Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate'

Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate' (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2013, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
What was that you're about to say about making assumptions?
So, what IS the real reason according to you ...in the UK?



Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Actually I'm saying its not ridiculous for others to make a particular assumption in a particular situation which it isn't. Guns are for shooting things or people. If you carry one, you are either intending to find something or someone to shoot, or anticipating a potential situation where you'll need to shoot someone or something.
EXACTLY! But I am not breaking any laws to carry guns or shoot guns at designated inert targets. Sure people carry all sorts of things but that in and of itself doesn't suggest intent.



Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Just because I don't usually make them doesn't mean I can't. It seems we've sort of swapped styles for a post or two.
As you said, people are allowed to make stupid assumptions, but that doesn't change the value of the assumption because they realize later it was stupid.



Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Normal service resumes then. Would those be stereotypes like "lefties are all conditioned to fear guns by TV" and assumptions like "relating to others with soap opera plots"?
Obviously you don't recognize propaganda when its shown to you. It works like 'advertising'.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 12:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Warren said he hoped people would approach them and talk to them, instead of calling police.
Except, of course, it's just as likely that someone "exercising their rights in public" could get deeply offended when questioned about why they're carrying assault rifles in public.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 11:33 AM
 
But what IS an "Assault Rifle"??? Just because it looks 'scarey' to the ignorant?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
But what IS an "Assault Rifle"??? Just because it looks 'scarey' to the ignorant?
Yeah, it's a scary term for a hunting rifle with extra plastic bits and black paint.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yeah, it's a scary term for a hunting rifle with extra plastic bits and black paint.
Oh please. Just stop with this NRA propoganda. An "assault weapon", e.g., an AR-15, is NOT a hunting rifle. An AR-15 is a military rifle, designed and developed for military/police use, made to inflict the most amount of damage to as many people as possible in as little time as possible.

No reasonable person would conflate a hunting rifle with an assault rifle or vice versa. The only people who do that are the NRA and gun nuts. Just call a spade a spade - an AR-15 is a military assault rifle. You can debate all you want whether a ban on these makes sense, but please don't try to equate an AR-15 to a "hunting rifle with extra plastic bits and black paint".

Please explain to me what features of an AR-15 make it a "hunting rifle with extra plastic bits and black paint". The collapsable stock? Pistol grip? 30-round magazine?

No hunter worth his/her salt would use an AR-15 to hunt with.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 12:25 PM
 
Like the AR-15 is the only "assault rifle". Where did he say AR-15? Huh? "Oh please" right back at you.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Like the AR-15 is the only "assault rifle". Where did he say AR-15? Huh? "Oh please" right back at you.
Stop trying to confuse the issue. It's far and away the most common one and is the one that is clearly being targeted by a proposed "assault weapon" ban. It's the one news organizations use as an example "assault weapon".

No rationale person would confuse and conflate any hunting rifle with an assault weapon.

Here are three specific questions for you:

1) Could you please provide an example of any hunting rifle that would be confused with an "assault weapon"?

2) What specific hunting rifle are you and/or the NRA afraid would fall under the scope of an "assault weapon" ban?

3) Would you agree that an AR-15 is NOT a hunting rifle and can only be designated as an "assault weapon"?
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Stop trying to confuse the issue. It's far and away the most common one and is the one that is clearly being targeted by a proposed "assault weapon" ban. It's the one news organizations use as an example "assault weapon".

No rationale person would confuse and conflate any hunting rifle with an assault weapon.

Here are three specific questions for you:

1) Could you please provide an example of any hunting rifle that would be confused with an "assault weapon"?

2) What specific hunting rifle are you and/or the NRA afraid would fall under the scope of an "assault weapon" ban?

3) Would you agree that an AR-15 is NOT a hunting rifle and can only be designated as an "assault weapon"?
Mossberg 715T. Many people around here use them for squirrel. .308 semi-auto, popular hunting rifle:

http://home.comcast.net/~ssom003/Gun...AR-8%20308.JPG

So, they just want an "AR-15 ban"? None of this is needless "feel good" legislation? Right?

