Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[KimGordon67]

That's why I emphasized measurements. Hardware can be measured and regulated. Carry illegal hardware: get punished. Stay legal: no problem. Saw your shotgun barrel off to 18.5 inches, no shorter. But have a damn good reason to carry it in public.

... but even that's a problem - your 'good reason' and someone else's might be quite different.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Where I disagree with him is when he says it doesn't ban "guns." Yes, it did. Some guns.

Only in name...not in effectiveness.

The gun makers just put different "features" on the same weapon, called it something else and sold it the next day.

It makes me worried for the Parkland Students, though, because I don't think they understand the shitstorm they're walking into with this. They say "Assault Weapons" and they're going to get nickel and dime'd to death by the gun lobbies again.

That's because (D) leadership and the anti-gun derps who perpetuate ignorance on the subject led them into that trap.

If they truly want to ban ANY gun with the firepower and damage performance we all know we're talking about they're in for a huge problem. And Bitter Boy is right that as long as we have the shit 2nd Amendment, it will probably be impossible.

That's pretty much every rifle designed in the last 150 years.

And yea...get rid of 2A or let prohibition go and embrace regulation.

 

[phrodeau]

The total amount of kinetic force the weapon is able to apply to targets.



They are also features, not weapons.

Again..this is how weapons manufacturers continue to skirt these feature bans and despite their best efforts you can still buy AR15's in every state with an "assault weapons" ban.



It's improves ergonomics.

They make the weapon more comfortable/adjustable/lighter weight.

They don't increase the weapons performance or function....they are still semi-automatic rifles.

Which is why I keep posting the 2 AR15's, one *NOT* an assault weapon, one is...even though they fire the same ammo just as fast, both equally capable of killing just as many just as fast.

Yet you seem to think the one with the adjustable stock and pistol grips is somehow MORE dangerous than the one without...and way more dangerous than the guns that account for 90% of gun violence in the US, handguns.

But you nor any of the others who support the idea that one AR15 is more dangerous than the other because of the kinds of grips it has can explain why exactly.

Sure I can. If an accessory improves ergonomics it increases the user's performance and makes the weapon more lethal in his hands.

This is really simple stuff. Haven't you ever thought about it before?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Sure I can. If an accessory improves ergonomics it increases the user's performance and makes the weapon more lethal in his hands.

This is really simple stuff. Haven't you ever thought about it before?

More comfortable = more lethal?

You really think because it's adjustable this AR15 "assault rifle" ..
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51CXUeeBOxL._SX463_.jpg

Is somehow more lethal than this *not* assault weapon AR15????
http://www.mynameisfoxtrot.com/storage/FRS15%20riflestock01.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1355373649453

Because adjustable stock, pistol grips and don't forget that oh so firepower enhancing bayonet lug!!

That's like saying getting hit by a 3,000lb BMW is more dangerous than getting hit by a 3,000lb Honda Accord doing the same speed because the BMW is more comfortable to drive and looks better.

Nice try but..no.

Supporting a rifle accessories ban to deal with a handgun issue is still stupid as fuck.

 

[Gwanji2]

If I may, let me just start with a quick admission, I have no problem with hunting and even having a hand gun at home (far away from and inaccessible to kids).

Four quick points, then:

1) The NRA is mostly funded by gun companies who are in the business of selling more guns. Pretty simple. These companies make everything from pistols to hunting rifles to assault weapons. Assault, not defensive. They have hijacked the Second Amendment to sell more of these things, an effort that has largely succeeded in that sense.

2) assault weapons are not defensive and are not legal for hunting. They were designed to be offensive military weapons designed to kill as many people possible in a very short period of time.

3] the bullets that come out of assault weapons never, ever, ever make the nice neat small red holes you see in the movies. They are designed to rip through clothes, flesh, and internal organs, shredding everything in between entry and exit. These things are designed to mutilate and kill.

