I think he means you want to censor him, despite your otherwise liberal viewpoints.
Failing to give someone a platform on your blog comments is not censorship, let alone violence, particularly in a conversation about people getting killed. How is it possible people havenāt figured that out yet?
2 Likes
I donāt really think they should either - so I guess weāre kind of in agreement? 
Thatās not how I understood it to be honest - and the fact that proportionally half as many people have weapons to begin with still makes it a poor comparison. I could buy a shotgun in the UK with the appropriate licensing etc - but itās not a culture thing or a problem because it accounts for a tiny percentage if people. Itās not so much that control laws themselves prevent gun crime - itās that lots of guns increase gun crime. Control laws bring gun numbers down, ergoā¦
Although the US is a tricky example regardless. It has a gun culture and access is so high you couldnāt practically remove guns any easier than you can remove marijuana. Itās a mindset thing; cowboys n all that business.
The rules are pretty simple here for whats allowed and what isnāt in blog comments. Differing opinions are encouraged. Name calling isnāt.
A conversation about people getting killed is just a conversation, same as any otherā¦ people are going to disagree, make stupid comments, etcā¦
āA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.ā
The most common version of the second amendment (yes, there are several featuring different punctuation).
Of course, if you belong to a militia youāre obviously a crazed militant living in a compound.
when are we going to talk about meds? Suicidal ideation, violence fantasies, paranoiaā¦
In most states (that Iāve been to at least), every place that sells alcohol has a no guns policy by default - all grocery stores, convenience stores, etc have that same sign up.
It seems to me that places where people congregate are the ones targeted, and those places often have a āno guns here pleaseā type sign up. It seems more coincidental overall than planned.
2 Likes
The US is an exceptional country! We have an average of 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people, and 1.5 non gun homicides per 100,000 people, per year.
So straight up we kill a bunch of people. Without considering gun related homicides, weād still higher than 90% of countries in homicides, murderous fuckers that we are.
Most of those killings are with handguns. So of course we try really hard to ban rifles.
Guess what handguns are exceptional at? Killing people. They suck for hunting. They arenāt that interesting for sport. They are for shooting people at close range, and conveniently sized to do itā¦ as you can sneak up on them with it concealed. They excel at shooting people at close range when you get the drop on them. They suck at shooting people who also have handguns and have gotten the drop on you, however.
Handguns arenāt even that good for protection. Shooting someone doesnāt guarantee you arenāt gonna get attacked or shot backā¦ and thats not even considering misses. Thats why theres a yearly average of 650 justifiable homicides with guns, out of 11,000 gun homicides, and 70,000 gun injuries.
10 times as many people are killed by handguns here, than are killed by long guns. Handguns are almost never used to kill bad guys. Most people shot by guns donāt get killed, they just get hurtā¦ often seriously hurt forever.
So of course we decide to try and ban rifles and shotguns that look scary.
Because we arenāt serious about finding a solution to the problem. The problem being why we are such murderous fuckersā¦ though Iām willing to concede that handguns might be an issue too.
This is a bad idea that would just end in tears.
Neither side has a solution with a chance in hell of working either.
Liberal tears, maybe.
2 Likes
If thatās the case, then he doesnāt know what censorship means, particularly in the context of posting on a privately owned websiteā¦
Like @Salgak said, the only difference between those two guns that could really have an impact on functionality is the larger magazine. The barrel shroud, different stock, and pistol grip really just provide different ergonomics and aesthetics. Iāll go into a little detail:
The pistol grip provides different ergonomics. Some people prefer traditional stocks, some prefer stocks with a partial grip, some prefer stocks with a thumbhole grip, and some prefer stocks with a detached pistol grip. They all function the same though, itās just about what fits your hand better. For most people, a thumbhole stock provides almost identical comfort and functionality as the pistol grip, but a lot of people prefer pistol grips because of aesthetics.
Also, thatās not a detachable stock, itās just adjustable so that someone of a smaller build could comfortably use the gun just the same as someone of a larger build.
And the purpose of a barrel shroud (incidentally, itās the part of the stock located the farthest from the shoulder), is so that the user doesnāt get burned on the hot barrel. This is really only useful for fully-automatic weapons (which as others have mentioned, are very highly regulated and are not available to the general public), for two reasons. First, the barrel on a rifle doesnāt heat up nearly as much if the rifle isnāt being fired fully automatically, so the barrel stays much cooler, and thereās a lot less chance of being burned. Second, there isnāt a real reason to have your hand on the top of the barrel when not firing fully automatically. Putting your hand on the top of the barrel when firing fully automatically can help to keep the barrel pointed straight, as firing on fully automatic mode can cause the barrel to ride up so youāll end up shooting at the sky.
That said, some civilians prefer to let the thumb of their forward hands wrap up over top of the barrel, in which case a barrel shroud may make the gun more comfortable to hold while shooting. But the placement of your thumb while shooting is just a preference, and certainly doesnāt make the user any more deadly with it.
I know I got a little carried away, but really, all three of these features donāt make these guns any more deadly; in the civilian market, they are just sought after for ergonomic or aesthetic reasons. You and I both find them pretty damn ugly, but some people like them.
Wow, my sentence structure sucks. I hope you can decipher what Iām trying to say.
Oh my god thats awesome!
These things are what the proposed assault weapons ban had a problem with. These stupid little things.
Diane Feinstein was the one that called the barrel shroud a āshoulder thing that goes upā since she didnāt know what they were. Sadly she was the one who proposed the Assault Weapons Banā¦ so thats kind of relevant.
This is nothing new. The old assault weapons ban listed features of weapons to be banned - the features included a bayonet mount (because thatās fucking scary, omg heās got a knife on the end of his ASSAULT RIFLE) and grenade launcher mount (already obsolete at the time - Picatinny rails). It also singled out some models to be banned. The result? Manufacturers retired the named model, made completely cosmetic changes, and were back to market within days.
As another commenter said, many of the changes are āmerelyā ergonomic - but I would strongly disagree with the assessment of negligible importance in those ergonomics. A pistol grip, barrel shroud, fore grip, etc are designed to improve ergonomics so that the shooter can more rapidly come to bear on target(s), and more effectively manage weapon recoil in a rapid fire scenario. That does not happen when hunting deer. While you can point out that these changes are largely cosmetic, they do make it easier to accurately engage multiple evading targets - in other words: people. These are hunting rifles for hunting humans.
Iām neither pro nor anti gun, Iām anti violent crime - and saying the two weapons pictured above are identical is misleading. One is engineered with hunting an animal for meat in mind. One is designed for a shooting scenario that only occurs when the shooter is engaging humans. Own up to that. Embrace it. āI have this gun, with these ergonomics, because I feel I may have the need to kill people at some point. Not for hunting.ā Disturbing statement, but at least its more honest and defensible than the āThese are the same rifles!ā line.
If zapping worthless, extremist, gun troll ranting is āviolenceā and ācensorshipā than Iām all for it. Iām even into āpersecutingā these poor truth-telling āvictimsā for it. Itās also funny that the Wiki article doesnāt really say anything at all to justify or explain the private angle. Yeah, sorry dude, you have no right to free speech in a private forum. Claiming youāre being āviolentlyā stifled by āthe manā for being called out on spewing extremist, militia diarrhea is disingenuous and embarrassing. Proud ācensorā here.