We should have access to "assault weapons", that's kind of the point.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Mossberg 715T. Many people around here use them for squirrel. .308 semi-auto, popular hunting rifle:

http://home.comcast.net/~ssom003/Gun...AR-8%20308.JPG

So, they just want an "AR-15 ban"? None of this is needless "feel good" legislation? Right?

We should have access to "assault weapons", that's kind of the point.
First, the picture you linked to is a Springfield SAR-8, not a Mossberg 715T.

Second, the Mossberg 715T is a .22 pea-shooter made to look like an assault rifle. It's hardly an assault rifle.

Third, the Springfield SAR-8 was made for the purpose of not falling within the scope of the previous assault weapon ban and likely wouldn't fall under the proposed new ban, depending on how they define "assault weapon".

And why in the world would you use .308 to kill squirrels?!?!

Why should we have access to "assault weapons"? For what purpose?

NOTE: We are just debating here. I haven't actually made up my mind how I feel about the proposed assault weapon ban.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 02:50 PM
 
I said "Mossberg 715T. Many people around here use them for squirrel." (period), and then also mentioned the SA .308 as a separate entry, but didn't specify a model because there are a s**t ton of variants. You asked what could be "confused with an assault weapon", and either the Mossberg 715T and any .308 SA, with black paint, a flash suppressor, and pistol grip could be "confused with an assault weapon".
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 02:55 PM
 


Seems to me this could be conflated with a hunting rifle.

This is actually a battle rifle, which are bigger and nastier than assault rifles.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I said "Mossberg 715T. Many people around here use them for squirrel." (period), and then also mentioned the SA .308 as a separate entry, but didn't specify a model because there are a s**t ton of variants. You asked what could be "confused with an assault weapon", and either the Mossberg 715T and any .308 SA, with black paint, a flash suppressor, and pistol grip could be "confused with an assault weapon".
OK, sorry. I thought ".308 semi-auto, popular hunting rifle:" after the period was a further description and picture of the Mossberg 715T previously mentioned. My mistake.

At any rate, my point remains that neither of those guns would likely fall under the scope of the proposed "assault weapon" ban, again, depending on how they define "assault weapon". As I said, the Springfield SAR-8 was made to not fall under the scope of the previous ban.

As defined in the previous ban, "assault weapons" are:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Lots of ways manufacturers were able to make guns that shot the same ammo, looked similar, but fell outside the scope of this definition.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Lots of ways manufacturers were able to make guns that shot the same ammo, looked similar, but fell outside the scope of this definition.
Well there's the rub isn't it? The fundamental problem is that people want precisely what other people don't want: a cool-looking scary-looking military-looking gun that would make them feel like a big man when they go out to shoot schools squirrels. There just isn't going to ever be a middle ground weapon that's good enough for self-defense but not "good" enough to kill innocents (duh because innocents die easier than attackers, not harder).

The only way I see a ban being effective at all is if there are a fixed set of allowed weapons, that don't get developed or improved or changed (so they can't "work around" the ban), and that look like what hunting guns are "supposed' to look like. But that is very far from the 2nd amendment.

Did I mention we should be talking about a new amendment?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Not rare, if I pay close attention, I'll see ~5-7 holsters /day while out and about. I stop those people and thank them for being diligent in their civic responsibility.
Just what is this civic responsibility you keep going on about?

Was George Zimmerman doing his civic responsibility?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Well there's the rub isn't it?
Hence my position that the focus should be on high-capacity magazines and not "assault weapons". The latter is nebulous at best and thus subject to loopholes and exemptions once the lobbyists get involved. Whereas a 10 shot max on a magazine is simply NOT subject to interpretation. Furthermore, no SANE person can argue that such a restriction is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Hence my position that the focus should be on high-capacity magazines and not "assault weapons"...a 10 shot max on a magazine is simply NOT subject to interpretation.
"The kitchen staff is complaining about rats in the kitchen. I want to hire a new staff."