4) Terrorists and people who are batshit crazy should never have access to guns of any kind, much less assault weapons, and yet lax American gun laws allow for both. Idiocy.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Partly true.

Also true that the NRA has done a great job of suppressing scientific investigation of gun violence, and information about themselves and guns generally. They don't want to be transparent. Go try and find any good documentary on the NRA, guns, or the anti-gun movements. They are few and far between.

But not to worry. This is all going to change. It's only the beginning.

That's because (D) leadership and the anti-gun derps who perpetuate ignorance on the subject led them into that trap.
.

 

[WandaGrabowski]

Then someone should come up with a sufficient definition, if regulating on the basis of categorisation is what you're arguing for. Creating policy on the basis of how things 'seem' is very risky - in all areas, not just weaponry, but especially in those areas that are subject to moral differences (which, somehow, guns seem to be).

Yeppers, someone should, but who, the NRA, Trump, the GOP congress?

 

[KimGordon67]

Yeppers, someone should, but who, the NRA, Trump, the GOP congress?

Buggered if I know ... but maybe instead of work out which ones to 'ban' (or whatever), it might be more productive to start from ground zero and work which ones should be permissible. That puts the onus on demonstrating why one SHOULD have a specific category, rather than why one SHOULDN'T have a specific category. (Yeah, I know, Second Amendment, yadda yadda yadda, but I'm not operating from a basic premise that 'guns' are a human right.)

 

[Hypoxia]

... but even that's a problem - your 'good reason' and someone else's might be quite different.

That's why we have lawmakers, to codify the justifications. Bribe them to see your way.

 

[WandaGrabowski]

Buggered if I know ... but maybe instead of work out which ones to 'ban' (or whatever), it might be more productive to start from ground zero and work which ones should be permissible. That puts the onus on demonstrating why one SHOULD have a specific category, rather than why one SHOULDN'T have a specific category. (Yeah, I know, Second Amendment, yadda yadda yadda, but I'm not operating from a basic premise that 'guns' are a human right.)

Then we would have to start with what was available and therefore permissible at the time the second amendment was written.

 

[KimGordon67]

Then we would have to start with what was available and therefore permissible at the time the second amendment was written.

That almost sounds like fun.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

The NRA was nothing but a rinky dink outfit until the 70s, and it wasn't until the 80s that they really started to become the terrorist organization that are today. And they did NOT have the sway they have over Congress. That is 30 - 40 yrs old.

Funnily enough, they did it exactly how the kids are doing it today: activism, protests, and targeting of lawmakers. They stormed town halls, pressured politicians, started to advertising aggressively, etc.

That's why they're so scared. They see the movement and it's much stronger than theirs was at the beginning.

 

[coachdb18]

3] the bullets that come out of assault weapons never, ever, ever make the nice neat small red holes you see in the movies. They are designed to rip through clothes, flesh, and internal organs, shredding everything in between entry and exit. These things are designed to mutilate and kill.

I’ll just start with door #3...

You are aware, are you not, that bullets come in a fascinating number of function, from armor piercing to FMJ to frangible to plastic tipped to hollow point to soft point to copper solid to wad cutter to snake shot.... and all can be fired from the same weapon with decidedly different results... and each comes in various grain weights, and can be loaded in cases with either faster or slower burning powders to yield a wide world of velocities and deliverable energy on target.

Would you now like to revise your answer, so as to at least make some technical sense?

 

[KimGordon67]

I’ll just start with door #3...

You are aware, are you not, that bullets come in a fascinating number of function, from armor piercing to FMJ to frangible to plastic tipped to hollow point to soft point to copper solid to wad cutter to snake shot.... and all can be fired from the same weapon with decidedly different results... and each comes in various grain weights, and can be loaded in cases with either faster or slower burning powders to yield a wide world of velocities and deliverable energy on target.

Would you now like to revise your answer, so as to at least make some technical sense?

