Quantcast

Gun Control

rockofullr

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,342
924
East Bay, Cali
The point is that I think the increase in the number of ARs is based more on social/cultural issues such as a growing fear of our own government and of our neighbors combined with the low price and versatility of the rifle. If we ban ARs (which is proving to be really hard to do because of how easy it is to modify them) people will just stock up on another rifle. There are plenty of good carbine style rifles out there that would still be completely unrestricted. I bet you could kill a bunch of people with one of these too.

 
kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,146
13,340
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
rockofullr said:
The point is that I think the increase in the number of ARs is based more on social/cultural issues such as a growing fear of our own government and of our neighbors combined with the low price and versatility of the rifle. If we ban ARs (which is proving to be really hard to do because of how easy it is to modify them) people will just stock up on another rifle. There are plenty of good carbine style rifles out there that would still be completely unrestricted. I bet you could kill a bunch of people with one of these too.

Click to expand...
My point is would we be in this scenario if the ban had stayed in place? Or even moreso had it been refined?

It's obviously cultural. It's also cultural to think we're all John Wayne, completely independent, self-sufficient, and can solve all problems through American exceptionalism, straight capitalism, and a manly grimace into the sunset. Neither of which have whole lot to do with functional reality.

Anyway we've played with this idea long enough. What's happened with gun culture mindsets the last 8 years or so is unprecedented and frankly kind of disgusting to me. I feel like we missed a chance years ago to at least curb it a little, by using some common sense when it comes to access.

Now we have fully legal functional auto weapons to be made from the most common rifle in America. Sweet.
 
rockofullr

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,342
924
East Bay, Cali
kidwoo said:
My point is would we be in this scenario if the ban had stayed in place? Or even moreso had it been refined?

Now we have fully legal functional auto weapons to be made from the most common rifle in America. Sweet.
Click to expand...
I don't really think it would make a difference unless we outlaw all semi-auto rifles. That's what an AR is, that's what an M1A, is that's what an M14 is. You'd have to outlaw a lot of guns if you don't want people to be able to kill a bunch of people. And do you really think that if the AR was outlawed people wouldn't just find another gun to buy? People are scared and or have watched too many Rambo movies. Outlawing one specific rifle won't do shit. There's billions of dollars in the firearms industry, if they can't sell an AR they'll just push something else.

Also if you're referring to the whole bump stock thing you could design a stock like that to work with almost any rifle. You can bump fire a gun without the spiffy stock. You can bump fire almost anything.


PS Not sure if I agree with that dude's choice of carry position for his sidearm :bonk:
 
Last edited:
Adventurous

Adventurous

Starshine Bro
Mar 19, 2014
10,318
8,875
Crawlorado
rockofullr said:
I don't really think it would make a difference unless we outlaw all semi-auto rifles. That's what an AR is, that's what an M1A, is that's what an M14 is. You'd have to outlaw a lot of guns if you don't want people to be able to kill a bunch of people. And do you really think that if the AR was outlawed people wouldn't just find another gun to buy? People are scared and or have watched too many Rambo movies. Outlawing one specific rifle won't do shit. There's billions of dollars in the firearms industry, if they can't sell an AR they'll just push something else.

Also if you're referring to the whole bump stock thing you could design a stock like that to work with almost any rifle. You can bump fire a gun without the spiffy stock. You can bump fire almost anything.


PS Not sure if I agree with that dude's choice of carry position for his sidearm :bonk:
Click to expand...
Okay, then how about re-visiting the magazine capacity discussion for semi-automatic firearms? I concur that eliminating all semi-auto weapons won't happen any time soon, but certainly limiting the number of rounds available prior to reloading would reduce the number of potential casualties (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/gun-laws-magazines-las-vegas/index.html).
 
