How many different weapons can be used for hunting and why is it so critical that certain aspects of

[Cary]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by SunsetDreams (a host of the General Discussion forum).

"assault rifles" not be banned?

I have had some discussions with people who have pointed out that the assault weapons ban regulated things like the size and weight of stocks and such. It may be ridiculous, I don't know. But so what if you have to buy a weapon with slightly heavier stock? Who cares? I know I don't.

I am not endorsing that kind of legislation. I'm only denying that that kind of legislation is worth having a shit fit about.

[el_bryanto]

1. It's one of the many oddities of this debate

another is that the NRA will often point to us having more then enough Gun Regulation without mentioning that the opposed every single act of regulation along the line.

Bryant

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. Not true:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901080.html

Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check Bill

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 10, 2007

Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply...

..."The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, who led the talks.

[bongbong]

111. Key phrase

"The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32"

The NRA was running for cover after its wonderful efforts on behalf of killing Americans backfired on itself. This was simply a political move since they were under fire.

The NRA NEVER does anything in the interest of America except when it is dragged kicking and screaming.

[friendly_iconoclast]

172. You'll strain something trying to move those goalposts...

A claim was made, and I demonstrated that it was erroneous.

[bongbong]

197. LOL

First, it's obvious you don't know what "moving the goalposts" means. I NEVER MADE THE ORIGINAL POST you responded to. I made a post and you immediately jumped on it saying I moved the goalposts.

There were NO goalposts to move because my post stood by itself.

[Hoyt]

242. It is erroneous, only reason NRA supported that was to keep tougher restrictions from passing.

Old trick among political organizations like NRA.

When they are about to have legislation crammed down their throats, they reluctantly agree to something less onerous. Then, the claim they supported it all along.

Just more political BS from a right wing organization run by some of the vilest Republicans in America.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Because these bans don't actually help- they're security theater.

Less than 400 people in the US were murdered with all rifles last year- in fact more people were done in with "fists, feet, and hands".

As for the spree killer thing, DUer benEzra explained why making the nutters reload isn't actually a good idea:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/117254160#post35

Having said that, the worst mass shootings in the United States (Luby's, VT) involved very slow, deliberate fire with ordinary pistols at close range, and lots of reloading (I believe the VT shooter reloaded at least twelve times). There tends to be an inverse correlation between speed and lethality.

[Cary]

4. You're not answering my question

You gun enthusiasts are sucking all of the oxygen out of the debate with passionate pleas to irrelevance.

[Lizzie Poppet]

6. Irrelevance?

Pointing out that there's little reason to correlate magazine capacity to body counts in mass murder scenarios and that many people are proposing additional regulations on a class of weapon rarely used in crime is "irrelevance?"

Um...okay.

[Cary]

8. Irrelevance. Total irrelevance.

I have yet to see any serious proof, btw, of your assertion of "little reason to correlate." It's actually rather difficult to hear much of anything over the emotional noise being delivered by gun apologists.

[slampoet]

10. +1

[rrneck]

14. Okay. Let's limit mag capacity to ten rounds.

There's your proof. Reload time is not a factor in lethiality.

[DanTex]

25. That's the "world's fastest reload", and it's being performed in a laboratory setting.

In the real world, there's a reason that mass murderers like high-capacity magazines.

[rrneck]

27. They like them because they aren't very good mass murderers.

The worlds most average reload would take two or three times as long. About two seconds. But if you knew about YouTube I wouldn't have to tell you that.

Hell, I haven't been to the range in forever and I can switch mags in two seconds. You see, they were designed to be switched quickly with little training.

[DanTex]

29. They like them because with a high-capacity magazine, you don't need to worry about reloading.

At least not as often. One less thing to worry about. The speed that you or anyone else can reload in a laboratory environment is irrelevant. Unless the shooter is counting, it's going to take at least a few seconds to figure out that the magazine is empty. And then he/she has to have the presence of mind to switch from shooting people to releasing the magazine, and popping the other one in.

I'm sure a Navy Seal would have no problem doing all this almost instantaneously with adrenaline pumping and people screaming and everything else. But if mass murder required a Navy Seal's level of expertise, that would be a step in the right direction.

[rrneck]

31. That's what I love about

anti-gun SHTF tacticians.

