Assault Rifle

[F250 28680]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

link?

Its usually just an argument between Bad_teammate and one of the Trump supporters where both end up arguing against any compromise.

 

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, F250 said:

Its usually just an argument between Bad_teammate and one of the Trump supporters where both end up arguing against any compromise.

 

I bet it also generally involves italics. 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

I have to admit, the moderate gun enthusiasts who support additional restrictions on sales and background checks have done a great job of stepping up and disputing the gun freaks like Baba Yaga or whatever the fuck his name is.

Oh wait, they haven't.  Pardon me if your protests fall flat.  You just want others to carry the heavy water for you.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

And yes, I played that piece in HS band, too.

[bad_teammate 13132]

I would bet that most Americans do not have any real firm position on guns. As gun advocates here can attest, most Americans don't know much of anything about guns. With proper sales, you could get a plurality of Americans to approve of machine guns or approve of a ban on all firearms.

[TwiceHorn 31263]

Here's my thinking on the semi-auto, center-fire, >5 round mag ban or restriction argument.  Fully auto weapons are effectively banned, that's the status quo, so that level of firepower is off the table.

The thing that makes "assault rifles," however defined, effective at mass shootings is firepower, which is a combination of semi-automatic firing rate and magazine capacity.  There are totally legit semi-auto shotguns, hunting rifles and rimfire rifles (the majority of rimfire rifles sold are semi-auto).  This wouldn't affect those.  People who have a preference for AR-style rifles or even AK's can still have them, just not with a >5 round magazine.

There would be a "confiscation" problem only with >5 round mags, not with an entire class of weapons.  It will still be a problem, but a more manageable one.

The "dangerous" level of firepower would be curtailed.  Also, a lot of "yahoo-ism" on youtube etc. that makes "black guns" attractive to less-than-law-abiding owners. 

Will this solve or even reduce the mass shooting problem?  I don't know.  Maybe they'll switch to semi-auto pistols.  Maybe Marlin 60s and Ruger 10/22s.  Maybe shotguns. Maybe lever-action rifles.   Study of it will yield some insight on a variety of issues presented by "gun control" more broadly.

[Anastasis 23393]

Nonsense jimmy. Myself and many others have proposed in quite a bit of detail on the other board a variety of measures that have the potential actually impact gun violence, both broadly and in terms of the mass shootings. I consider myself extreme in terms of many of my positions wrt to the 2nd, but even I am willing to support a number of measures at the moment that I believe could actually move the needle wrt gun violence. Because you don't see push back against some poster that I don't even recognize is no reason to abandon a reasonable discussion. This is a ridiculous line of reasoning driven by emotive knee jerkism.  

Edited April 4, 2018 by Anastasis

[F250 28680]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have to admit, the moderate gun enthusiasts who support additional restrictions on sales and background checks have done a great job of stepping up and disputing the gun freaks like Baba Yaga or whatever the fuck his name is.

Oh wait, they haven't.  Pardon me if your protests fall flat.  You just want others to carry the heavy water for you.

I recently applauded a proposal you made regarding multi-tier licensing and I even added a restriction on magazine capacity to it that Twicehorn recommended. As I recall, Anastsis was supportive of stricter licensing but not the magazine limit. But one of those other guys must have got under your skin because you reverted back to "fine ban all guns" mode. You tend to be easily distracted.

Just grow thicker skin and learn to ignore the noise and figure out how to get bad_teammate under control.

 

Just kidding about BT, he doesn't bother me nor should he counterparts bother you.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

By all means, Anastasis, link or summarize, but if you think the national discussion hasn't been completely and consistently hijacked by "fuck you if you think you're taking away one bit of my 2nd Amendment rights HRRRRR!!!!" then you're just tone deaf.

I'm fucking sick of it.  If you think a few level heads completely wipe out the mass hysteria, you're nuts.

I'm now fighting fire with fire.  Too bad.