Last edited:
rockofullr

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,342
924
East Bay, Cali
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,960
9,629
AK
The AR-15/M-16 and current popular M-4 variant is far more fieldable/wieldable, than an M-1 or M-14, the AR-15 is made to maximize ability to kill, the M-1 is more akin to a hunting rifle, heavy, obtuse and long, limited ammo magazines, much more kick, designed for long ranges with sights optimized for such, large rounds that carry more energy and “shoot through” better, and so on. Sure, all manner of semi-auto assault rifles have become all the rage and many are just as lethal as the AR-15, but I’d say the AR-15 spurred them all on, made it ok to offer things like MP-5s, HK, AKs, and other assault weapons on the market. For sure, there are a lot of lethal and dangerous weapons on the market, but the AR-15 combines short length, light weight, low kick, lots of rounds and generally makes killing pretty easy by comparison to older heavier rifles.
 
Last edited:
dan-o

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,499
2,805
Adventurous said:
Okay, then how about re-visiting the magazine capacity discussion for semi-automatic firearms? I concur that eliminating all semi-auto weapons won't happen any time soon, but certainly limiting the number of rounds available prior to reloading would reduce the number of potential casualties (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/gun-laws-magazines-las-vegas/index.html).
Click to expand...
Won’t make much diffference in reality. I’ve got pre-ban 20 and 30rd mags for my AR. Pre-ban mags for AKs, M1a, SKS, HK91 etc are everywhere too as those models have been in service for decades. I don’t/won’t own a gun that doesn’t have pre-ban mags available.

That said, I wouldn’t care if the 60rd mags Paddock used disappeared. Those are ‘high capacity’, a 30rd mag is ‘standard capacity.

IMO coming at this from a technology standpoint is a waste of time. The Virginia Tech shooting was done with 10rd mags, the same capacity states like MA and CA have currently.

There have been millions of these guns in this country for decades with very few instances of them being used in mass shootings, until very recently.

We have a people problem in this country that is being exacerbated by the availability of guns. The solution lies in keeping the guns out of the wrong hands, an area where there’s lots of room for improvement even with existing laws.
 
dan-o

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,499
2,805
Jm_ said:
The AR-15/M-16 and current popular M-4 variant is far more fieldable/wieldable, than an M-1 or M-14, the AR-15 is made to maximize ability to kill, the M-1 is more akin to a hunting rifle, heavy, obtuse and long, limited ammo magazines, much more kick, designed for long ranges with sights optimized for such, large rounds that carry more energy and “shoot through” better, and so on. Sure, all manner of semi-auto assault rifles have become all the rage and many are just as lethal as the AR-15, but I’d say the AR-15 spurred them all on, made it ok to offer things like MP-5s, HK, AKs, and other assault weapons on the market. For sure, there are a lot of lethal and dangerous weapons on the market, but the AR-15 combines short length, light weight, low kick, lots of rounds and generally makes killing pretty easy by comparison to older heavier rifles.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Westy

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,391
20,182
Sleazattle
Jm_ said:
The AR-15/M-16 and current popular M-4 variant is far more fieldable/wieldable, than an M-1 or M-14, the AR-15 is made to maximize ability to kill, the M-1 is more akin to a hunting rifle, heavy, obtuse and long, limited ammo magazines, much more kick, designed for long ranges with sights optimized for such, large rounds that carry more energy and “shoot through” better, and so on. Sure, all manner of semi-auto assault rifles have become all the rage and many are just as lethal as the AR-15, but I’d say the AR-15 spurred them all on, made it ok to offer things like MP-5s, HK, AKs, and other assault weapons on the market. For sure, there are a lot of lethal and dangerous weapons on the market, but the AR-15 combines short length, light weight, low kick, lots of rounds and generally makes killing pretty easy by comparison to older heavier rifles.
Click to expand...
One thing I noticed that was different, when I first started shooting pre-ban the .223 was looked down upon as a sissy round and not worthy of a 'real man'. Those who wanted a smaller rifle round actually preferred the Russian short for the larger caliber. That clearly has changed.
 
kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,146
13,340
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
rockofullr said:
I don't really think it would make a difference unless we outlaw all semi-auto rifles. That's what an AR is, that's what an M1A, is that's what an M14 is. You'd have to outlaw a lot of guns if you don't want people to be able to kill a bunch of people. And do you really think that if the AR was outlawed people wouldn't just find another gun to buy?
Click to expand...
But that's kind of my point. They didn't. It wasn't happening. No significant amount of people bought a functional equivalent back then and shot up crowds on a regular basis like they are now. it's always the same damn rifle these days. For all the cosmetic bitching the gun dorks did about appearances, I'm saying that yeah, banning scary looking guns had an effect. Because violent retards are attracted to scary looking guns. I mean what are shirtless mirror selfies for, if not to look big mean and scary?


Anyway. 4round clips [whiny gunfag voice]it's a MAGAZINE!!!![/whiny gunfag voice] with everything larger violently confiscated by an overreaching govt would be pretty sweet right now.


rockofullr said:
PS Not sure if I agree with that dude's choice of carry position for his sidearm :bonk:
Click to expand...

I support it 100%. Preferably with jumping jacks while fiddling with the safety.
 
pnj

pnj

Turbo Monkey till the fat lady sings
Aug 14, 2002
4,696
40
seattle
name ONE gangsta rap song that uses the word 'magazine' in place of 'clip'.

you can't.

rat a tat tat on yo' mutha fukin' azz....
 
JohnE

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,440
1,965
Front Range, dude...
...lets not forget that the reason Eugene Stoners little AR replaced the M14 and its beefy 7.62 NATO round was the theory that wounding an enemy on the battlefield was better than killing him outright as the 7.62 was known to do. Wound him and you take multiple men off the field, the wounded, and the men it takes to carry/drag him off.

As far as whacking a bunch of people quickly, I am a firm believer in shooter not shot...a good shot with a .22 can take down a bunch of folks quickly and efficiently...you dont need a big fancy phallic substitute if you can sling lead competently and quickly.
 
Nick

Nick

My name is Nick
Sep 21, 2001
24,023
14,631
where the trails are
The FBI also set a record on Black Friday, receiving 203,086 requests for background checks.
The previous national record of 185,086 requests was set the day after Thanksgiving last year.

I've never received a gun for Christmas. Just sayin' ...
 
JohnE

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,440
1,965
Front Range, dude...
Last edited:
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,960
9,629
AK
JohnE said:
Never cared for collapsible stocks...useless for rifle fighting and dont change much as far as sight picture for close quarter battle ops. WOuld rather have an old school fixed stock with the flip open compartment for your cleaning gear or whatever...
Click to expand...
Why do you hate AR-15-collapsible-stock-Jesus? How will you be prepared for the inevitable house-to-house urban combat where you will need to have at least 24 AR-15s of varying barrel lengths and optical accessories?
 
jimmydean

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
41,135
13,305
Portland, OR
JohnE said:
Never cared for collapsible stocks...useless for rifle fighting and dont change much as far as sight picture for close quarter battle ops. WOuld rather have an old school fixed stock with the flip open compartment for your cleaning gear or whatever...



But people would still vote for him over a Liberal Democrat...
Click to expand...
I never thought too much about the collapsible stock until one of the SWAT guys showed me his "close quarters" setup with a 16" barrel and the stock collapsed. It made for a very compact rig that was easy to throw around. It was awesome for clearing a room. But with that short barrel it is almost as accurate as a shotgun. :rofl:
 
JohnE

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,440
1,965
Front Range, dude...
jimmydean said:
I never thought too much about the collapsible stock until one of the SWAT guys showed me his "close quarters" setup with a 16" barrel and the stock collapsed. It made for a very compact rig that was easy to throw around. It was awesome for clearing a room. But with that short barrel it is almost as accurate as a shotgun. :rofl:
Click to expand...
Call me a rebel...5.56 is not my preference for room clearing. Also, shortening up on that stock and getting your eye so close to the flip sight and whatever optic you are using was just too distracting for me. Just my opinion, full time SWAT/HRT types may disagree. But I prefer a big dog and a shotgun for urban law enforcement type room clearing.