Your one less thing to worry about becomes one more thing to worry about. Novelty mags are notoriously unreliable. When they malfunction they can render the weapon inoperable. A jam takes longer to clear than a reload.

I don't know how much training you need to be able to count to six, but most people can manage it even under stress. Especially if they have done it a few hundred times.

Reload time is not a factor in lethiality. You really should get some actual experience with guns if you plan to discuss them.

[DanTex]

37. Yes, I'm sure that a mentally unbalanced person going on a shooting rampage...

...is going to be counting his shots, and will have extensively practiced speed reloads. Of course!

Oh, and by the way, I have actual experience with guns. But this isn't about gun expertise, it's about common sense. The reason people on shooting sprees like high-capacity magazines is because they don't want to have to reload.

[rrneck]

43. Like I said. They're bad mass murderers.

Because they don't want to reload. You be sure to ban those high cap mags. It'll be a great training incentive. It's not like any of them would put any effort into it. Bah, it would take too much time away from booby trapping their apartment. Better to invest the effort into getting as proficient as all the mass murderers that killed people with standard, reliable equipment.

So how much money and political capital do you think it'll cost? Assuming this stupid notion doesn't get laughed flat by both political parties.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. Ahem. Speed reloading is *exactly* what Seng-Hui Cho did at Virginia Tech.

Further, when someone claims the mantle of "common sense" (without any further explanation, and in spite of easily verifiable fact), there's no better rejoinder than the one I gave
to someone else who tried the same "appeal to 'common sense'" bullshit:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=38935

81. You are perfectly free to regard Sergeant Colon as a role model:


Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands To Reason, and was now a post-graduate student of the University of What Some Bloke In The Pub Told Me.


Terry Pratchett, Jingo

I'll stick with empirical evidence, thank you very much...

(Thanks to DUer benEzra for digging that one up)

[Travis_0004]

77. Anybody halfway competant knows when their gun in empty (before pulling the trigger)

When you shot a gun, the last shot feels different. It feels different because the bolt/slide locks back.

On my guns, I've never tried to pull the trigger on an empty chaber. I can tell it didn't cycle all the way. I glance down quick to see why it didn't finish cycling, and if it is in fact empty. The exception to this rule is revolvers, but that is easy enough to count shots.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. "Serious proof" in a completely informal discussion like this? Okaaaay.

You were given two examples of soem of the worst mass shootings in US history in which multiple reloads of smaller magazines occurred. I woudl add the example of Charles Whitman (the "clock tower sniper&quot whose victims were killed with either a small-capacity sawed-off shotgun or a bolt-action hunting rifle (they hold 5 rounds), and who killed more people than Holmes. How is this even remotely an example of "emotional noise?"

[Cary]

26. Serious proof as in objective studies that support your assertions

I am not expecting you to produce anything but I would expect someone to really know what they're talking about.

You keep answering the wrong question and insisting that I have to accept your answer as the answer to my question. And speaking of the question I asked, since you can continue to reload using 10 round clips why is it worth making a shit storm over a prohibition on 100 round clips.

My question isn't that difficult. You ought to be able to understand that I am not asking you why it is necessary to not ban certain aspects of assault rifles. I am asking you why you need to have those aspects and why it's worth having a blood feud over this. The fact that you can't answer the question and that you insist that you have to answer a different question means you don't have an answer.

The fact that you get so pissed off about it means that you're making emotional noise.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. One needn't refer to studies.

Mass murders by firearm in the US are not so commonplace that you can't simply look at information gathered for each of them and note which were and which were not committed with high-capacity magazines. Hell, the Wikipedia entries list the weapons used for these crimes, along with citations if you distrust the Wiki article itself. It's not a matter requiring complex statistical methodologies, it's just a matter of knowing the magazine capacities for the weapons listed. I know most of those off-the-cuff, but they're hyperlinked, so if you were actually interested, it's all there for ya.

The rest of your response is a rather odd combination of insisting on an answer to a question that I've not the slightest interest in, amusingly off-target amateur psychoanalysis, calling several things "fact" that aren't, and generally flailing about, to be blunt. You know..."emotional noise."

This has ceased being remotely worthwhile. Have a nice day.

