Gun control

Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
I have mentioned SBRs once or twice. :nervous:
Click to expand...
More trouble than they are worth, IMO. Messes with ballistics, so you have to change bullet weight, makes the gas impingement system hotter and more gunky, so it can foul up reliability (unless you get piston driven, which is pricey)...

I guess the discussion of the technical aspects of a gun is going to be called fawning now
 
VP said:
Am I only the one who finds the fawning over guns by our resident gun-owners bit disturbing?

WTF is a 'nice' gun?! Kills the intended targeted more smoothly with less blood spattered?
Click to expand...

Many gun owners like to moan about people trying to ban 'scary-looking' guns like the AR-15. But they also need to acknowledge that most people buy one because it's 'sexy-looking' to a gun lover.
 
Carolina Red said:
More trouble than they are worth, IMO. Messes with ballistics, so you have to change bullet weight, makes the gas impingement system hotter and more gunky, so it can foul up reliability (unless you get piston driven, which is pricey)...

I guess the discussion of the technical aspects of a gun is going to be called fawning now
Click to expand...

Technical discussion or fawning, however you label it, such enthusiasm about killing machines is worrying. Casual gun ownership, even by the sane, is what props up malevolent organizations like the NRA.
 
Rado_N said:
I'm sure if my mother had known she'd have said exactly that.
Click to expand...
Was this your family?
paker-family-christmas-stor.jpg
 
VP said:
Am I only the one who finds the fawning over guns by our resident gun-owners bit disturbing?

WTF is a 'nice' gun?! Kills the intended targeted more smoothly with less blood spattered?
Click to expand...

It's like fawning over a nice fighter jet. Guns are incredible pieces of engineering.
 
Grinner said:
Many gun owners like to moan about people trying to ban 'scary-looking' guns like the AR-15. But they also need to acknowledge that most people buy one because it's 'sexy-looking' to a gun lover.
Click to expand...
While I would never attribute this to an AR, as I personally don't find them aesthetically pleasing, there are some guns that I have seen that have truly been works of art, with detailed engraving, gold inlays, etc.
 
Carolina Red said:
While I would never attribute this to an AR, as I personally don't find them aesthetically pleasing, there are some guns that I have seen that have truly been works of art, with detailed engraving, gold inlays, etc.
Click to expand...

AR-15s look mean and sexy. Many gun owners love that kind of shit.
 
Grinner said:
AR-15s look mean and sexy. Many gun owners love that kind of shit.
Click to expand...
Oh no doubt, there are definitely those that buy them for their looks. The Beretta 92fs has many many times been described as "sexy" and the Glock as "ugly". If I had to pick one though, I personally will take the ugly one every time. It's a tool. Like, literally, you can use a Glock to hammer crap into the wall if you want.

As far as rifles, I find wood much more aesthetically pleasing than black plastic.
 
adexkola said:
It's like fawning over a nice fighter jet. Guns are incredible pieces of engineering.
Click to expand...

Not really, fighter jets are primarily aircrafts so its easy to see why people get excited by them.

Are you telling me people buy guns and pose for pictures because they are engineering marvels?

There's an undeniable element of 'macho' posturing among gun owners.
 
VP said:
Not really, fighter jets are primarily aircrafts so its easy to see why people get excited by them.
Click to expand...
A fighter jet is a machine engineered to deliver a projectile that kills. A gun is a machine engineered to deliver a projectile that kills.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
There are also plenty of vets who just want to use the same weapons they trained with.
Click to expand...
Yep, not to mention how versatile the AR platform is with different calibers, barrel lengths, etc. While generally everyone thinks "AR = assault weapon", most don't realize that you can get a highly accurate long range hunting rifle out of the AR platform.
images
 
Carolina Red said:
A fighter jet is a machine engineered to deliver a projectile that kills. A gun is a machine engineered to deliver a projectile that kills.
Click to expand...

Fighter jets are incredibly fast and maneuverable machines - the engineering marvel lies more in that than the ability to fire projectiles. Saying that, if people fawned over fighter jet missiles I'd say the same thing.
 
VP said:
Not really, fighter jets are primarily aircrafts so its easy to see why people get excited by them.

Are you telling me people buy guns and pose for pictures because they are engineering marvels?

There's an undeniable element of 'macho' posturing among gun owners.
Click to expand...

If I ever buy a gun I'll fall into that category. I don't deny that some (not most) gun owners treat guns as dick extensions
 
VP said:
Fighter jets are incredibly fast and maneuverable machines - the engineering marvel lies more in that than the ability to fire projectiles. Saying that, if people fawned over fighter jet missiles I'd say the same thing.
Click to expand...
1) none of that changes the fact that a fighter jet and a gun serve the same purpose

2) in that case, your beef should be against those who fawn over bullets
 
Carolina Red said:
Yep, not to mention how versatile the AR platform is with different calibers, barrel lengths, etc. While generally everyone thinks "AR = assault weapon", most don't realize that you can get a highly accurate long range hunting rifle out of the AR platform.
images
Click to expand...

Indeed, changing the barrel length creates a whole different use profile. But that mossy oak pattern makes me want to vomit. Give me a Hello Kitty finish any day over that.
 
Carolina Red said:
You also have the fact that the military buys its weapons from these companies, and whenever it wants a new one, it relies on the R&D of these private companies to develop a new weapon to their specifications.

The American military alone uses rifles and pistols from FN Herstal, Colt, Remington, Sig Sauer, HK, and Beretta.