Now for full on combat...

Chainsawbayonet.jpg
 
jimmydean

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
41,135
13,305
Portland, OR
JohnE said:
Call me a rebel...5.56 is not my preference for room clearing. Also, shortening up on that stock and getting your eye so close to the flip sight and whatever optic you are using was just too distracting for me. Just my opinion, full time SWAT/HRT types may disagree. But I prefer a big dog and a shotgun for urban law enforcement type room clearing.

Now for full on combat...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it was a 5.56, but I would agree. My buddy got a AR using a .308. Talk about one shot, one kill. Damn.
 
Kevin

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Sep 6, 2004
4,540
1,007
In Holland sticking my finger in a dike...
JohnE said:
Call me a rebel...5.56 is not my preference for room clearing. Also, shortening up on that stock and getting your eye so close to the flip sight and whatever optic you are using was just too distracting for me. Just my opinion, full time SWAT/HRT types may disagree. But I prefer a big dog and a shotgun for urban law enforcement type room clearing.

Now for full on combat...

View attachment 127143
Click to expand...
For room clearance I usually whip out the Bearing-9 or the SMG-11. Even though they both have small magazines, theyre much faster and easier to land a headshot.
I prefer to use silencers on both in order not to reveal my position to nearby hostiles.
Holographic sights on both But can be traded for red dot.

For longer range Attacking the objective Im a huge fan of the type-89 assault rifle with an ACOG, vertical grip and a compensator...

For Defending objective I usually roll with the FMG-9 with the red dot sight, or ofcourse the Vector .45 ACP...

Also definitly claymores and frag granades FTMFW.
 
JohnE

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,440
1,965
Front Range, dude...
Kevin said:
...and a compensator...

Also definitly claymores and frag granades FTMFW.
Click to expand...
Havent we established that thet are all truly compensators?

And claymores and grenades are about the most fun you can have with your clothes on.

(I almost regret injecting my past into this discussion. Almost.)

Cant beat one of these bad boys for good clean fun. Almost makes me wish I was an engineer.

vintage-wwii-flamethrower.jpg
 
dan-o

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,499
2,805
Odd and uninformed comparison.

"But to people in the public health field, that’s beside the point. Guns are a major cause of death and injury. And whether or not those deaths and injuries are intentional, researchers want to know whether or not they’re preventable. Could a change in gun design, ownership laws, or something else cut down on the more than 20,000 gun suicides and more than 10,000 gun homicides that happen each year?"

I can save this guy a lot of time and tell him right now that all firearm deaths are preventable, because they're all caused by people.
Guns are very simple to operate safely.
Unlike the evolution of the automobile referenced in the article, gun violence today isn't driven by inherent design flaws.
Trigger design, weight of trigger pull, safeties, magazine disconnects, loaded chamber indicators, drop testing and other safety features are currently found on firearms.
My chainsaw scares me more than my guns.

"Where advocates of auto safety sued car companies, advocates of gun rights have made it nearly impossible to sue gun makers."
Impossible, unless you try. Really.

"Decade after decade, cars keep getting safer because regulators, activists, and automobile engineers keep looking at how drivers get hurt."
No mention of the drivers of those cars beyond studying how they were injured improved vehicle design.
Yet article title, The Nut Behind the Wheel, alludes to an unstable individual not an unsafe car.

I wish they would obtain better data on gun violence.
Particularly on what demographics are the common denominators in gun homicides.
Then I want any new laws/efforts to target those people directly rather than scattershot across all owners.
ie. tighten up reporting on domestic abusers

Suicide and accidental deaths I'm less concerned with.
One's a personal decision and the other is easily preventable if you're not an idiot, just like driving a car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom