U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

Automatic and semi-automatic are two separate definitions.


What stronger springs? An AR-15 and M-16 (as one example) both use the same magazine and therefor the same spring. I don't have a clue what you mean with the muppet statement.

BTW: Condescension is just not complete without an eye roller attached to it. I should know because I've probably gotten the most awards (complaints) for condescension on this forum.

I think politicians would pass a law requiring the sky to look like a giant disco ball. They have no idea how to follow through will it , but at least they have it down on paper.

I think he is talking about how both work on either gas, or recoil operation.

You'll have to forgive sonofghandi. He tends to want to pass laws that already exist and to pass other laws without providing a rationale other than he would feel better with them as law. He and I have been round and round on this subject in an earlier thread but to no avail.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf230893-0-135.html


Yes, but this is a discussion is more about legality and that's where the separation is. Automatic weapons have been regulated by the NFA since 1934 with further restrictions being added since. Now, of course, they have to go after the next rung in the ladder which would be semi-autos or high capacity mags (for now) which is a stepping stone to banning semi-autos. They don't realize that this is the wrong political climate for perusing gun bans. More new gun owners have been created since 2009 than probably any other time in recent history.

As opposed to your arguments of gun control would make you personally feel unsafe and the arguments that no one who disagrees with you knows enough to have an opinion?

If you want to read that thread again, go for it. Your arguments mostly consisted of you assuming that I want to take everyone's guns away and that almost no one in the country (in your opinion) handles firearms in an unsafe manner.

My calls are for gun safety moreso than gun control. I do believe a measure of control should be in place, but we've never passed any regulations that are worth the paper they're printed on (thanks in large part to the refusal of any gun advocacy groups to participate in any type of discussion).

I think the most effective measures would focus more on education and awareness rather than fear and terror (and that goes for both sides).

Let us all now stand at attention, for the anthem of the National Rifle Association.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE2Vdcv9Q_o[/youtube]

Thank you for that salient, well thought out, and totally on-topic point. I'll be sure to take that into consideration.

EDIT: So the anthem of the NRA is a song about sex and/or shooting heroin?

I am just going to repeat my previous statement. Automatic refers to the method of how the weapon cycles to the next round, not the rate of fire on trigger pull. Fully automatic and semi-automatic are definitions that relate to what happens on a sustained trigger pull. During my military service the definitions were strictly enforced and even a 1911 was classified as an automatic. Although the pistol we used was the Browning BAP (Automatic Pistol). In the popular perhaps even the legal terminology you might be correct but as of my weapons manuals, the military (Australian) designation of automatic refers to the system of reload.



Of course not, you did not read the thread, we were discussing drum magazines...

91: I apologize for my comment from earlier and I understand that you know the difference between auto and semi-auto. But the way you worded your statement made it appear that you were talking about full-auto, not semi-auto.

The phrase "firing on automatic" brings to mind the concept of a selectable mode of firing, which suggests that you're talking about the "auto" (or fully automatic) mode of firing, as opposed to the other common modes: semi and three round burst.

That seems to be correct within the popular terminology, even Wikipedia supports your position.

Your argument was that if the shooter was using an extended mag (and we later established that he was - but we can extend the principle of the argument to mean he was carrying a 40 round mag instead of a 33 round mag), he wouldn't have had to reload at that time, and no one would have been able to stop him. I brought up the person who was carrying as an example that the situation very well could have been that he didn't stop to reload, but instead that man came up and shot him as an easy example that your statement isn't entirely true. Even barring that scenario, there's no reason that people couldn't have tackled him while he was shooting. But, at the end of the day there's not much use speculating what might have happened or what could have happened.



I already explained that I don't feel the need to justify my purchases with anyone; much the same as you might feel if I asked you to justify why you bought the clothes that you're wearing. For the most part I do use multiple magazines - but the point is if there's no value added by restricting them, then why restrict them in the first place?



No correction necessary.



No - you can be well trained and still be a danger to yourself or others. The newtown shooter had, by all accounts, plenty of training under his belt - it didn't stop him from being a danger to others.



It might suggest that, but any amount of research into this man would tell you that's not the case. By all accounts I've seen/read, he's a pretty good shot. And, like someone above pointed out, being legally blind does not mean that you can't see anything.

I have lived in the US, albeit in a big city. I love Virginia, it is the best fall landscape in the USA. The second amendment however, if anything, is about responsible gun ownership. The argument that 'I don't have to explain why' is totally misguided. If you are a responsible citizen, then it follows that you are an accountable one. The second amendment protects you from the government but not from questioning by your fellow citizens, who have every right to call people to account if their attitude towards weapons is juvenile.

