β-SJL 2020 - the Dumb and Dumber ticket!

[Jolly_Penguin]

It simplifies everything to just ban them all. There ya go. Solved the problem.

 

[fast]

It simplifies everything to just ban them all. There ya go. Solved the problem.

That’s more akin to problem avoidance than a problem’s solution. We don’t kill the person with a common cold and go, “problem solved; he doesn’t have a cold anymore.” The underlying issue is that there’s still no cure for the common cold—just an avoidance of one with the solution of another.

 

[Jarhyn]

We all know β wants to ban certain rifles because they look like military weapons even though they do not behave like actual assault rifles with selective fire and even though by far the most murders are committed with handguns and several times more people are killed with knives than with rifles of any type.

But Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (she who mixed up the Moon with Mars and thinks there are still two Vietnams) confused an AR-15 with a heavy machine gun.



AR-15s weigh less than 7 pounds. They shoot 5.56mm (or .223") ammunition, not .50".

She is probably confusing the rifle with a heavy machine gun like the M2 which weighs more than 100lbs with the tripod and shoots .50" BMG ammunition.
An AR-15.
View attachment 23954
A .50 cal machine gun.
View attachment 23957

Comparison of bullets.
View attachment 23955
The AR-15 fires the 5.56x45mm NATO round. The AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm round. Both are much smaller than the .50 BMG (or should that be BFG?)

Anyway, these two morons are made for each other. β should pull a Ted Cruz and name SJL as his running mate as a Hail Mary pass.

Anyone who believes that select fire is what makes a military weapon an "assault weapon" is a fucking idiot, full stop.

The rifle is specifically designed for combat application, with combat-enabling features such as the pistol grip, semiautomatic fire, exchangeable arbitrary magazine size, light weight, and flash suppressor.

These features are specific to needs weighted towards combat and reflexive fire situations.

Real soldiers in real combat situations do not use burst or automatic fire. They breath out, aim, squeeze the trigger, aim, squeeze, aim, squeeze.

You can AND SHOULD do every "normal combat action" short of laying suppression fire with single shot semi-auto.

The only time that any sort of burst or full automatic option is useful on anything short of a belt automatic such as a M249 or M240-B is when you have at least one other person with you, piles of ammo, cover, and a second squad flanking.

 

[JohnG]

I know very little about guns, my questions probably seem rudimentary to a gun enthusiast. I'm sure you've heard these questions before...

What is the purpose of having military style weapons? Is it for defense? Aren't you going to need something bigger because your attacker is very likely to have a military style weapon too?

 

[Toni]

I’m so pro-gun it ain’t funny, so nothing I say should be construed as arguing against gun rights, yet it’s still interesting to be aware of the statistics that pertain to an issue at hand. That said, consider the following:

Let’s say as a politician that your immediate concern is not that of homicides in general but rather mass shootings specifically—despite variance in casualty rates. What are the statistics that answers the question of a mass murderers weapon of choice?

In other words, focus not on all homicides but rather the kind that gets media coverage and heated demands for action. I’m talking specifically about mass shootings. How many have there been? What kinds of guns were used? How many got shot? How many shot and killed? What were the guns?

None of this is to lay a foundation for banning anything, but the relevant statistics is highly dependent not on what is more important—but rather what the question is.

So I was just posting about (other things and) how the AR and AK platforms are simply the "best"... read my previous post if you want...
But concerning your question on "what do school shooters use"? They use what is popular, and therefore readily available.

If we were to do a study on the Operating Systems used by malicious computer hackers, one may find that Red Hat Linux is the culprit* in most cybercrime... should Linux be regulated or banned, or something, but not Windows or Suse linux because of those statistics?

Sorry.. is Linux the culprit or is the hacker the culprit? You just let that go right by, didn't you?

I dunno.

What's the body count on Linux?

 

[Derec]

Anyone who believes that select fire is what makes a military weapon an "assault weapon" is a fucking idiot, full stop.

Nope. Just somebody who understands the difference between military and civilian rifles. By the way, "assault weapon" is a term purposely invented for the nonsense ban US previously had. More meaningful "assault rifle" specifically refers to military, not civilian rifles, going back to OG StG 44.

The rifle is specifically designed for combat application, with combat-enabling features such as the pistol grip,

... and the shoulder thing that goes up.

semiautomatic fire,

Semiautomatic firearms are the most common type of firearm and include much more than the so-called "assault weapons".
By the way, by far the most common firearm type used in homicides are handguns. Rifles of all types, not just scary-looking ones, are behind knives and even blunt objects. They simply do not deserve the focused attention they are receiving from β et al.

exchangeable arbitrary magazine size, light weight, and flash suppressor.