[Cary]

34. There should be hearings on legislation and legislation should be based on the findings

I am not an amateur. I am a professional attorney with 26 years of experience. I present evidence in court and I am very successful. I have also been part of the legislation process through my bar association activities.

I do observe you and the NRA making a lot of emotional noise. You are definitely not being constructive.

You don't have to like my opinion. Your approval isn't necessary.

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. Sorry, but your JD...

Sorry, but your JD doesn't make you any less of an amateur in the matter of (incorrectly) attributing emotional states and motivations to others than my PhD (linguistic philosophy/semiotics, with considerable professional experience in philosophy of science) would to do the same. that would require training in psychiatry or psychology. I doknow a thing or two about presenting logically sound arguments, and I recognize the presence of appeals-to-emotion when I see them...mine contained nothing of the sort, as any objective review clearly shows.

Another poster made the perfectly reasonable observation that magazine capacity cannot be directly correlated to the severity of mass murders by correctly pointing out that some of the worst such killings were carried out by killers that reloaded smaller-capacity firearms several times. You responded to that by calling it "emotional noise," an accusation that is frankly bizarre. You go on to falsely attribute various attitudes and emotional states to me and state various things as "fact," backed by not a shred of evidence or compelling supporting argument (or any argument, for that matter...). But I'm the one "not being constructive." Riiiiiight...

As for the NRA, I really wouldn't know. I'm not a member, and I consider them to be effectively an arm of the GOP.

[Cary]

51. I handle guardianship matters

Which means I know a lot more about psychology than you may give me credit for. And having had the experience of having two top psychiatrists render polar opposite opinions on the same subject on several occasions I can say with confidence that you give psychologists and psychiatrists too much credit.

The best counsellors are usually neither psychiatrists nor psychologists. Psychiatrists are medical doctors and thus they tend to prescribe drugs mostly. The best counsellors get to be the best by life experience. Understanding people is an art, not a science.

And my business too is mostly an art of understanding people and sifting through a lot of bullshit in order to get to the crux of the matter.

I am actually very good at that. I can at this point tell you that definitively. I have sifted through your bullshit and I am certain that I have a good handle on it.

Your approval or disapproval won't affect my opinion. Honesty and solid reasoning go a long way with me but I am finding that to be a scarce commodity amongst gun reactionaries.

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. Okay, there's the deal:

If you are going to accuse me of "bullshit" then do please point out anything that I've posted that can even remotely back up your baseless and insulting accusation of dishonesty. You've descended all the way down into argumentum ad hominem territory, despite my having been unfailingly rational and polite with you.

You've given precisely zero indication that you're capable of "solid reasoning" beyond your bragging about your career (was it 28 years or 26? Might want to get your story straight...consistency matters in that sort of thing). Your actual reasoning in this entire thread has been less than stellar. You've also given me little reason for confidence in your ability to make psychological discernments (on the basis of a few posts to a message forum online, no less...pure comedy gold), given that the ones you assayed to make about me have been uniformly off-target.

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling here...so please consider this conversation at an end. There are people debating in good faith, employing sound reasoning and willing to have legitimate, civil conversations on this topic...

[Cary]

62. Actually whether I say it's 26 or 28 is of no consequnce

Any way I say the fact is that I was sworn into the Illinois Bar in Nobember 1985. Your feelingas about it or about me have np bearing whatsoever.

My reasoning skills are superior and your gun reactionary bullshit is just that.

I call it as I see it.

[rrneck]

65. If he's an attorney I'm an astronaut. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

67. A-yup.

Can't beleive I let myself get strung along by a troll that long...a wee bit embarrassing.

[Cary]

86. Translation

You think I'm better than you because I am an attorney.

Actually that isn't even close to my point and the fact that you would even begin to think such a thing is a sign that you aren't very bright and of your low self esteem.

I would try to explain the significancd of my credentials to you but that would just be a waste of time and you would just end u getting mad.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. The pig never sings and it just ends up getting mad.

[rrneck]

94. You have fled a previous discussion

when confronted with a direct question. You are indulging in the standard evasions of a keyboard commando living in his mother's basement. Thus, your claims are difficult to believe.

Argue your case. If you can.

[Cary]

179. I have limited time and you are of limited use to me.

Neither your fantasies about me nor your choice in terms of how much weight you will afford my opinion are of any use to me whatsoever. If you bore me, I will reject you and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

[rrneck]

182. Then go your own way.

Why haven't you done so already. But you are on record. And that record shows that your objective was to blame others for your actions.

