Gun control debate (merged)

[kiddiedoc]

Specifically. If. Inconsequential.



This is it. Chosen for multiple reasons. But I imagine lethality was a key selection criteria.

View attachment 548807

The color of mine is cooler

 

[85SugarVol]

The color of mine is cooler

I figured the tan might confuse him.

 

[kiddiedoc]

I figured the tan might confuse him.

WAY less scary looking, yet designed as the military sidearm for killing people, when needed. My camo 5.56 shorty would blow his mind (no pun intended). And, let's not even start with two-tone metal and furniture...

 

[Vol8188]

As I just stated. That's from 5 and a half years ago. Assault was synonymous with fully automatic in my mind.
And I do still believe fully automatic weapons should be banned.
I didn't change my stance, I just improved my gun related vocabulary.

So you thought all these mass shootings were happening with automatic weapons?

 

[NCFisher]

b

I would think that a reasonable argument could be made for uses other than killing people, so probably not banned.
My quote that you went back and found is from five and a half years ago. I don't remember the context of the quote. I think I said yesterday that I was operating under the misunderstanding that AR 15s were automatic (fully) weapons. If that was my basis, then I stand by it. Fully automatic should be banned. If I was not operating under that incorrect assumption, then it is an instance where I would have changed my mind over a 5 and a half year period. (I know, that would be a first in a gun thread)

And "if" is not the key word you missed. The key word you left off was "specifically".
I somehow believe you knew that.

Without denigrating you, I'll point out some things.
There is no difference between a gun made for defensive use and offensive use; the user's situation and usage determines which. The thing that makes it useful for one purpose makes it useful for the other. In practicality, there is no such thing as a gun specifically made to kill or not kill people. The U.S. military with their select-fire (auto) weapons, for example; are they a force only designed to kill people or are they the defensive force of the nation? It depends upon how they're utilized.

Automatic weapons are more accurately termed 'select fire' weapons, and have three firing positions - auto, burst (usually 2-3 rounds with each trigger activation), and semiauto. Some have only the burst and semiauto.

Auto fire is useful for laying down suppressive fire on a combatant position to freeze or stop their advance, fire upon groups of people, or stalemate their own suppressive fire, but is the most inaccurate mode (due to cumulative recoil) and wasteful of ammo.

Which brings us to burst mode, the intermediate position which can be used for more accurate fire upon individual targets/groups at close-short distance, or suppressive fire. It is far more accurate than auto but far less accurate than semiauto. If engaging aggressors or combatants at short distance or close quarters, burst is your buddy.

Semiauto is the most useful for engaging individuals at any distance when accuracy matters. At intermediate to long range, or close quarters when you have a small window of opportunity, or lessening the chance of an innocent being hit with indiscriminate rounds.

You're now better informed than 99% of people talking about gun control. The other 1% are dishonest prohibitionists.

 

[hog88]

So you thought all these mass shootings were happening with automatic weapons?

No one has ever accused him of being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[luthervol]

So you thought all these mass shootings were happening with automatic weapons?

If they were using AR 15s and I thought AR 15s were automatic, then yes.

 

[C-south]

If they were using AR 15s and I thought AR 15s were automatic, then yes.

If you’re admittedly completely ignorant then why do you continue to attempt to make an argument. Even more absurd is your semiautomatic “fire rate”.

 

[luthervol]

If you’re admittedly completely ignorant then why do you continue to attempt to make an argument. Even more absurd is your semiautomatic “fire rate”.

First, I'm not admittedly completely ignorant; I'm admittedly partially ignorant.
Second, if partial ignorance excluded one from being in a debate, there would be no PF, and you certainly would not be in any debate.
Third, the fire rate restriction is brilliant.

 

[C-south]

First, I'm not admittedly completely ignorant; I'm admittedly partially ignorant.
Second, if partial ignorance excluded one from being in a debate, there would be no PF, and you certainly would not be in any debate.
Third, the fire rate restriction is brilliant.

You admit you’re ignorance and double down on it. How do you restrict fire rate of a semiautomatic weapon? We all know the answer since you’ve already admitted what your ultimate goal would be so just say it and move on. Here’s a few pics. Which are banned or should be banned.

 

[luthervol]

You admit you’re ignorance and double down on it. How do you restrict fire rate of a semiautomatic weapon? We all know the answer since you’ve already admitted what your ultimate goal would be so just say it and move on. Here’s a few pics. Which are banned or should be banned.





View attachment 548830View attachment 548831View attachment 548832View attachment 548833

The second one is the cutest. I like the natural wood look.
But I'm guessing I would have more issues with the cartridges/magazines than with the guns.
The simplest way to control fire rate is to control the ammo being fed into the gun. I'm also guessing that there is enough scientific and engineering know-how to put a delay on the triggering mechanism.
Just spit balling some ideas.

 

[C-south]

The second one is the cutest. I like the natural wood look.
But I'm guessing I would have more issues with the cartridges/magazines than with the guns.
The simplest way to control fire rate is to control the ammo being fed into the gun. I'm also guessing that there is enough scientific and engineering know-how to put a delay on the triggering mechanism.
Just spit balling some ideas.