While the orders from the military are massive chunks of money, without private sales, these companies would go out of business, causing the military to lose its supply chain.
Click to expand...

I think the military would probably get by. I assume the smaller companies might collapse or be eaten by one of the larger ones though. Still, it's going to affect the job market. I'm not even pro-gun, but I'm just wondering if anyone who's anti-gun has solutions for this particular issue
 
Swaters16 said:
I think the military would probably get by. I assume the smaller companies might collapse or be eaten by one of the larger ones though. Still, it's going to affect the job market. I'm not even pro-gun, but I'm just wondering if anyone who's anti-gun has solutions for this particular issue
Click to expand...
While the military could get by, what I am pointing out is that they may be one of the reasons why some things aren't happening.
 
Theoretically, the money currently spent on guns becomes disposable income which would be spent elsewhere. So it might create demand in unrelated fields.
 
Carolina Red said:
1) none of that changes the fact that a fighter jet and a gun serve the same purpose
Click to expand...

I disagree but even then that just proves my point: fighter jets are only restricted to the military - guns should be the same.

But instead people are allowed to frivolously guns for no reason other than it's some sort of hobby (or because of a perverse male insecurity). And in doing so prop up an industry partly responsible for massacres.
 
VP said:
I disagree but even then that just proves my point: fighter jets are only restricted to the military - guns should be the same.

But instead people are allowed to frivolously guns for no reason other than it's some sort of hobby (or because of a perverse male insecurity). And in doing so prop up an industry partly responsible for massacres.
Click to expand...
1) But they're not, so moot point. Seeing as how it is a moot point, what do you think could be done that's actually not something that requires the deletion of something in the Bill of Rights?

2) Are you wanting to get into a "you're a pansy!"... "no, you're a pansy!" argument now?
 
berbatrick said:
Theoretically, the money currently spent on guns becomes disposable income which would be spent elsewhere. So it might create demand in unrelated fields.
Click to expand...

If the big sales are from foreign gunmakers then the majority of the money is going out of the country anyway.
 
From (surprisingly) the Washington Post... I've snipped some of the article below to bits that highlight discussion on this forum...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-assault-weapons-wont-stop-mass-shootings/
Why banning AR-15s and other assault weapons won’t stop mass shootings

Lost in the diatribes about banning assault weapons is this inconvenient fact: the vast majority of mass shooters use handguns, not assault rifles, in their attacks. That includes Seung-Hui Cho, who used two handguns, including a Glock 19, in 2007 to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech University, the previous worst mass shooting in American history.

A study last year by the Congressional Research Service found that from 1999 to 2013 assault rifles were used in 27 percent public mass shootings, which it defines as the killing of four or more people in a relatively public place. Dating back to 1982, the rate is 24 percent, according to research by James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University professor who studies mass murder.

“Assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advocates believe,” Fox wrote in a 2012 article in the journal Homicide Studies.

Why do they believe that?

Assault rifles, especially the AR-15, have been used in many high-profile attacks in the United States. Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 at Sandy Hook Elementary School, killing 20 first-graders and six adults. The attackers in San Bernadino, Calif., late last year used assault rifles. And now Mateen.

The images of these weapons — identical in physical appearance to what Americans see U.S. troops using in war zones — have become a powerful symbol for an argument that Rice raises this way in her Facebook post: “What are the uses and purposes of military style assault weapons in private hands?”

Legislators addressed that idea in 1994, passing an assault weapons ban in response to a series of mass shootings. The ban expired 10 years later and now there are calls to bring it, or something like it, back. Nearly 60 percent of Americans support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, according to a recent CBS poll, up 13 percent since last year.

“The idea of restricting unfettered access to assault weapons is only considered radical when it comes out of the mouth of a modern US president,” the Globe argued in an editorial accompanying the front-page AR-15 image. “To most Americans, and every other democracy on the planet, it is rightly considered common sense.”

But in terms of mass shootings, what would such a ban really accomplish? Not much, according to history.

From 1976 to 1994, there were about 18 mass shootings per year, according to Fox’s data, which is drawn from federal statistics. Between 1995 and 2004, a period covering the ban, there were about 19 incidents per year. And from 2005 to 2011, after the ban expired, the average went up to nearly 21.

Fox makes an important point about what probably happened during the ban: Mass shooters can rather “easily” come up with “alternate means of mass casualty if that were necessary.”

In other words, if they can’t get an AR-15, they get a Glock. And that’s the problem, experts say, of hoping that a ban on assault weapons will stop mass shootings. It’s not really about the gun.

Sure, some stats show higher kill counts with assault weapons than with handguns, but as Cho proved, that’s not always the case. (As my Wonkblog colleague Christopher Ingraham points out, high-capacity magazines — for rifles or handguns — might make a better focus for gun control advocates, but the symbolic images of clips aren’t as striking as an AR-15.)

What’s certain is this: A mass shooter doesn’t need an AR-15 in the same way that a carpenter doesn’t an electric nail gun to build a house. Sure, a handgun might slow a killer down, just as using a hammer slows down the carpenter. The house still gets built. The shooting goes on.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
27% seems like a pretty fecking healthy number to me. How many thousands of deaths does that equate to in the last 5 years alone?

If they've highlighted hand guns as the problem then they know what to do.

fecking bat shit crazy bunch of confirmation bias hunting, power hungry wankers.
 
In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.
Click to expand...

No guns at all works well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.