Don't worry about it. As anti gun pyromaniacs go, you have a lot to learn.

[Cary]

183. I almost wonder what it is you think you're doing. n/t

[rrneck]

186. That's for me to know and you to find out.

Don't let the fact that everybody else knows dissuade you.

[Cary]

188. Your shallow ambitions are all yours, buddy boy...n/t

[rrneck]

191. And yet, here you are.

With your shallow ambitions. If you had been interested in a discussion of any depth, this thread wouldn't be the train wreck that it is.

The record speaks for itself.

[Cary]

192. If "the record" actually spoke...

...it would undoubtedly make more sense than you do.

[rrneck]

193. First rule of holes...

stop digging.

Are you prepared to discuss the issue you raised yet? Or do you prefer to continue this absurdity?

This is your discussion. It has become what you wanted it to become. If you want at least part of it to be something of value to thinking progressives, you have that option. Feel free to begin at any time.

[Cary]

194. Just because you give yourself too much credit, doesn't mean I have to.

Blather on.

[rrneck]

195. Okay.

You still got nothing and you've opted for a bigger shovel.



Begin rational discussion at any time.

And for those of you who are just joining us, I have asked the OP two direct questions regarding his position in post #24, which he continues to studiously avoid. Apparently, he would rather tell other people how they feel.

[Cary]

196. Hey, you're entitled to your worthless opinion. n/t

[rrneck]

198. Yes I am.

As are you. If we can ever get you to tell us what it is.

There are questions pending.

[Cary]

199. Is that right? n/t

[rrneck]

200. The space below this text is where your informed opinion goes.

[Cary]

201. You don't say? n/t

[rrneck]

202. Yep.

And it doesn't take much to say more than you.

Ready for a discussion yet? There are questions pending... oh, hang on, I need to order coffee.

[Cary]

203. Well how do you like that?

[rrneck]

204. Produce an opinion and we'll see.

So far You got nothing. Why?

[Cary]

206. Wow! That's amazing.

[rrneck]

208. Missed again. Still nothing.

And every time you dodge me this thread - your thread - gets kicked to the top of GD. If you are pleased with what you have here, by all means continue.

[Cary]

210. Unbelievable. Truly mind boggling.

[rrneck]

219. This thread needs a theme song!

You keep posting and missing the content target.

Feel it comin' atcha? It's all around you, baby.

[Cary]

220. This thread will be locked soon

And you will be siloed again.

[rrneck]

221. It will always be visable.

Hoping for an SOP lock won't help you. Of course you could lock it yourself, but that won't hide your responses in it. It wont be hard to tell what the OP is about, or your motivations for posting it, by reading how things have gone for you.

Ready for an honest discussion yet?

[Cary]

222. Pfeh.

Are you familiar with this term? Pfeh?

As for the locking of this thread and you being siloed again, the comment was not about anything related to any concern about you. They have begun locking gun threads in GD.

Having been degraded into boring nonsense by you gun reactionaries and your insipid games, this thread is ripe for a lock.

[rrneck]

223. Good.

I wouldn't want your feelings to be hurt. Because the joke's on you.

Is that what you expected when you started these bullshit? Did you expect a bunch of redneck agnst? Read your thread. Feel free to reattach your ass after others have handed it to you.

Feel free to actually discuss the issue you raised at any time. Councillor.

[Cary]

224. The correct spelling is "counselor"

Here. Since you're not bright enough to look up the word and because I am such a great guy, I did it for you:


A yiddish word - expression of distaste or disgust, or in slang term general uninterest.

[rrneck]

225. Thanks!

I love spelling contests! Lets see your entry. And while you're at it, why don't you make the words you use actually mean something? Make your case. If you can.

[Cary]

231. Pfeh is perfect, unless you're really picky in which case you might say I should use feh.

But I like Pfeh better even though it's more keystrokes and thus, arguably, less efficient. It's just personal preference.

Meh would work too, I think, but it sounds less Yiddish. Don't you think, schmendrick?

[rrneck]

237. If you didn't care

you wouldn't work so hard to avoid the obvious.