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Here's my thinking on the semi-auto, center-fire, >5 round mag ban or restriction argument.  Fully auto weapons are effectively banned, that's the status quo, so that level of firepower is off the table.

The thing that makes "assault rifles," however defined, effective at mass shootings is firepower, which is a combination of semi-automatic firing rate and magazine capacity.  There are totally legit semi-auto shotguns, hunting rifles and rimfire rifles (the majority of rimfire rifles sold are semi-auto).  This wouldn't affect those.  People who have a preference for AR-style rifles or even AK's can still have them, just not with a >5 round magazine.

There would be a "confiscation" problem only with >5 round mags, not with an entire class of weapons.  It will still be a problem, but a more manageable one.

The "dangerous" level of firepower would be curtailed.  Also, a lot of "yahoo-ism" on youtube etc. that makes "black guns" attractive to less-than-law-abiding owners. 

Will this solve or even reduce the mass shooting problem?  I don't know.  Maybe they'll switch to semi-auto pistols.  Maybe Marlin 60s and Ruger 10/22s.  Maybe shotguns. Maybe lever-action rifles.   Study of it will yield some insight on a variety of issues presented by "gun control" more broadly.

There are probably 100s of millions of standard capacity 30rd magazines in circulation. Shit, I got enough to last me and all my children and their childrens lifetimes in the closet 20ft from where I sit.  And you can print these things on your desktop. Magazine capacity limits aren't a real solution unless you want to turn millions of Americans into felons overnight. Improving the background check system and its inputs, requiring background checks on all transfers, and starting to address the real societal mental health issues at play are where we should focus efforts. 

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm now fighting fire with fire.  Too bad.

And you will likely get your chance to do exactly that in 2020.  And we will see what impact it actually has. Unfortunately I am afraid that we will be sitting here having the same discussion in 2028, cause we have not addressed the real root cause issues behind this type of violence in our society. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 45546]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

And you will likely get your chance to do exactly that in 2020.  And we will see what impact it actually has. 

I'm not going to win the argument in 2020.  It won't stop me from trying to add momentum to the movement, though.

[Anastasis 23393]

sorry jimmy, edited to add while you were responding. 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Yep, I agree to a large extent.  But I don't feel that a failure to address the root cause(s) means that all weapons/ammunition should be legal.  (Not that  you're necessarily advocating such a position, but the national narrative is essentially "no, there is no compromise".)

[Anastasis 23393]

I really don't think that that is the national narrative.  You got R Senator from Texas proposing fixing to the NICS system, and a "R" administration doing things through ATF regulations that even Obama didn't have the balls to pull off. I think that there is a real circus mirror that the whole discussion is being seen through at the moment.  

[TwiceHorn 31263]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There are probably 100s of millions of standard capacity 30rd magazines in circulation. Shit, I got enough to last me and all my children and their childrens lifetimes in the closet 20ft from where I sit.  And you can print these things on your desktop. Magazine capacity limits aren't a real solution unless you want to turn millions of Americans into felons overnight. Improving the background check system and its inputs, requiring background checks on all transfers, and starting to address the real societal mental health issues at play are where we should focus efforts. 

True enough, but it's less drastic and less of a problem than confiscating an entire class of weapons.

I see Australia bought back about 650,000 guns in their most recent gun-banning effort.  There are more guns than that in Texas alone.

Also, ironic note, England now has a knife violence problem.  London's murder rate exceeds that of NYC.  https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/london-murder-rate-higher-new-york-city-first-time-surging-knife-gun-crime/

[Gatorubet 30083]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

There are probably 100s of millions of standard capacity 30rd magazines in circulation. Shit, I got enough to last me and all my children and their childrens lifetimes in the closet 20ft from where I sit.  And you can print these things on your desktop. Magazine capacity limits aren't a real solution unless you want to turn millions of Americans into felons overnight. Improving the background check system and its inputs, requiring background checks on all transfers, and starting to address the real societal mental health issues at play are where we should focus efforts. 

