the time) provide a legal basis for removing guns for a household. When it does, often if there is assumed to be an immediate danger or a fire arm was involved in the incident, when those charges aren’t filed. Or the abuser doesn’t get convicted. Those guns go back. Usually in pretty short order.
On top of that when we’re looking at these thing. A lot of the time a fire arm is purchased, frequently enough legally, in the lead up to the attack (think real hard about those loop holes). The most dangerous period for a victim of domestic violence is the 3 months after they leave, 2nd most dangerous is in and around any attempt at redress. Whether that is just calling the police, or actually filing charges and fighting hard to make them stick.
Domestic violence runs through a well understood escalation cycle. And calls to police, out reach to family, or intervention of strangers, tends to happen during peaks of escalation. That intervention deprives the abuser of control, and they seek to reassert that control by escalating further. The more control taken away, the more brutal the escalation. And it is more common that not for a gun to be acquired, legally, during this escalation. Or after some one has left. Which means that the opportunity to remove that gun from the equation is often already passed, even if it is acquired in legal fashion. It becomes much harder to predict and prevent if that gun is, legally, acquired without a paper trail.
And we see this dynamic a lot with the mass shooters. There are plenty of exceptions. But the bulk of these guys seem to acquire the gun in the lead up and planning stages not long before they carry out the attack. Again if that is done in a totally legal way, that none the less lacks a paper trail. All those other warning signs we keep hearing were flagged in the lead up. Well they look like something a lot different.
This is a pretty major hole. And the “red flag” and associated fire arms restraining orders under discussion actually come out of discussions on how to plug it. Often time with these domestic abuse murders, where there is any history of police interaction at all. The authorities know full well what is likely to happen. If not that it is going to happen, which is itself often pretty fucking clear. And provided they care (not caring being one of the problems here), there is often very little they can do. We do not have a legal frame work, and the criminal justice system often does not have the authority, to do things that are known to be necessary. When they are necessary, or for long enough to prevent it. Flagging such people in the background check systems. And allowing victims or authorities to request courts remove known guns and suspend fire arms licenses for fixed terms (longer than is currently possible). Is one proposal for how to do that.
And it will not work without universal background checks.
The GOP seems bound and determined to move that over to a mental health flag. And that is a part of the original concept, in part originally targeted at suicides which often have a really similar dynamic in terms of when guns are acquired and difficulty of getting them out of the house. Also at “danger to others” and other temporary psych hold sort of things that apply more directly to the domestic violence circumstance. And the fact that threats of suicide, and even suicide attempts are one method abusers use to manipulate victims and assert control, and often occur in the lead up to violent escalation and killings. But the current discussion seems to want to wedge it into a nebulously useful, disturbing, people with routine psych problems can’t have guns direction. Even though the bulk of the mass shooters aren’t the sort of crazy bananas that makes some one a danger to the public.
This is also the major reason we instituted wait periods and more intense licensing and registration for hand guns in the 90’s. Hand guns at the time were vastly over represented in all of this. But especially in the suicides and the murder by associates (which are disproportionately connected to domestic violence).
There’s nothing much the law can do to convince these people, or prevent them from making the attempt. But it can make it more difficult for them to do so, and create a regulatory frame work that makes it possible to intercede.
I would not go by TV. Prop armories have to comply with the same regulations as everyone else, and bans on automatic and some other classes of weapons mean that they’re garnering supply of anything automatic or similarly restricted on the same “pre-ban” basis as anyone/where else.
What this means is that actual, real world accurate, military weapons are in short supply. And what a prop armory stocks is tied intimately to its licensing level. This makes certain props, and certain prop houses more expensive. It’s relatively common to purchase newly manufactured, legal, non-military fire arms and customize them to either more closely resemble military weapons they were derived from. Or substitute them (you see a lot of long barreled semi-auto MP5 derivatives). Or on the budget end purchase common military enough weapons, and bolt unrelated parts and cosmetic shit to them to make them look like plausibly military.
Mini-14s were a popular option for that in the 70’s an 80’s because they were cheaply available, especially used. But almost anything you see like that is entirely custom done by a prop house rather than something off the shelf. Lower the budget the more common that was, and anything produced for a film was often sold off to or reused by TV productions where budgets are lower. I might be mis-remembering but IIRC the A-Team guns were acquired/re-purposed from Escape From New York.