Uh-huh you missed again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. You ARE an amateur in regards to the subjects of this discussion- guns.

[Cary]

85. I am cognizant enough to know that the screaming gun Mimis

Are full of crap.

[friendly_iconoclast]

173. You know, you're not the first attorney here claiming to be The World's Foremost Authority.

Oddly enough, you've both made the same error- a belief that your admission to the bar signifies omniscience...

[Cary]

176. It signifies expertise in the law

I earned my degree, my license, and my experience. I earned the right to use my credibility as I see fit.

And I have run into people like you who think they have a right to try to discredit me just because they feel like it. Remember, I paid a lot of money for my expertise and I have invested way more in blood, sweat, and tears in my experience.

You are trying to steal that from me. That makes you a common, every day thief.

And not a very good one at that. Obviously you have no honor.

[badtoworse]

177. You might know the law, but based on what you've posted in this thread,...

...you know little about firearms or the people that own and use them. My suggestion is that you approach the subject with an open mind and learn what various firearms can do and why gun owners value certain features. An informed opinion requires a good understanding of all sides of an issue and it appears to me that you're only looking at it from one perspective.

This has been a pretty good thread and kudos for sticking with it.

[Cary]

178. Unfortunately for you...

You don't get to get your fellow gun reactionaries together and decide the law all by yourselves. We have a problem. Certain weapons are being used to murder a lot of people. Our whole society has an interest in this--not just gun reactionaries. You don't own the issue and you even own any part of the issue.

I reject this meme that you're offering up. I will go further and tell you that this idea that you need to know technical nuances of firearms to consider this issue is one of the most idiotic notions I have come across here.

It's not as idiotic as the fools who think they can steal my credentials but it's not too far from that.

I think I asked a pretty good question here, for someone whom you deem to be a Luddite. And the only real answer I got was that someone here thinks their right to enjoy the feel, smell, and taste of their weapon is somehow sacrosanct. I don't find that to be true. As an expert in the law I can tell you, even without technical gun knowledge that would meet your approval, there will be no perfect law. The idea is to strike a balance and while your freedom to enjoy the taste of your own weapon exactly as you want is a consideration, it is less than a minor one.

People getting blown away in movie theaters by a certain kind of weapon gets a lot more weight.

[badtoworse]

184. What hubris! Stick with slip and fall lawyering

With that attitude, I can't picture you in any kind of serious negotiations.

[Cary]

187. I run into a lot of childish posts like yours

I can picture you hunting and pecking out your petty insults and silly ego plays at your keyboard, thinking you have somehow scored points.

In a way you have because I know that like any other sociopathic behavior the best response is no response. There is no functional way to deal with sociopathic behavior and when I do write out a response to a post like this I do always end up feeling dirty, somehow. It's like you do drag me down to your level and I don't really want to go there with you. And yet I kind of want to respond.

Of course my posting is an addiction and then at the end of the day it is entirely frivolous. So I guess you successfully dragging me down to your level is harmless enough?

It's quite a dilemma.

[badtoworse]

190. I'm sure you get called on hubris all the time - nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

213. If a distinguished, board-certified physician presumed to lecture you about law, would you listen?

I think not...

[Cary]

214. f_i writes: "I think not..."

Alas, we agree.

[friendly_iconoclast]

217. Knowing doctors as a group, I don't doubt at least a few of them have already...

[Cary]

218. ROTFLMAO!

That went over your head, eh?

[NewMoonTherian]

57. Any law should have a demonstrably positive effect.

If a gun ban does not enhance public safety, it is frivolous and should not exist.

[Cary]

63. People shouldn't blow through red lights and mow you down in the crosswalk

You should be able to cross even though you see a car approaching that red light at 100 mph. Are you going to cross?

[NewMoonTherian]

72. Forgive me, because this post may sound contentious and that's not how I intend it.

I'm not sure I understand your train of thought. What does this have to do with our discussion?

In the interest of civil discourse, and because I'm dreadfully curious, I'll answer. I certainly would not cross.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. I look at it like this:

If the expired ban on military-style semiautomatics was purely cosmetic (which it was), had no measurable effect on crime (which it didn't), and given the vast stocks of weapons and magazines already in circulation, what could possibly be the point to reinstating it? It's feel-good window dressing, and while making the uninformed feel better isn't exactly a bad thing, I'd worry that too many people would start thinking we're actually doing something about violent crime...when we've actually done jack.