Mag limits is like trying to limit alcohol use by mandating smaller shot glasses. It's retarded.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
"The kitchen staff is complaining about rats in the kitchen. I want to hire a new staff."

Mag limits is like trying to limit alcohol use by mandating smaller shot glasses. It's retarded.
GAWD. Thank you. Not to mention you can 3-Dee-****in' print high capacity mags now if you *really* want to. I mean, is there an epidemic of mass shootings with those stupid 100rnd drum clips you can buy from.. oh, pretty much everywhere?

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 06:27 PM
 
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Funny how only 1 of the things on this list is hard to do after manufacturing.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2013, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by pooka View Post
GAWD. Thank you. Not to mention you can 3-Dee-****in' print high capacity mags now if you *really* want to. I mean, is there an epidemic of mass shootings with those stupid 100rnd drum clips you can buy from.. oh, pretty much everywhere?
I was wondering if anyone would ever mention this. That's some awesome shit, right there. Before long, you'll be able to print the entire weapon.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 12:10 AM
 
They've already printed the lower receiver of an AR-15 and put a dozen rounds through it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Before long, you'll be able to print the entire weapon.
Thats going to f**k both sides of the gun control argument. The NRA will hate that even more than the anti-gun peeps.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Thats going to f**k both sides of the gun control argument. The NRA will hate that even more than the anti-gun peeps.
The NRA doesn't sell guns.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The NRA doesn't sell guns.
No, but it lobbies HARD for those who do.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 01:34 PM
 
Homemade guns are going to be useful only for bad guys, not for good guys. Because they will always be unreliable and inaccurate compared with the real thing. Therefore, the tech's existence only hurts the gun control side, because it makes indiscriminate mayhem harder to control, but it won't hurt the NRA's position, neither corporate nor personal, because legal gun owners would still need to buy reliable, accurate weapons if they want to protect their lives and property.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post

No hunter worth his/her salt would use an AR-15 to hunt with.
They DO use them as varmit killers. The AR-15 is popular BECAUSE you can swap parts to customize it for convenience, etc.

You DO realize guns are not the issue but mass murderers and violence are. Changing the subject so you can parrot left wingnut BS is pathetic.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 01:54 PM
 
I sure hope the nitwit gun ban idiots don't think my new Remington 597 with scope and 30 round mag is an assault weapon. So far. all I've 'killed' is some sugar cubes at 80 yards. No, you're NOT taking any of my 30 rounders.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
They DO use them as varmit killers. The AR-15 is popular BECAUSE you can swap parts to customize it for convenience, etc.

You DO realize guns are not the issue but mass murderers and violence are. Changing the subject so you can parrot left wingnut BS is pathetic.
LOL

Using an AR-15 to kill varmits is overkill. There are PLENTY of guns better suited for this purpose. You're just parroting right wing gun nut propoganda. "We need our AR-15s to kill coyotes!!!" Please. You need a folding stock to kill varmits? You need pistol grip to kill varmits? You need to be able to attach a bayonet to kill varmits? You need a 30-round magazine to kill varmits? You really expect people to believe that people need an AR-15 to kill varmits because it's customizable?

I just want people to call a spade a spade: an AR-15 is an assault weapon, designed for military/police use, that people like to have because they are fun to shoot and look bad ass. At least I can be honest and say that's why I bought mine.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I sure hope the nitwit gun ban idiots don't think my new Remington 597 with scope and 30 round mag is an assault weapon. So far. all I've 'killed' is some sugar cubes at 80 yards. No, you're NOT taking any of my 30 rounders.
I highly doubt anyone is going to confuse a .22 rifle for an assault weapon.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 04:11 PM
 
They make .22s to look like them. The only obvious giveaway is the size of the magazine.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 04:14 PM
 
Here's a conversion of the rifle BadKosh is talking about:

     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
They make .22s to look like them. The only obvious giveaway is the size of the magazine.
It's still a .22.