We can go back to the pig discussion from before. These are not people are thinking “wouldn’t it be cool to be a sniper” or looking to put the biggest hole possible in the 5 people standing closest to them. The goal is to kill as many people as possible, in as short a time frame as possible. Pistol’s do not offer the same medium range, damage potential, or accuracy as the assault rifles do. Pistols are still a common elements in these, and they were more common (along with shot guns) before the expiration of the AWB and the recent boom in tactical .223 semi-autos. In general body counts were lower, and still are lower where a pistols are the primary weapon used.
These are generally speaking not people looking to get away, looking to target specific or single people. And it and I would not call it the “zeitgeist”. These idiots have over time iterated on a theme, and arrived at the very thing these rifles are designed for. And to say it again you’re never going to remove all the danger no matter what the subject.
Here’s the thing about that.
The sort of military sniping you’re talking about takes a shit ton of training. And in the sniping over marksman role. It involves two people. Range finding equipment. And math. Even simply firing over range with the semi-auto, lower caliber guns, requires quite a lot of practice and training to do well. There have been a number of these killers who have been experienced shooters or even military trained. But the bulk of them appear to be relatively new to it. And there is a definite trend of acquiring the guns and learning to use them in the immediate run up to the attack. Often in a time scale of less than one year. I am a fairly experienced shooter (or at least a good shot). And I have no clue how to properly use a scope. I could run out and grab a scoped rifle right now, and without significant figuring it out. I’d probably shoot better with the iron sights at normal target ranges. Anything long range would be hopeless.
Now I have fired a .223 AR15 right next to a .308 Garand, since you brought up .308 earlier. And more over I did this standing right next to a friend who had never fired a gun before.
It was absolutely startling how fast, and how easily you could get very accurate shots out of the AR, at nearly any range we shot it at. Especially compared to the Garand. And that went for my friend as well. He couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with the Garand after the first shot, but with the AR he clustered up towards the center of the paper pretty much from the start. And shooting them right next to each other. In the time it took me to put 5 rounds accurately on a target, he’d put like 15 up there.
A lot looser grouping sure. But when its shooting people in the chest rather than who gets closest to the middle on a paper target. That doesn’t matter.
So this:
Is baseball states. It doesn’t matter for the discussion. The existence of a specialized military role, or a specialized round or gun isn’t really pertinent. You don’t need to wonder why sniper attacks aren’t happening. Cause the answer is that terrorists are looking to do the sort of things that snipers are for. You don’t need to ponder why they aren’t using whichever round, because those rounds aren’t meant for what they’d like to do. And you don’t need to wonder if snipers would opt for semi-auto .223 tacticool rifles, because you can look up the few of there have been over the last decade and see that they have. Hell the Vegas shooter was essentially operating as a sniper, bump stocks or not, and he had a room stocked with guns of various sorts. Including scoped sniper style, bolt actions. But most of what he brought, and the guns he opted to start with. Were .223 assault rifles.
Listing off ammo formats and focusing on the thing that isn’t happening doesn’t address the fundamentals of what is happening. And this is very much what I mentioned before about specificity. Narrow in on this one dynamic, and since its very, very hard to figure out a way to impact that, without impacting anything else. It looks like there’s not practical solution. And then there’s this also potentially dangerous thing and it looks even less effective because it won’t impact that.
If you take a step back you start to notice there are some common culprits, some common gaps. That there may be a problem beyond “crime” and that our response to safety issues and even crime does not have to completely prefigure them.
“Militia”
There’s some utility in diving down into it and figuring out how these things work. Is this thing really dangerous? How and why? Where are these things being used how and by whom? When you get right down to it “I like it” is as valid a justification as anything else for just about any category of thing you might think up. And I generally believe that the law should avoid restricting people’s actions and what’s available to them, without some compelling public interest for doing so. In some instances where to draw the line on that is pretty clear, like say murder. And in others it much less so, even when its absolutely clear that restriction is necessary. In cases like that it pays to actually understand what you’re looking at so you can weigh the validity of claims you hear, and figure out how to actually do the thing.
Most of the interest I’ve got in fire arms, and pretty much any interest I have at all in actually shooting them. Rolls out of that. I’ve gone and done things like I described above with the two different military, semi auto rifles. That taught me something important.
Narrowing the conversation to who can name more kinds of bullets is not that.