If the law bans them and there is a buy-back/exchange for 5 round mags that people know about and ignore,  then fuck them.  They deserve to be called felons.    Trying to get a balance is a good thing.   Resisting anything cause 'cold dead hands' types won't comply is not a good response.  Make knowingly not turning in high capacity mags a lifetime gun ban for the felon.    I bet they step right up and trade for the 5 round.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

No, you see, there are no solutions.  We must throw up our hands in defeat.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Step 1: Stop making and selling new ones.

[TwiceHorn 31263]

20 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

If the law bans them and there is a buy-back/exchange for 5 round mags that people know about and ignore,  then fuck them.  They deserve to be called felons.    Trying to get a balance is a good thing.   Resisting anything cause 'cold dead hands' types won't comply is not a good response.  Make knowingly not turning in high capacity mags a lifetime gun ban for the felon.    I bet they step right up and trade for the 5 round.

And I think a magazine buy-back/criminalization would provoke fewer otherwise law-abiding types from going "cold dead hands" than an actual gun buy back.  And, it would be a fuck of a lot cheaper to buy back mags than guns.

Additionally, it would give us a handle on the scope of the problem presented by confiscation/buy-back programs.  Will they be routinely flouted?  Will hicap mags flourish on the black market? What will really happen?

Edited April 4, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23393]

12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

If the law bans them and there is a buy-back/exchange for 5 round mags that people know about and ignore,  then fuck them.  They deserve to be called felons.    Trying to get a balance is a good thing. 

No reasonable person thinks that this reflects balance.  If this is where you guys want to go with the debate, you are only going to drive out otherwise reasonable gun owners.  The democrats will ultimately get the same whipping they got as a result of the nonsensical AWB. 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Maybe if there was a sign that the majority of gun enthusiasts were "reasonable people" your point might hold water.  I don't believe that to be the case.  I see an overwhelming amount of "cold dead hands", "2nd Amendment", "Come and Take It", etc.  I don't care that you educated smart guys see a reason to compromise . . . you are NOT the majority.

[Anastasis 23393]

This is nonsense jimmy.  The vast majority of gun enthusiasts are quite reasonable.  You are reacting to a caricature created out of a dysfunctional political milieu.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Anastasis

[Gatorubet 30083]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

No reasonable person thinks that this reflects balance.  If this is where you guys want to go with the debate, you are only going to drive out otherwise reasonable gun owners.  The democrats will ultimately get the same whipping they got as a result of the nonsensical AWB. 

If you think that a high capacity mag ban on ARs for the right to keep ARs is not a balance, then you sit where you sit.  About 10-20 years from getting really fucked once the old Fox NRA types die out and are replaced by the kids you see on TV.  Fuck the  so-called right to have any gun you think you want.   Heller says prepare your anus. 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30083]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

This is nonsense jimmy.  The vast majority of gun enthusiasts are quite reasonable.  You are reacting to a caricature created out of a dysfunctional political milieu.

Quote

No reasonable person thinks that this reflects balance.

Don't look now, but you just proved his point.

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

If you think that a high capacity mag ban on ARs for the right to keep ARs is not a balance, then you sit where you sit.  About 10-20 years from getting really fucked once the old Fox NRA types die out and are replaced by the kids you see on TV.  Fuck the  so-called right to have any gun you think you want.   Heller says prepare your anus. 

 

 

I don't think it takes that long. Dems will control two branches in 2020 and will have free reign barring SCOTUS stepping in. 

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

Don't look now, but you just proved his point.

you beg the question counselor. 

[TwiceHorn 31263]

16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

If you think that a high capacity mag ban on ARs for the right to keep ARs is not a balance, then you sit where you sit.  About 10-20 years from getting really fucked once the old Fox NRA types die out and are replaced by the kids you see on TV.  Fuck the  so-called right to have any gun you think you want.   Heller says prepare your anus. 