And, not to sound too much like Rob, it's f****ing LAME to take a .22 pea shooter and make it look like an AR-15. I mean seriously, get the real thing or go home.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
people like to have because they are fun to shoot and look bad ass. At least I can be honest and say that's why I bought mine.
Yes, that's exactly what people want, and that's exactly what gun control is trying to stop. But because people want it, any restrictions are going to be worked around to somehow return to the "bad ass" state, and then some asshole is going to get amped up by that (whatever it is) and go shoot a bunch of innocent people with it, and we'll be right back here again. "Looking bad ass" is just too slippery a target to be banned, but that's the only way to achieve the goal, short of what I suggested earlier which is to proscribe certain specific guns that are allowed, and make sure those don't look bad ass, and outlaw every other weapon besides what's on that list, including accessories and upgrade kits. And that's clearly not consistent with the 2nd amendment, which is why I think we need to wake up to the need for a new amendment.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 06:07 PM
 
"It's still a .22".

So is this:

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
It's still a .22.

And, not to sound too much like Rob, it's f****ing LAME to take a .22 pea shooter and make it look like an AR-15. I mean seriously, get the real thing or go home.
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

"The real thing" is going to be whatever is the most powerful gun money can legally buy, even if it's only a 22.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
It's still a .22.

And, not to sound too much like Rob, it's f****ing LAME to take a .22 pea shooter and make it look like an AR-15. I mean seriously, get the real thing or go home.
Hey, don't tell me. I think you'd have better luck hitting someone over the head with it rather than shooting them. I'm only addressing whether you could look at one and think it's an assault rifle.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
outlaw every other weapon besides what's on that list, including accessories and upgrade kits. And that's clearly not consistent with the 2nd amendment
Why isn't it? As long as the list contains some choice of weapons which would enable you to arm a militia if needed, how is that infringing your right to bear arms? Wouldn't one handgun, one shotgun, one rifle etc fulfil the 2nd amendment?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Why isn't it? As long as the list contains some choice of weapons which would enable you to arm a militia if needed, how is that infringing your right to bear arms? Wouldn't one handgun, one shotgun, one rifle etc fulfil the 2nd amendment?
Because it contradicts hundreds of years of precedent. Judicial interpretation of the law is a part of the law. I would expect you to understand that, seeing as we got it from y'all
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes, that's exactly what people want, and that's exactly what gun control is trying to stop. But because people want it, any restrictions are going to be worked around to somehow return to the "bad ass" state, and then some asshole is going to get amped up by that (whatever it is) and go shoot a bunch of innocent people with it, and we'll be right back here again. "Looking bad ass" is just too slippery a target to be banned, but that's the only way to achieve the goal, short of what I suggested earlier which is to proscribe certain specific guns that are allowed, and make sure those don't look bad ass, and outlaw every other weapon besides what's on that list, including accessories and upgrade kits. And that's clearly not consistent with the 2nd amendment, which is why I think we need to wake up to the need for a new amendment.
But no one is talking about banning guns because they look bad ass. Again, that is a scare tactic put out by the NRA. I mean, yes, most assault weapons do look bad ass but that is not why they would be banned. They would be banned for being assault weapons (that happen to look bad ass).

Again, it all depends on the final wording of the proposed law and how they define "assault weapon". I would personally hope that such a definition would include caliber so as not to outlaw .22 pea shooters that happen to look like an assault weapon because, let's face it, looking like an assault weapon does not an assault weapon make.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
"It's still a .22".

So is this:

OK.