Lol. What about these?

 

[LouderVol]

This is fun.

Ban all semi auto weapons and revolvers, you know: x shots in y seconds and all. (That's about 80-90% of all firearms sold, you know). Then we are left with the muskets, bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, and pump shotguns that were never designed to kill people, when needed (unless you know anything about military history).

Really best to just end this lame discussion, y'all.

the lever action and musket thing brings up an interesting question. what counts as a "weapon of war" is it only what the military is actively using? Because that could very easily mean ARs, and even automatic weapons may not be considered weapons of war one day. If/when something like lazer guns becomes a thing. Or if the AI/robots take over a "bullet" and thus whatever fires it, would be quickly obsolete on a battle field.

 

[LouderVol]

WAY less scary looking, yet designed as the military sidearm for killing people, when needed. My camo 5.56 shorty would blow his mind (no pun intended). And, let's not even start with two-tone metal and furniture...

I know LG is particularly bad about wanting all the scary black ones banned, even though he is fine with people owning the same exact gun with wood furniture.

 

[luthervol]

Lol. What about these? View attachment 548836View attachment 548837View attachment 548838

They're all 3 pretty cute.

 

[C-south]

They're all 3 pretty cute.

Oh yea, what scientific engineering marvel is there available to limit fire rate other than trigger reset which is inconsequential. But I’m sure you have no idea what that is either.

 

[Vol8188]

If they were using AR 15s and I thought AR 15s were automatic, then yes.

Lmfao thus your absurd claim last month that they can shoot 800 rounds per minute.

So you’ve been arguing about something without understanding it for 5 years now minimum?

 

[hog88]

Lmfao thus your absurd claim last month that they can shoot 800 rounds per minute.

So you’ve been arguing about something without understanding it for 5 years now minimum?

You can't be the least bit surprised.

 

[Vol8188]

You can't be the least bit surprised.

What’s hilarious is I have no doubt we’ve all explained this to Luther multiple times over that time span

 

[turbovol]

b

Without denigrating you, I'll point out some things.
There is no difference between a gun made for defensive use and offensive use; the user's situation and usage determines which. The thing that makes it useful for one purpose makes it useful for the other. In practicality, there is no such thing as a gun specifically made to kill or not kill people. The U.S. military with their select-fire (auto) weapons, for example; are they a force only designed to kill people or are they the defensive force of the nation? It depends upon how they're utilized.

Automatic weapons are more accurately termed 'select fire' weapons, and have three firing positions - auto, burst (usually 2-3 rounds with each trigger activation), and semiauto. Some have only the burst and semiauto.

Auto fire is useful for laying down suppressive fire on a combatant position to freeze or stop their advance, fire upon groups of people, or stalemate their own suppressive fire, but is the most inaccurate mode (due to cumulative recoil) and wasteful of ammo.

Which brings us to burst mode, the intermediate position which can be used for more accurate fire upon individual targets/groups at close-short distance, or suppressive fire. It is far more accurate than auto but far less accurate than semiauto. If engaging aggressors or combatants at short distance or close quarters, burst is your buddy.

Semiauto is the most useful for engaging individuals at any distance when accuracy matters. At intermediate to long range, or close quarters when you have a small window of opportunity, or lessening the chance of an innocent being hit with indiscriminate rounds.

You're now better informed than 99% of people talking about gun control. The other 1% are dishonest prohibitionists.

The gun crowd always wants to test the gun knowledge of people who want much tighter gun control. We don't need to know the particulars of weapons; we see people with AR-15s murdering multiple people every day; we know they are dangerous weapons and they should be banned--as they were banned for a decade, with good results. Period. We have a country in which it is disgracefully easy to buy guns of all types, and we have a country full of unstable people--and thus we have a country with a disgraceful gun-violence problem--a problem that's become so bad that we are all at risk of being shot and killed while in school or at a super market or mall, or at the office, or at home by your angry ex-spouse, to name a few examples. We don't need to hear any more claptrap about "responsible gun owners," as that is nonsense. Everyone is responsible until they're not--and it doesn't take much to cross over the line. There is no end to the excuses that the gun nuts come up with to pretend that guns aren't a problem, when of course they are; when the U.S. has far more guns than any other nationa--and, duh, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more gun violence. The upshot is that we've got a lot of people who value their gun fetishes more than they do the safety of the American public.

 

[hog88]

The gun crowd always wants to test the gun knowledge of people who want much tighter gun control. We don't need to know the particulars of weapons; we see people with AR-15s murdering multiple people every day; we know they are dangerous weapons and they should be banned--as they were banned for a decade, with good results. Period. We have a country in which it is disgracefully easy to buy guns of all types, and we have a country full of unstable people--and thus we have a country with a disgraceful gun-violence problem--a problem that's become so bad that we are all at risk of being shot and killed while in school or at a super market or mall, or at the office, or at home by your angry ex-spouse, to name a few examples. We don't need to hear any more claptrap about "responsible gun owners," as that is nonsense. Everyone is responsible until they're not--and it doesn't take much to cross over the line. There is no end to the excuses that the gun nuts come up with to pretend that guns aren't a problem, when of course they are; when the U.S. has far more guns than any other nationa--and, duh, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more gun violence. The upshot is that we've got a lot of people who value their gun fetishes more than they do the safety of the American public.