 

 

Yeah, that's where I'm coming from.  A focused, directed strike at the heart of one facet of the gun problem.  Not that drastic, not that injurious to gun owners.  But it also can't be riddled with loopholes and bs like the assault weapon ban.  Stave off the maniacs from trying to ban semi autos altogether so they have to confiscate actual guns, including my goddamn Marlin and my goddamn shotgun as well as my goddamn M1A.**  They can have my 20 round mags.

**A negligible number, if any, of these weapon models have ever been used in a mass shooting, much less any other crime.

Edited April 4, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TahoeHorn 107]

What's an assault rifle?

[TwiceHorn 31263]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

What's an assault rifle?

We, or I, have already established that that is a useless term.  The object of loathing is a semi automatic rifle, chambered in a center fire caliber, with a mag cap >5.

[TahoeHorn 107]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

We, or I, have already established that that is a useless term.  The object of loathing is a semi automatic rifle, chambered in a center fire caliber, with a mag cap >5.

What hunter doesn't have a closet full of those?  How many are there?  50MM?  80MM?

[jimmyjazz 45546]

It's your thread, but you're not fooling anyone.

[F250 28680]

15 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

What's an assault rifle?

Asked and answered. The conversation has moved on from the OP.

[TwiceHorn 31263]

12 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

What hunter doesn't have a closet full of those?  How many are there?  50MM?  80MM?

Closet full of what?  As demonstrated, the ban would ultimately fall down to hi-capacity magazines. It might also reduce sales/manufacture of those rifles "tailored" to high cap mags, without ensnaring weapons with little or no utility in mass shootings or crime.

Personal bias here:  I have a number of semi automatic weapons.  Two rifles, a shotgun, and a pistol.  I recognize a certain amount of fun in ripping off 10-20 rounds of .22.  I'm too cheap to rip off 10-20 rounds of .308 or even .223.  Plus, ultimately, the only thing that interests me are accurate rifles. I have shot something like 3500 rounds from accurate (air) rifles this past year. One can have a lovely AR-15 variant that's accurate as shit in a nice, handy, ergonomic package.  That only lets you pop off five rounds at a time.

Edited April 4, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TahoeHorn 107]

If you're going to propose a ban, sooner or later you'll have to say what one is.  The last attempt at a ban failed because the definition of an assault rifle was utterly ridiculous.  It's not clear to me that you can come up with a definition that isn't.  Try.

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Closet full of what?  As demonstrated, the ban would ultimately fall down to hi-capacity magazines. It might also reduce sales/manufacture of those rifles "tailored" to high cap mags, without ensnaring weapons with little or no utility in mass shootings or crime.

Is it only newly manufactured ones or is it the, say, 50MM that already exist?

[TwiceHorn 31263]

Center.  Fire.

[pyrohornIII 4809]

Got this from bernorange on the gun control thread.

 

Quote

Basically, unless it's regulated under the NFA, it's legal to own and use:

https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa

 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

7 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

If you're going to propose a ban, sooner or later you'll have to say what one is.  The last attempt at a ban failed because the definition of an assault rifle was utterly ridiculous.  It's not clear to me that you can come up with a definition that isn't.  Try.

Stop with the semantic bullshit.  Eliminate "assault weapon" from the language of the ban.  Identify what weapons and/or auxilliaries are banned and proceed from there.

But this doesn't matter to you.  You have no interest in facilitating a discussion.  You just want to throw nails under the tires.  Fuck you.  Seriously.

[TahoeHorn 107]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Center.  Fire.

OK.

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Stop with the semantic bullshit.  Eliminate "assault weapon" from the language of the ban.  Identify what weapons and/or auxilliaries are banned and proceed from there.

But this doesn't matter to you.  You have no interest in facilitating a discussion.  You just want to throw nails under the tires.  Fuck you.  Seriously.

The last ban did that.  And it was ridiculous and failed.