Not really sure what your point is. That that cartridge looks similar to a .223? So?
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
But no one is talking about banning guns because they look bad ass.
Whether they know it or not, yes they are.

because, let's face it, looking like an assault weapon does not an assault weapon make.
That is precisely what it makes. Here is an article discussing that issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us...l?ref=us&_r=1&
"Assault rifle" is a style, like "iMac" or "iPhone," it could be whatever the maker wants it to be. This kind of term works fine for marketing, where exceptions and gray areas are truly irrelevant. But it makes for quite a difficult legislation, where exceptions are expanded and maximized to skirt the spirit of the ban. All the contrived and elaborate attempts to translate this term of style into concrete and discrete feature sets is all just a load of hot denial. Because, let's face it, we all know which weapons are assault weapons by just looking at them, even those of us who don't know the first thing about guns. How can it be about their capability if you don't need to know their capability in order to know which is which?

I am not faulting people for being concerned about the style, quite the opposite. The reason we have (what we perceive to be) a crisis is because the style of the weapon makes it (A) more appealing to terrorists like spree shooters and (B) more effective tools of terror. Because style is what makes the whole affair more menacing, more repellant, more of a circus. Crime rates were higher back in the days of saturday-night-specials and all manner of other non-fancy less effective weaponry. The new hysteria over guns is not dependent on any modern advances of utility, but rather on new advances in marketing and the psychological dominance of the weapon. I can't remember where, but someone described their choice of the AR-15 as based at least in part on intimidation of potential home invaders. That is the whole issue right there: the intimidation factor. Intimidation is what's relatively new, it's the factor that people want for defending their homes (among other things), it's also what spree shooters want (and for good reason because it works, as evidenced by the fact that), it makes the general public more... intimidated by the whole affair, hence why they are interested in banning it. Well that should come as no surprise, that intimidation is intentional.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2013, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Whether they know it or not, yes they are.


That is precisely what it makes. Here is an article discussing that issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us...l?ref=us&_r=1&
"Assault rifle" is a style, like "iMac" or "iPhone," it could be whatever the maker wants it to be. This kind of term works fine for marketing, where exceptions and gray areas are truly irrelevant. But it makes for quite a difficult legislation, where exceptions are expanded and maximized to skirt the spirit of the ban. All the contrived and elaborate attempts to translate this term of style into concrete and discrete feature sets is all just a load of hot denial. Because, let's face it, we all know which weapons are assault weapons by just looking at them, even those of us who don't know the first thing about guns. How can it be about their capability if you don't need to know their capability in order to know which is which?

I am not faulting people for being concerned about the style, quite the opposite. The reason we have (what we perceive to be) a crisis is because the style of the weapon makes it (A) more appealing to terrorists like spree shooters and (B) more effective tools of terror. Because style is what makes the whole affair more menacing, more repellant, more of a circus. Crime rates were higher back in the days of saturday-night-specials and all manner of other non-fancy less effective weaponry. The new hysteria over guns is not dependent on any modern advances of utility, but rather on new advances in marketing and the psychological dominance of the weapon. I can't remember where, but someone described their choice of the AR-15 as based at least in part on intimidation of potential home invaders. That is the whole issue right there: the intimidation factor. Intimidation is what's relatively new, it's the factor that people want for defending their homes (among other things), it's also what spree shooters want (and for good reason because it works, as evidenced by the fact that), it makes the general public more... intimidated by the whole affair, hence why they are interested in banning it. Well that should come as no surprise, that intimidation is intentional.
I disagree. Domestic terrorists and these people who carry out mass killings do not select an AR-15 because they hope to "intimidate" anyone. They select them because they are the most popular assault weapon, i.e., military/police rifle, available, they are relatively inexpensive, they can carry 30 round mags, they have collapsable stocks making they more transportable and easier to carry, and they shoot a lethal round. Remember, there is a reason the AR-15/M4 platform is the rifle of choice for militaries and police forces all over the world and it's NOT because they are "intimidating".

There are plenty of cheaper rifles that LOOK like an AR-15 (or can be made to) that no one has ever used to carry out mass killings. Why is that? The "intimidation" factor would still be there, right?