- other rifles have detachable magazines too, as do some handguns.
- you are contradicting Sheila Jackson Lee. She thinks an AR-15 weighs as much as 10 moving boxes ...
- you can attach flash suppressors to other kinds of rifle I think. In any case, I do not think that feature is essential for mass shootings.

Real soldiers in real combat situations do not use burst or automatic fire. They breath out, aim, squeeze the trigger, aim, squeeze, aim, squeeze.

It is discouraged to waste ammo, but at the same time, these features would not be built in if they were not needed. You mentioned suppression fire, so you contradicted yourself.

 

[Derec]

I know very little about guns, my questions probably seem rudimentary to a gun enthusiast. I'm sure you've heard these questions before...

I am guessing most get them because they look badass.

Real thugs use handguns to do their murderin'.

 

[JohnG]

I am guessing most get them because they look badass.

That crossed my mind. I also thought military guys may have some separation anxiety from their guns.

What about handguns? Are they just for self defense? If someone comes at you with a handgun, is the idea to be quicker on the draw? Or is that where the military style guns come in?

 

[Jarhyn]

I know very little about guns, my questions probably seem rudimentary to a gun enthusiast. I'm sure you've heard these questions before...

What is the purpose of having military style weapons? Is it for defense? Aren't you going to need something bigger because your attacker is very likely to have a military style weapon too?

The purpose of using weapons with combat features is specifically to make it easier to kill people with it; to swing around and aim in tight quarters, to make it easy to hold onto and strike with the weapon in a melee (and get it back into position to fire it), to make it easy to add situationally useful attachments/sights, and to be easy to reload with a lot of bullets.

It isn't about "size" though. A "bigger" gun just punches through heavier armor. Most armor can't take a 5.56, the wimpy rounds of a classic M16 of AR-15.

The point of the "military style" weapon is to have the most useful feature set for killing people efficiently.

It's like saying "what is the purpose of having a mace vs a heavy rock?" Conversely, we have Derec arguing, if we were to apply that analogy that the heavy rock is no different from the mace, so we mustn't make a distinction or require any social oversight of purpose-built weapons in public.

 

[Elixir]

It's likely that nothing will be done about AR/AK-style weapons until some high profile politician gets hit in the arm or leg and dies from the wound - which would have been a relatively minor injury had the round come from a less lethal firearm.

Question for all our gun enthusiasts here; don't you wish shoulder-fired rocket launchers and fully automatic rifles with armor piercing (depleted uranium tipped) rounds were legal?
Isn't their prohibition an abridgement of your second amendment rights?
WHY AREN'T YOU PROTESTING IT?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

We all know β wants to ban certain rifles because they look like military weapons even though they do not behave like actual assault rifles with selective fire and even though by far the most murders are committed with handguns and several times more people are killed with knives than with rifles of any type.

But Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (she who mixed up the Moon with Mars and thinks there are still two Vietnams) confused an AR-15 with a heavy machine gun.



AR-15s weigh less than 7 pounds. They shoot 5.56mm (or .223") ammunition, not .50".

She is probably confusing the rifle with a heavy machine gun like the M2 which weighs more than 100lbs with the tripod and shoots .50" BMG ammunition.
An AR-15.
View attachment 23954
A .50 cal machine gun.
View attachment 23957

Comparison of bullets.
View attachment 23955
The AR-15 fires the 5.56x45mm NATO round. The AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm round. Both are much smaller than the .50 BMG (or should that be BFG?)

Anyway, these two morons are made for each other. β should pull a Ted Cruz and name SJL as his running mate as a Hail Mary pass.

This entire line of argument is diversionary. America is a sick society based and founded upon violence.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

When ignorant people are involved in legislation of that which they are so ignorant, we end up of with laws and policies that fail to meet the objective at best, and make the problem they are trying to mitigate even more severe, at worst.

And when ignorant people representing well heeled lobbyists are involved in legislation of that which they are so ignorant, we end up of with laws and policies that fail to meet any objective outside the goals of the lobbyists.

 

[Derec]

This entire line of argument is diversionary.

The singular focus on a style of gun that is not even used in most homicides is diversionary.

America is a sick society based and founded upon violence.

Like we say in Atlanta, Delta is ready when you are.

 

[Derec]

What about handguns? Are they just for self defense? If someone comes at you with a handgun, is the idea to be quicker on the draw? Or is that where the military style guns come in?

Handguns are definitely much easier to carry, conceal and handle than long guns. You need rifles when you need more range and/or power than a handgun provides.