As I said before it's like banning hot rods.  I don't know what a hot rod is.  I want to know whether you're proposing a ban that bans half the cars on the road or is a silly nothing that talks about numbers painted on the side.  Until you tell me what a hot rod is I don't know what you're saying.

I understand TwiceHorn's definition.  It includes a very high percentage of real rifles.  It would include almost every deer rifle I see.  It includes the pink Ruger Mini above.  I understand.  It's an honest coherent definition.  It won't fly but it makes sense.  Are there any other definitions?

[jimmyjazz 45546]

"I'm just asking questions!  I'm innocent here!  I just want to help!!!"

Blow me.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Dude, what you don't understand is that you're either proposing to ban most every "real" hunting rifle or self defense rifle or you have a 1994 silly cosmetic, do nothing ban.  I can't see anything that gets "scary" rifles but not most everything.  People own (1) some plinkers for kids,  (2) basic rifles, and (3) target rifles, and (4) big game rifles.  TwiceHorn's proposal gets all of (2).  That's most rifles.  And even more of the value.  If you own $10K in rifles it's probably $8K of it.  It won't fly.  Period.

Most cars on the road will outperform the "hot rod".  You can't come up with a ban of cars that go over 70mph that makes sense.  You can't come up with a ban of cars with lots of power that doesn't ban every truck of size and every luxury car, and every car that needs to pass going uphill or tow a trailer.  And most of, say, 150MM cars on the road would be banned.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

51 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

What hunter doesn't have a closet full of those?  How many are there?  50MM?  80MM?

What the fuck? I've hunted since I was 9 years old and have literally not once ever used a semi-automatic rifle to do so.

[F250 28680]

Tahoe'd

 

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

12 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What the fuck? I've hunted since I was 9 years old and have literally not once ever used a semi-automatic rifle to do so.

But you know damn well that most hunters do (except those who hunt small game like birds and squirrels, or big game like bear and elk).  Regardless, the inventory of semi-automatic center-fire rifles is huge.  And they cost a lot more than bolt action rim fire.  A lot.

 

OK. I looked up the number.  Here's one article:

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-guns-in-the-US-are-semiautomatics

The percentage of rifles is smaller than I guessed.  The portion of rifles which is semi-auto is about what I thought.  And the ones that aren't are mostly "plinkers".

Edited April 4, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[jimmyjazz 45546]

20 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Dude, what you don't understand is that you're either proposing to ban most every "real" hunting rifle or self defense rifle or you have a 1994 silly cosmetic, do nothing ban. 

I understand far more than you think I do, including the attempts by dishonest opponents such as yourself to confuse the general public.

[zork 629]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

There are probably 100s of millions of standard capacity 30rd magazines in circulation. Shit, I got enough to last me and all my children and their childrens lifetimes in the closet 20ft from where I sit.  And you can print these things on your desktop. Magazine capacity limits aren't a real solution unless you want to turn millions of Americans into felons overnight. Improving the background check system and its inputs, requiring background checks on all transfers, and starting to address the real societal mental health issues at play are where we should focus efforts. 

What about giving up some of your HIPPA rights to be able to purchase, own,  a gun wrt mental health issues, SSRI drugs, etc?  Not exactly sure how it could work but if you are crazy, mentally ill without a reasonable doubt,  you shouldn't be purchasing/owning a gun.  Nor should Felons but that is already the law I believe.  I don't wade into these discussions much.  

[TahoeHorn 107]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I understand far more than you think I do, including the attempts by dishonest opponents such as yourself to confuse the general public.

General public?

 

I'm on an Internet board entertaining myself, talking to people who have proposals which they are clueless about.  I figure fewer than a hundred will read my posts.  Fewer than ten will care.

[TexasEd 8064]

On 3/30/2018 at 12:33 PM, PatSolitanojr said:

I see a correlation to internet access

I see a correlation to FPS video game proliferation.  First one was released in 1994.