Apparently you do need to know at least a little about weapons because you are either sorely mistaken of just a liar.

I'm going with the latter.

 

[jp1]

The second one is the cutest. I like the natural wood look.
But I'm guessing I would have more issues with the cartridges/magazines than with the guns.
The simplest way to control fire rate is to control the ammo being fed into the gun. I'm also guessing that there is enough scientific and engineering know-how to put a delay on the triggering mechanism.
Just spit balling some ideas.

Delay on the trigger mechanism? So you are suggesting a firearm that doesn't necessarily fire when you pull the trigger?

 

[NCFisher]

The gun crowd always wants to test the gun knowledge of people who want much tighter gun control. We don't need to know the particulars of weapons; we see people with AR-15s murdering multiple people every day; we know they are dangerous weapons and they should be banned--as they were banned for a decade, with good results. Period. We have a country in which it is disgracefully easy to buy guns of all types, and we have a country full of unstable people--and thus we have a country with a disgraceful gun-violence problem--a problem that's become so bad that we are all at risk of being shot and killed while in school or at a super market or mall, or at the office, or at home by your angry ex-spouse, to name a few examples. We don't need to hear any more claptrap about "responsible gun owners," as that is nonsense. Everyone is responsible until they're not--and it doesn't take much to cross over the line. There is no end to the excuses that the gun nuts come up with to pretend that guns aren't a problem, when of course they are; when the U.S. has far more guns than any other nationa--and, duh, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more gun violence. The upshot is that we've got a lot of people who value their gun fetishes more than they do the safety of the American public.

Then using your rule of "dangerous weapons", you want to ban handguns, right? - since they are used a magnitude of times greater to kill people than ALL rifles of any type, including mass shootings. More people are beaten and kicked to death than killed with ALL rifles annually. So why the fetish with a semiauto rifle when ALL rifles account for perhaps 500 of perhaps (EDIT) 10K gun homicides? You're incoherent.

To the contrary; it is ignorant people like yourself who are the biggest obstacles to some measures that might make a small difference. When you speak from ignorance while waxing about how you want to infringe their rights, it's a solid "Hell no".

 

[turbovol]

Then using your rule of "dangerous weapons", you want to ban handguns, right? - since they are used a magnitude of times greater to kill people than ALL rifles of any type, including mass shootings. More people are beaten and kicked to death than killed with ALL rifles annually. So why the fetish with a semiauto rifle when ALL rifles account for perhaps 500 of perhaps 15K gun homicides? You're incoherent.

To the contrary; it is ignorant people like yourself who are the biggest obstacles to some measures that might make a small difference. When you speak from ignorance about while waxing about how you want to infringe their rights, it's a solid "Hell no".

YES: I think handguns should absolutely be banned--no sale, no import, no manufacture. Total crackdown. The NRA has pushed guns on credulous Americans with its bogus "self-defense" marketing for decades---the implication being that you need to a gun to protect yourself from all the "bad guys with guns" out there. That would be bad guns with handguns, in the vast majority of cases, right? So get rid of the handguns and America becomes an exponentially safer country. Who wouldn't want a safer America?

Who? Why, the gun crazies, that's who! The people who pretend that need guns for self-defense will, when the topic of banning handguns comes up, gin up all the various excuses for why banning handguns wouldn't work. Fact is, the gun crazes don't really care about public or personal safety; they just want to play neighborhood sheriff and if a bunch of school children get murdered as a result of their fetish, well, what's a "responsible gun owner" to do, eh? Cost of a popular hobby. Japan = no gun violence, at all. Japan = no guns.

 

[kiddiedoc]

YES: I think handguns should absolutely be banned--no sale, no import, no manufacture. Total crackdown. The NRA has pushed guns on credulous Americans with its bogus "self-defense" marketing for decades---the implication being that you need to a gun to protect yourself from all the "bad guys with guns" out there. That would be bad guns with handguns, in the vast majority of cases, right? So get rid of the handguns and America becomes an exponentially safer country. Who wouldn't want a safer America?

Who? Why, the gun crazies, that's who! The people who pretend that need guns for self-defense will, when the topic of banning handguns comes up, gin up all the various excuses for why banning handguns wouldn't work. Fact is, the gun crazes don't really care about public or personal safety; they just want to play neighborhood sheriff and if a bunch of school children get murdered as a result of their fetish, well, what's a "responsible gun owner" to do, eh? Cost of a popular hobby. Japan = no gun violence, at all. Japan = no guns.

Another example of why this thread just needs to end.