 

[Derec]

The purpose of using weapons with combat features is specifically to make it easier to kill people with it;

It is quite easy to kill people with a handgun which is why by far the most people in the US are killed by handguns, and very few are killed with rifles.

to swing around and aim in tight quarters, to make it easy to hold onto and strike with the weapon in a melee (and get it back into position to fire it), to make it easy to add situationally useful attachments/sights, and to be easy to reload with a lot of bullets.

In tight quarters you will bring yourself in a position to fire it much easier with a handgun.

It isn't about "size" though. A "bigger" gun just punches through heavier armor. Most armor can't take a 5.56, the wimpy rounds of a classic M16 of AR-15.

It's also about range. Higher muzzle velocity of a riffle bullet means it will have a much longer effective range than a handgun bullet.

Conversely, we have Derec arguing, if we were to apply that analogy that the heavy rock is no different from the mace, so we mustn't make a distinction or require any social oversight of purpose-built weapons in public.

Both handguns and (scary looking) rifles are "purpose-built weapons" and not just naturally occurring objects. One is responsible for many more homicides, and yet the other receives all the attention.
Most murders are like this one.
Man convicted of 2017 double-murder at Lawrenceville hotel
Convicted felon uses a handgun to shoot two people dead. And yet β et al don't mention these types of shootings or anything about convicted felons and firearms. Why?

 

[Derec]

It's likely that nothing will be done about AR/AK-style weapons until some high profile politician gets hit in the arm or leg and dies from the wound - which would have been a relatively minor injury had the round come from a less lethal firearm.

Remember when Steve Scalise was shot by that Bernie Bro at the Congressional baseball game? The shooter used a powerful rifle - an SKS, which shoots the same cartridge as an AK-47 but lacks scary features like the pistol grip.


Top: non-assaulty SKS rifle.
Bottom: assaulty AK-47

There are plenty of rifles with the same (or higher) destructive potential than the rifles β wants to ban primarily because of how they look.

That is not to say that US should not reform our gun laws. But the priority should be given to the real pressing problem - handgun shootings in the cities, often by perps with felony convictions who are not allowed to possess guns in the first place.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

You can't attach one of these to an SKS like the guy in Dayton did.

 

[Elixir]

It's likely that nothing will be done about AR/AK-style weapons until some high profile politician gets hit in the arm or leg and dies from the wound - which would have been a relatively minor injury had the round come from a less lethal firearm.

Remember when Steve Scalise was shot by that Bernie Bro at the Congressional baseball game? The shooter used a powerful rifle - an SKS, which shoots the same cartridge as an AK-47 but lacks scary features like the pistol grip.

View attachment 24046
Top: non-assaulty SKS rifle.
Bottom: assaulty AK-47

There are plenty of rifles with the same (or higher) destructive potential than the rifles β wants to ban primarily because of how they look.

That is not to say that US should not reform our gun laws. But the priority should be given to the real pressing problem - handgun shootings in the cities, often by perps with felony convictions who are not allowed to possess guns in the first place.

That just goes to show that Democrat murderers are nicer than Republican ones.

 

[bilby]

Nope. Just somebody who understands the difference between military and civilian rifles. By the way, "assault weapon" is a term purposely invented for the nonsense ban US previously had. More meaningful "assault rifle" specifically refers to military, not civilian rifles, going back to OG StG 44.


... and the shoulder thing that goes up.

semiautomatic fire,

Semiautomatic firearms are the most common type of firearm and include much more than the so-called "assault weapons".
By the way, by far the most common firearm type used in homicides are handguns. Rifles of all types, not just scary-looking ones, are behind knives and even blunt objects. They simply do not deserve the focused attention they are receiving from β et al.

exchangeable arbitrary magazine size, light weight, and flash suppressor.

- other rifles have detachable magazines too, as do some handguns.
- you are contradicting Sheila Jackson Lee. She thinks an AR-15 weighs as much as 10 moving boxes ...
- you can attach flash suppressors to other kinds of rifle I think. In any case, I do not think that feature is essential for mass shootings.

Real soldiers in real combat situations do not use burst or automatic fire. They breath out, aim, squeeze the trigger, aim, squeeze, aim, squeeze.

It is discouraged to waste ammo, but at the same time, these features would not be built in if they were not needed. You mentioned suppression fire, so you contradicted yourself.

The British Army is so convinced that full-auto is not needed (and encourages poor practice from soldiers in combat) that they require weapons manufacturers to remove the full-auto capability from personal weapons. The classic example is the SLR, which was identical to the FN rifle used by other European armies, but with different selector positions (safe, single shot, and three-round burst; no full-auto).

The British Army also tend to think of American soldiers as poorly trained and poorly disciplined cowboys, who are almost as dangerous to their own side as they are to the enemy.