Gun Control

[The Finger]

Shotguns, designed w/ hundred to thousands of BB's, all designed to kill, are "assault" weapons too. Rack a Mossberg and another spray of death, disperses in order to kill more. Joke Biden, from his very porch could kill hundreds this way. 

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, The Finger said:

Shotguns, designed w/ hundred to thousands of BB's, all designed to kill, are "assault" weapons too. Rack a Mossberg and another spray of death, disperses in order to kill more. Joke Biden, from his very porch could kill hundreds this way. 

You lose a ton of credibility when claiming that BB's are designed to kill.

[zoogs]

I think we can create laws that limit the kinds of weapons that can be sold to consumers to ones that aren't designed for combat, aren't modifiable in this way, and all those modifications too can be banned. We could draft up a set of requirements and call it a ban of a certain class of weapons. We could even come up with a name for that class of weapons, as defined by our publicly negotiated legal framework.

[HuskerInLostWages]

I have a question for all the people calling them assault rifles.  I have an AR-15 that fires 9mm rounds(commonly called an AR-9), it holds 30 rounds, it has a much shorter barrel, but other than that looks darn near identical to a standard AR-15, is this an assault rifle now?  I also have a glock with a 30 round clip, they fire about the same distance, do the same damage with the same rounds and are both semi auto, isn't this your definition of an assault rifle, well pistol in the Glocks case?  

 

I also have whats called a plinkster, it fires a .22, holds quite a few rounds and looks exactly like an AR-15, is that an assault rifle?  The definition means quite a lot on how the whole thing comes into play, and if it's just the "look" of the firearm, we'd be attempting to ban a whole boatload of weapons that people find scary looking and label them assault rifles.

Edited March 1, 2018 by HuskerInLostWages
added the AR-9 to the wrong place.

[funhusker]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You lose a ton of credibility when claiming that BB's are designed to kill.

I think his introductory post took care of that.....

[Redux]

16 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm agreeing with you: banning a style (like "assault style") is the wrong way to go.

 

It's a slippery slope categorizing these things, especially when a large portion of those pushing for regulations are uniformed of the actual capabilities.

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 minutes ago, The Finger said:

Shotguns, designed w/ hundred to thousands of BB's, all designed to kill, are "assault" weapons too. Rack a Mossberg and another spray of death, disperses in order to kill more. Joke Biden, from his very porch could kill hundreds this way. 

 

Shotguns are great for duck and pheasant hunting, because although they disperse quickly, it only takes a pellet or two to bring down a bird. Even then you have to be pretty close. I don't have to tell you that ducks are good at circling to high altitude, and can get out of range in seconds -- quicker than you can reload the two chambers at your disposal. 

 

If you are sitting on your porch with a shotgun, you have to wait for the hundreds of leftist cop-killing gerbils to walk in front of you. And that happens so rarely.

 

So you really do need a more efficient weapon when you want to seek out and kill a multitude of pesky humans. 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I think we can create laws that limit the kinds of weapons that can be sold to consumers to ones that aren't designed for combat, aren't modifiable in this way, and all those modifications too can be banned. We could draft up a set of requirements and call it a ban of a certain class of weapons. We could even come up with a name for that class of weapons, as defined by our publicly negotiated legal framework.

I don't think you can actually. Claiming "aren't designed for combat" is a judgment about intent. I think we'd need more objective metrics like rate of fire, ammo capacity, etc.

 

Personally, I'd just limit the ammo capacity as I don't care how fast you can fire 3 rounds (or 6 or whatever we can mostly agree on).

[zoogs]

1 minute ago, HuskerInLostWages said:

I have a question for all the people calling them assault rifles.  I have an AR-15(commonly called an AR-9) that fires 9mm rounds, it holds 30 rounds, it has a much shorter barrel, but other than that looks darn near identical to a standard AR-15, is this an assault rifle now?  I also have a glock with a 30 round clip, they fire about the same distance, do the same damage with the same rounds and are both semi auto, isn't this your definition of an assault rifle, well pistol in the Glocks case?  

 

I also have whats called a plinkster, it fires a .22, holds quite a few rounds and looks exactly like an AR-15, is that an assault rifle?  The definition means quite a lot on how the whole thing comes into play, and if it's just the "look" of the firearm, we'd be attempting to ban a whole boatload of weapons that people find scary looking and label them assault rifles.