Again, as I've said in this (or one of the other threads) to Shaddim, we're just debating and spit-balling here. I personally don't think "assault rifles" should be banned. I'm just trying bring the point of view of a responsible gun owner (including an AR-15) who doesn't buy into the NRA propaganda. I think the NRA does more harm than good in so far as they come across as completely unhinged and paranoid and are trying to "rally the troops" by scaring people into thinking the government is going to come knocking on your door to confiscate all your guns.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
They DO use them as varmit killers.
And you don't see a problem with that?

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
You DO realize guns are not the issue...
Of course they aren't. The issue is the hundreds of millions of dollars in arms sales, hence the heavy lobbying efforts. If guns are banned, you lose an entire private industry. So what you do is tell everyone they're infringing on your Constitutional rights, and to completely ignore the context in which it was written.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
...but mass murderers and violence are.
The point is to minimize risk. If the mass murderers only have access to knives, hunting rifles, and shotguns, they're not going to be able to massacre 20+ people in under 10 seconds.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
"The real thing" is going to be whatever is the most powerful gun money can legally buy, even if it's only a 22.
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
They select them because they are the most popular assault weapon, i.e., military/police rifle, available
Just like I said

and they shoot a lethal round.
Are you implying that there is any gun out there that doesn't?

Remember, there is a reason the AR-15/M4 platform is the rifle of choice for militaries and police forces all over the world and it's NOT because they are "intimidating".
Military weapons are fully automatic. The bans on full auto, and the nerfing of civvie versions to semi-auto, didn't stop criminals from committing crimes, all it did was lower the standard of what you yourself have called "the real thing." It's foolish to think the "real thing" won't just adjust down to whatever remains legal (again).

There are plenty of cheaper rifles that LOOK like an AR-15 (or can be made to) that no one has ever used to carry out mass killings. Why is that?
Because they're not the coolest thing available. But something is always going to be the coolest thing available.

I'm just trying bring the point of view of a responsible gun owner (including an AR-15) who doesn't buy into the NRA propaganda.
No one on this board has agreed with the NRA. The closest is Shaddim who merely said they accidentally said something that happens to be true, not that he endorses their interpretation or the way they argue their case. Bashing the NRA is a straw-man. There are plenty of reasonable arguments that happen to point in the same general direction as the NRA's garbage. Just because they're idiots who live in an echo chamber isolated from reality, doesn't make anyone who happens to arrive at the same opinion they have as stupid as they are. I know you (are saying you) are one of those too (devil's advocate), but I'm only addressing your argument here, not your identity (angel's advocate?).
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Just like I said
Actually, you said "The real thing" is going to be whatever is the most powerful gun money can legally buy, even if it's only a 22."

I'm saying they select them because they are the most popular ASSAULT WEAPON available. The question is, if AR-15s are banned, are these mass murderers going to start using .22s? I highly doubt it. I'd venture to guess they would resort to shotguns and things like Glocks that can use 15 round magazines (or 10 round magazines if they ban mags over 10 rounds).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Are you implying that there is any gun out there that doesn't?
I'm implying that based on ballistics and decades of studies, some calibers are more lethal than others. Frankly, if I were to get shot I'd rather take my chances against a .22 than a .223, .308, 9 mm, .357, or .45.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Military weapons are fully automatic. The bans on full auto, and the nerfing of civvie versions to semi-auto, didn't stop criminals from committing crimes, all it did was lower the standard of what you yourself have called "the real thing." It's foolish to think the "real thing" won't just adjust down to whatever remains legal (again).
True, but can you even imagine the numbers of people that could be killed in SECONDS if these mass murderers had access to fully automatic weapons? One of the reasons more people were not killed is because the guns used were semi-auto. So the ban on full auto weapons probably saved lives in these cases.

Now, what if these people didn't have an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine? Isn't it conceivable that fewer people would have been killed if they had used, say, a bolt-action rifle, shot gun, or revolver?