Many of the pro gun chaps I met in Virigina were nice middle-aged chaps who had a handgun and a hunting rifle and little chance of harming anyone. There are however people who piggyback on that and then decide that their trips to the firing range must make them look like a counterstrike player. A person who wants to walk around with their weapon and look all warie is not a responsible citizen and their citizens have every right to be annoyed with them. If you are a pro gun chap, then you should make yourself accountable, register your weapon and have its ballistics on record, don't go buying after market gear to sex it up and understand that in the rest of the civilised world, a gas operated weapon is not considered a hunting rifle (so the assault weapons distinction is meaningless), unless you are hunting the Taliban. Background checks and registrations, these things should be no briainers (and polling shows that they mostly are), as should restrictions on taking weapons across state lines. Further, lets be perfectly honest, gun control in a big city is totally different from the countryside. Urban centres should have restrictions on handguns.

Where I take issue with the anti-gun chaps (my own side), is over the constant criticism of the NRA for capitalising on mass shootings to make political points. It baffles me how someone can watch something like Bowling for Columbine, see his massive criticism of Heston for speaking and then fail to see the hypocrisy in the name of the movie. Every time there is a mass shooting, the pro-gun control chaps go on another push for greater controls (and good on them) but lets be honest about what exactly is going on there.

And now, a message from the anti-gun brain trust:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0[/youtube]

I can't decide yet if this tops "shoulder things that go up", but still...

I'd tend to agree, although I think we'd disagree on the definition of "responsible".



You can say anything you want, and have whatever attitude you want. It still doesn't mean that I'm required to explain why I bought something past the obvious "I wanted it, I thought the price was fair, so I bought it". It doesn't really matter whether we're talking about groceries, clothes, cars, or guns.



I disagree. If the people who choose to carry aren't going around waving their guns in the air or doing something equally braindead, I fail to see how they are being any less responsible than any other gun owner.



If someone wants to go out and buy a grenade launcher for their AR15 I'm not going to stop them. I might laugh at them and make jokes about their manhood, but I won't stop them. To each his own.

I'm of the personal opinion that the greatest thing about the AR15 and 1911 platforms is their ability to be a completely unique expression of the person who owns them - what some people have done with both these platforms is nothing short of artistic.



AFAIK (I'm not a hunter) this is true in the US as well - many states ban hunting with gas blowback rifles. The difference is that we recognize valid uses for guns besides hunting/sporting.



Background checks should and are a part of 90% of firearms transactions. I could be persuaded to require background checks on private transfers if the proposal included some way to prevent abuse from private parties looking to do background checks on random people.

If registration schemes in other countries haven't nearly-universally led to mass confiscation schemes, there would be far less opposition. But, they have, so any future proposal would have to include iron-clad guarantees from such abuse to gain any kind of traction.



Being perfectly honest, I fail to see any reason why that would be the case. The major US cities that have strict gun control measures (DC, NYC, Chicago) have far worse problems with guns than cities that don't (Seattle, Dallas, Miami, Las Vegas, Philadelphia).



More than that, I find the fixation with solving the "mass shooting" problem to the exclusion of solving the much larger "gun violence/violent crime" problem less than useful.

I think the massive departure in our thinking would be over the underlying assumptions you have about the role of a citizen in society. I am not an ideological libertarian. Rather, I don't think libertarianism offers a useful answer to the problems of gun violence, other than more of the same. Further, I don't view such a detached social contract to be useful for organising basic society. I can see where you are coming from and that you are being consistent with yourself, but I find nothing attractive in your position that would make me consider taking it on.



I generally don't. Self-defense and 'because its cool' attitudes are not particularly useful in my view. I can see the arguments in favour of a responsible citizen taking on their own responsibility but even that I cannot reconcile with a flippant 'guns are art' or 'the new picatinny rail is sexy' view of firearms. If carrying a weapon is your duty to society and the social contract, because you know kings of England and all that, it is surely a serious duty and not something to be taken lightly and certainly not for immature views of weapons.



Although I am not an 'in principle' libertarian, I do have some sympathy for people who suggest libertarian solutions to problems. One of the areas I have the most regard for that suggestion is in relation to personal privacy. So I share you concerns but I think that an adequate system can be put into place. As for the risk of confiscation, I don't see that as particularly serious due to the presence of the second amendment.



I lived on Manhattan, it has one of the lowest crime rates on the planet. I lived above 110th street felt far safer there than I do in many cities in Australia (street violence was never an issue in NY due to tough laws, whereas in Australia its getting to be a real issue). I would suggest to you that gun control correlates to crime ridden areas because it is an important crime fighting tool. As you pro-gun chaps like to point out, correlation does not equal causation .



Not really, it is a catalyst for change, as it was in Australia.

You're welcome!





The title "Happiness is a Warm Gun" came from the cover of a gun magazine.



However, I do confess that I haven't attended a NRA rally in quite some time.

Perhaps this is the anthem?

All rise, please.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1P2H6qHtuk[/youtube]