 

Someone takes your AR-9, how comfortable do you feel going against them with your Glock, out of curiosity? 

 

I think, yeah, we can include a whole boatload of weapons in a ban if we think it'll be effective. It's at least reasonable to try. Like maybe one thing we include in the classification is 30 round external magazines, so you can have some rifle with a limited internal magazine firing .223s, but that's fine. A ban only means that gun manufacturers alter their designs to fit the requirements, and then you still have guns, but they'll need to have a few more things different about them to conform.

 

As for the effectiveness of regulations like that on their own don't seem sufficient to me, really, but they do seem like an important piece of the puzzle and a basic step we should be able to take.

[Redux]

http://www.thefirearms.guide/blog/educational/assault-rifle

[HuskerInLostWages]

16 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 

Someone takes your AR-9, how comfortable do you feel going against them with your Glock, out of curiosity? 

 

I think, yeah, we can include a whole boatload of weapons in a ban if we think it'll be effective. It's at least reasonable to try. Like maybe one thing we include in the classification is 30 round external magazines, so you can have some rifle with a limited internal magazine firing .223s, but that's fine. A ban only means that gun manufacturers alter their designs to fit the requirements, and then you still have guns, but they'll need to have a few more things different about them to conform.

 

As for the effectiveness of regulations like that on their own don't seem sufficient to me, really, but they do seem like an important piece of the puzzle and a basic step we should be able to take.

I'd feel very comfy in that case, like I stated in my status post on Dick's, let them take the AR-9, there's no firing pin, that person is at a disadvantage especially in close quarters if he had the firing pin.  Being i've fired and trained on both, though i'd prefer to to be the guy with the rifle type version, i'm quite certain i would have only a slight disadvantage in an open area being it's my weapon and I know it.  I would still prefer my 1911 over both if truth be told, but if I had to choose in your question i'm sure I could hold my own with either, difference is i've had training on the above mentioned weapons and many others and no I would not be against a mandatory type of training to purchase your first weapon.

 

Zoogs, please do inform me what you believe is considered a legal weapon to you, your personal opinion as I'd love to see what you consider non assault style weapons.  Maybe once I understand what you consider lawful for responsible people maybe then I may see your point, but until then, i'm not sure I buy what you're sellin.

 

 

BTW Zoogs, you didn't answer my question, are the considered assault weapons to you?  They are actually both pistols, just 1 looks scary.

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by HuskerInLostWages

[zoogs]

^Can we assume no "I know my own weapons personally" bonuses and no "my gun doesn't have a firing pin"? But yeah, I believe that the disadvantages aren't necessarily that great. The weapons you're describing all sound like extremely combat effective tools that are especially well suited for killing lots of people, and very difficult to go up against. Let's put it another way: say someone has your training and your weapons and they decide to go on a killing spree, picking a very soft target to do so. What can they do? How would they be stopped? 

 

I do not know where to draw the boundaries, but maybe 30 round, easily exchangeable mag/clip is a good place to start. 

[The Finger]

43 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You lose a ton of credibility when claiming that BB's are designed to kill.

 

They are, when they're in front of ignited; high velo, max burn rate, 1,120 fps gun powder. Are you actually claiming that shotguns don't kill? Because you couldn't possibly be claiming that, and still expecting to be taken seriously, despite the fact that you projected non credibility, in a vain and silly attempt to eek a mini win here today.

[The Finger]

Someone saw something, someone said something and Baarack Hussein's "Promise" program and the FBI did NOTHING.

[commando]

9 minutes ago, The Finger said:

 

They are, when they're in front of ignited; high velo, max burn rate, 1,120 fps gun powder. Are you actually claiming that shotguns don't kill? Because you couldn't possibly be claiming that, and still expecting to be taken seriously, despite the fact that you projected non credibility, in a vain and silly attempt to eek a mini win here today.

i've been hunting where someone shot at a pheasant from about 50 yards away.  in their excotem,ent they totally didn't see me in the target range.   fortunately  the pellets bounced off my jacket.   if it had been a rifle the bullet would not have bounced off.   range certainly plays an important role