1 Like
Most military small arms globally are not fully automatic. Including the assault rifles being discussed as such. Which increasingly top out at a multi-round bust. This includes the US military’s AR15 derivatives, where the m4 is burst and the m4a1 is full auto, which one is issued where being determined by need or demands of a particular branch. Their main use is semi-automatic as that burst (or full auto) capability is intended for use situationally. Either supressing fire where you might otherwise use a light machine gun, or the very close sort of shooting where you might otherwise use a sub machine gun. Basically it exists to obviate carrying additional guns that are better at that stuff.
More over the AR-15 was designed for the military, based on military theories and aims, to fulfill a specific military capability.
What else does “military grade” mean than that? And yeah military derived accessory rails for military style accessories, as well as flash hiders, extended magazines, light weight stocks and what have. All designed to make it a more effective weapon for the military, and most originally marketed towards military members as upgrades and add ons to their duty weapons. A good number of these civilian guns ship with bayonet lugs and the mounts for grenade launchers.
That’s a bullshit, semantic argument. You and everyone one else knows exactly what’s meant by “military grade” and “military style”. Harping that it doesn’t have a formal definition, and narrowing in on automatic fire as defining in all things every time this come up, no matter the term or precise subject is just attempting to dodge the problem. There is a real reason those things are a dangerous in a way other sorts of guns aren’t.
And this exact conversation has already happened multiple times up thread. Where multiple people have already pointed out the facts you got wrong.
Then stop buying their spin.
Including you, apparently.
My whole arguement was there is no discernable meaning to that phrase. I gave my interpretation of it, when none was provided by who I responded to, even though I was explicitly accused of forwarding some narrative about it I am unaware of.
I can go back and forth with this for days but I really don’t care to. It doesn’t seem to lead anywhere other than everyone accusing someone else of being some sort of gun shill.
Apparently nothing I say matters to anyone here, because we are all frothing at the mouth at each other and finding enemies where there are none but inside the halls of the NRA and the white house. So I leave this squawking mess behind and shake my head.
One good thing came out of this, I finally learned how quoting works on bbs, so thats nice
Its meaning is clear contextually. As are most most terms we use regularly, colloquially to describe the world around us. With or without whatever sort of technical formal definition you’re seeking. I and a bunch of other people seem to have discerned it just fine. And seem to discern what is meant by that regularly, and well enough to have a conversation about it. The way this usually goes “back and forth for days” is repeated insistence that such terms are meaningless, and insistence that whatever is being discussed does not qualify because “automatic”.
It doesn’t lead anywhere because that base “well actually … Automatic” is intended to prevent it from going anywhere. Conversation does not require we predefined a legal standard. Everyone knows what’s meant when this comes up, and noone is suggesting that something as vague as “military grade” form the sum total of a legal standard. Nor even that direct military connection be a defining part of one.
I’m not saying that’s neccisarily your intent. But you’ve internalized an argument and approach from that quarter.
Apparently not. But Ill leave that to you to understand here, in my stead. Good day.
I don’t think I will ever comment on another thread involving firearms or any number of other topics here despite my own experiences that could add to the discussion, as I grew up with an ex marine as a dad, who I disowned. Because I’m just tired of beating back the constant holier than thou self righteous rancor here. I have enough of that to deal with in the area I live and the people I work with and everything around me other than me.
I just don’t have it in me anymore to care. Later
No, that’s not true. The actual truth is that there’s some people who are trying very very very hard to explain why some common-sense changes should be made to gun ownership and why some easily-obtainable weapons, such as the AR-15, are completely utterly ridiculous for civilians to get ahold of and frequently murder random groups of people with.
And, unfortunately, there’s other people like yourself who are somehow hung up on linguistics and insist that people like myself are idiots because we use phrases like “military”.
RandomDude, you know what we mean. We mean high powered weapons used for mass murder.
And yes, @Mister44, I know that doing something, anything, is against your best judgement because any sort of gun control would take civil liberties away. And you know what? I’m very okay with that. I want to take away as much civil liberty to murder people as possible. Because what we’re doing right now is clearly not working.
I’m open to alternate suggestions as to how to fix things.
9 Likes
Gotta love that NRA, always defending Traditional Values.
8 Likes
Under any reasonable red flag gun law, lunatic fringe folks like Wayne LaPierre would be deemed too insane to possess firearms.
6 Likes
I think there are countries that ban civilian ownership of any gun in a calibre used by their military- but that’s more to prevent pilfering of military ammunition stocks than for public safety reasons.