Such a pity his aptitude with the minutiae of bullets doesn't extend to reading or comprehending statistics.

 

[coachdb18]

2) assault weapons are not defensive and are not legal for hunting. They were designed to be offensive military weapons designed to kill as many people possible in a very short period of time.

Picking door number 2 for just a moment....

Are you aware, that many of the guns come with various features... picatinny rails, scope mounts, various grips, stability stands, collapsible stocks, cooling jackets, and may be in blued or non-blued steel, straps, ...... and the same gun can be used either offensively or defensively, as that is a function of the user, not of the various weapons features.

And should I add that each and every one of them are as variable as the round loaded, please see my previous post referencing ‘door# 3’


Bottom line, there is no such thing as an ‘assault rifle’, which is why trying to classify any given gun as such cannot be done. It’s essentially the same problem you’d have with a 16 # claw hammer, and trying to classify it as a’house-building hammer’, or a an assault weapon

 

[phrodeau]

Then let the government impose standards, like they do for car accessories like tires, headlights and seat belts.

 

[coachdb18]

Then let the government impose standards, like they do for car accessories like tires, headlights and seat belts.

Two cars, a Lamborghini and a SmartCar...

You ‘load’ the Lamborghini with 20 octane motor fuel, and you ‘load’ the SmartCar with rocket fuel...

Which one is the ‘muscle car’?

And he answers, ‘let the government decide’! UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE

 

[KimGordon67]

Two cars, a Lamborghini and a SmartCar...

You ‘load’ the Lamborghini with 20 octane motor fuel, and you ‘load’ the SmartCar with rocket fuel...

Which one is the ‘muscle car’?

And he answers, ‘let the government decide’! UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE

No, he said 'let the government impose standards'. You would hope they would do that with the input of relevant experts in the field. Obviously this isn't how it always works, but it's how it SHOULD work. A government that doesn't pay attention to actual evidence is not a good government. (While evidence maybe not matter that much to you, it should matter to the people actually making policy ... thankfully you're not one of them.)

 

[coachdb18]

Then let the government impose standards, like they do for car accessories like tires, headlights and seat belts.

After stating in technical terms why it’s impossible to impose standards because there is no such item as an ‘assault rifle’ to impose standards on... you have been given all the reasons why that’s not even a rational quest, much less an impossible one. Turning such over to a group of morons is akin to turning a chimp loose to write Shakespeare

 

[BotanyBoy]

Partly true.

Totally true.

Also true that the NRA has done a great job of suppressing scientific investigation of gun violence, and information about themselves and guns generally. They don't want to be transparent. Go try and find any good documentary on the NRA, guns, or the anti-gun movements. They are few and far between.

None of that has anything to do with (D)'s being piss poor leaders, spouting ignorant shit and leading their flock of lemmings down the same road to the same derp they did 20 years ago.

But not to worry. This is all going to change. It's only the beginning.

Oh really?

The beginning of what?

Then we would have to start with what was available and therefore permissible at the time the second amendment was written.

Only in your fantasy world.

In the real USA that's not how civil rights work.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

The end of the NRA.

Oh really?

The beginning of what?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The end of the NRA.

LOL....whatever, even if that were true, it doesn't mean much.

GOA or someone else would just step in and fill their lobbying shoes.

 

[phrodeau]

Two cars, a Lamborghini and a SmartCar...

You ‘load’ the Lamborghini with 20 octane motor fuel, and you ‘load’ the SmartCar with rocket fuel...

Which one is the ‘muscle car’?

And he answers, ‘let the government decide’! UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE

Ooh, rocket fuel. Is that street legal?

Do you understand the concept of street legal?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ooh, rocket fuel. Is that street legal?

Do you understand the concept of street legal?

Hydrogen cars are totally street legal.

 

[phrodeau]

Gun rights rallyers in Vermont passed out free 30-round magazines to 1,200 passersby.

Because they're decorative, and make your rifle smell nice.