This is kind of the whole point of this exercise. Would lives be saved if there were a ban on AR-15s and 30-round magazines?

This is like one of those mental exercises where you ask a question about something that could never happen, e.g., "If you could cure cancer, but in doing so 100,000 random people would drop dead, would you?"

In this case: If you knew that banning assault weapons and 30 round magazines would save ONE life, would you support it? How about 30 lives? 100?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Because they're not the coolest thing available. But something is always going to be the coolest thing available.
My question was in response to your implication that people use them because they are "intimidating". That is NOT why they use them. I highly doubt these mass murderers think to themselves, "Hmmm, I am going to go on a mass killing spree. What gun to use? I guess I'll use an AR-15 since it's the coolest gun available and I can intimidate people with it".

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No one on this board has agreed with the NRA. The closest is Shaddim who merely said they accidentally said something that happens to be true, not that he endorses their interpretation or the way they argue their case. Bashing the NRA is a straw-man. There are plenty of reasonable arguments that happen to point in the same general direction as the NRA's garbage. Just because they're idiots who live in an echo chamber isolated from reality, doesn't make anyone who happens to arrive at the same opinion they have as stupid as they are. I know you (are saying you) are one of those too (devil's advocate), but I'm only addressing your argument here, not your identity (angel's advocate?).
Maybe not on this board, but go take a look and read through threads on some gun sites. The vast majority of posters there agree 100% with the NRA propaganda and parrot it like it's gospel.

For the record, I take issue with the way the NRA operates, not necessarily with their stance against further gun control.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Broadly speaking, if you see someone carrying a gun, its not an unreasonable assessment to assume they are carrying it in order to shoot something since that is what guns are for. Hardly irrational to be wary in that situation.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
No. YOU are making an assumption based on your stereotypes instead of actually finding out what is going on.
This is bogus. It is a self-evident statistical fact that where guns exist it is significantly more likely for potentially lethal gun violence to take place. It is in no way unreasonable or irrational for someone to be uneasy, nervous, even fearful when faced with a situation where the threat of lethal violence has been increased, especially given the recent high-profile shootings in the US and the constant reminders of how quickly terrorists and madmen can strike worldwide. This is just human nature.

Anyone openly displaying their guns in public like these two did are just knowingly playing with the emotions of innocent people which makes them nothing more than a**holes in my books.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
My question was in response to your implication that people use them because they are "intimidating". That is NOT why they use them. I highly doubt these mass murderers think to themselves, "Hmmm, I am going to go on a mass killing spree. What gun to use? I guess I'll use an AR-15 since it's the coolest gun available and I can intimidate people with it".
I doubt they put it quite like that, but I think I'm right in saying that it is common to find that the perpetrators of these spree killings leave behind numerous photos or videos of themselves posing with their guns in threatening poses, often copied from TV, movies, favourite album covers etc etc. Pretty sure that was the case with Columbine and the guy from Virginia Tech. Image is definitely a common factor with these people.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 03:32 PM
 
- Ban pistols
- Ban pistol-grip on any weapon
- Ban full auto AND semi-auto
- Ban magazines over 10 rounds
- Offer full 2x purchase-price pay-back for handing in any of the above no-questions-asked.
- Automatic Federal jail time (5 years miniumum?) for possession of any of the above after 1-year grace period

- Legislate that all firearms must be painted fluorescent green

Done.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Actually, you said "The real thing" is going to be whatever is the most powerful gun money can legally buy, even if it's only a 22."

I'm saying they select them because they are the most popular ASSAULT WEAPON available.
Those are exactly the same thing, that's my point. They want the top gun, whether it be on top because of power or prestige or intimidation (or media hype), it's going to be the same unit because those properties overlap each other. It's cool because it's the most powerful, the "real thing."


The question is, if AR-15s are banned, are these mass murderers going to start using .22s? I highly doubt it. I'd venture to guess they would resort to shotguns and things like Glocks that can use 15 round magazines (or 10 round magazines if they ban mags over 10 rounds).
Firstly it's not like we can know the mind of a spree shooter well enough to make educated guesses about what suits them best. But out of the pool of uneducated guesses, I find it as likely that they would use whatever becomes "the real thing" after the current "real thing" is banned. If that is a .22 duded up to look like an assault rifle, then I have no problem imagining that's what they would use.


I'm implying that based on ballistics and decades of studies, some calibers are more lethal than others. Frankly, if I were to get shot I'd rather take my chances against a .22 than a .223, .308, 9 mm, .357, or .45.
If it's not lethal then it's no good for self defense. Given the premise that something will be available or self-defense, it will also be available for spree shooters.

If not that premise, then I renew my suggestion that we should be talking about a new constitutional amendment by now, because twisting the old one that far would make a mockery of the idea of enumerated civil rights.


True, but can you even imagine the numbers of people that could be killed in SECONDS if these mass murderers had access to fully automatic weapons? One of the reasons more people were not killed is because the guns used were semi-auto. So the ban on full auto weapons probably saved lives in these cases.
It's entirely possible that full-auto weapons would result in fewer deaths, due to being harder to aim accurately and just wasting ammo. In fact I'm finding it hard to imagine a scenario where a school shooting would actually be aided by full-auto over semi. Unless there were waves of humans coming at you, how does full-auto ever increase your kill count?


Now, what if these people didn't have an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine? Isn't it conceivable that fewer people would have been killed if they had used, say, a bolt-action rifle, shot gun, or revolver?
Anything is conceivable. Maybe he wouldn't have even gotten the idea in his head if he hadn't had access to that cool military-looking gun to encourage him. Or maybe it would have biased him more towards explosives or arson. "Conceivable" doesn't really appeal to my sense of reason, more to my sense of grasping at straws.


This is kind of the whole point of this exercise. Would lives be saved if there were a ban on AR-15s and 30-round magazines?
Don't skip the step where you actually try to answer "would it change anything" so you can make your decision based on "what would be saved if it did change something." There were plenty of mass murderers before the invention of assault rifles, and the most successful school shooting happened during the last ban of assault rifles. The question of whether it would make any difference is very much up in the air.


This is like one of those mental exercises where you ask a question about something that could never happen, e.g., "If you could cure cancer, but in doing so 100,000 random people would drop dead, would you?"
What are the 100,000 random people dying in this analogy? Home owners defending against intruders? That seems out of character for you, given that most self-defense (or crime even) don't use rifles of any type, and don't fire more than a few shots.


My question was in response to your implication that people use them because they are "intimidating". That is NOT why they use them. I highly doubt these mass murderers think to themselves, "Hmmm, I am going to go on a mass killing spree. What gun to use? I guess I'll use an AR-15 since it's the coolest gun available and I can intimidate people with it".
It might be more like "life sucks and I hate everyone and everything, except for the fact that I have the coolest gun of anyone out there. How can I go out in a way that shows everyone how cool I am for owning one?"


Maybe not on this board, but go take a look and read through threads on some gun sites. The vast majority of posters there agree 100% with the NRA propaganda and parrot it like it's gospel.
So what? Then go post there if that's the straw-man you would rather rail on.
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Jan 19, 2013 at 05:25 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
- Ban magazines over 10 rounds
Ok this question goes out to the general audience... why not simply ban magazines altogether? Make legit users load their guns directly, one bullet at a time. What would be wrong with this?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Ok this question goes out to the general audience... why not simply ban magazines altogether? Make legit users load their guns directly, one bullet at a time. What would be wrong with this?
I'm not a gun owner and am in favour of strict gun control, but I do agree that multi-round magazines are a potential life saver in self defence situations. A bear could do significant damage to you in the time it takes to fumble around picking up the round you just dropped in the snow, for example.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2