[Cary]

7. So you admit that it doesn't matter if certain characteristics of assault weapons are outlawed

Which is exactly what I expect.

I suggest that the energy wasted with rather viscous arguments over nonsense is infinitely more detrimental than your "feel-good window dressing" meme. If you have actual ideas on how to do more than jack, why not put your energy into that rather than blood feud over the size of a rifle butt?

[X_Digger]

12. In answer to your last question:

Why endorse a law that has been proven to be ineffective?

This was a Clinton era DOJ study on the effectiveness of the ban:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%.

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

So the first thing in my mind is, why implement a law that's been proven ineffective? Just to say that we're 'doing something'?

Banning certain characteristics only affects their ergonomics- an AR-15 with a non-collapsible stock doesn't fit as well in a gun safe, and may be awkward for some shooters, or shooters with bulky coats. A bayonet mount has no impact one way or another, nor does a barrel shroud.

A pistol grip is more ergonomic to hold from the shoulder (not the hip)- try it yourself: take an empty soda can and hold it horizontal at hip level, then hold it horizontal at your shoulder- much more awkward at the shoulder than the hip. This is similar to straight-stocked firearms. Now do the same, but hold the soda can vertical- much harder to hold it at your hip, but easier to hold it at shoulder level.

No, what it really represents is a bit of incrementalism, as demonstrated by some of the players originally involved with the 1994 debacle:

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . We'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

[Cary]

13. "Why endorse a law that has been proven to be ineffective? "

This isn't an answer to my question.

I accept the notion that a few people are inconvenienced by the regulations, which may or may not be effective. If the regulations are not effective then they should be modified, by all means, but they should be modified in a way that's an improvement. As things stand we have a total abdication and that is not progress. That is not an improvement.

The elimination of some apparently minor inconveniences does not just the shit storm you are unleashing here. I blame the NRA and I blame you all for this.

[X_Digger]

15. See the last para (and quotes) for your answer..

Why pass a *demonstrably* ineffective law again? The only reason I can find is as the quotes above demonstrate.. it's a 'slice' toward getting the whole 'loaf'.

[Posteritatis]

20. It's a perfectly good answer, just not the one you want. (nt)

[badtoworse]

88. Great post! I'm going to bookmark this for the next time I'm called paranoid about incrementalism

[gregoire]

9. Cosmetic features are still important

We all know your environment affects your thoughts.

[Cary]

11. Why do you want to have a blood feud over cosmetics? n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. If someone is so close to the edge...

If someone is so close to the edge that the presence of something like a barrel shroud or a pistol grip on their rifle can make the difference, then they passed the "desperately needs professional help" stage long ago. Do you really think this is a likely scenario? I don't.

[rrneck]

16. Because legislation is expensive.

Enforcement costs money. Regulation costs money. The legislation itself costs political capital. Why would you want to waste it on laws that make you feel good? Is that what you think government is supposed to do? I think you're confusing civic duty with shopping.

[Cary]

17. How much money has been spent on this? How much political capital?

I don't believe you with respect to the expense and as far as political capital wasted, it's nothing compared to the cost of this shit storm set off by the NRA.

[hack89]

23. How did the NRA set off this shit storm?

they weren't the ones calling for banning certain types of weapons before the blood was even dry.

[rrneck]

24. What's your point?

Do you advocate the regulation of the cosmetic and ergonomic features of firearms?

What legislation has the NRA proposed to that effect?

[X_Digger]

33. How much political capital? Umm.. try losing congress for a decade.

That was the ultimate result of the last ride on that particular merry-go-round..

[div class='excerpt']"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

[Cary]

36. Just because Bill Clinton says that's why the House was lost doesn't mean it's true.

Mike Papantonio was interviewing some yesterday, while filling in for Ed, who made a pretty good case that the NRA's role in that is highly exaggerated. In fact that interview may be available by now.

[X_Digger]

41. I lived in rural Virginia during that time, I remember the shitstorm it caused.

I tend to trust President Clinton and my own memory on the issue.

But it's funny how the NRA is, at the same time, too powerful and insignificant. A lot of it boils down to timing, I think. When a proposed law fails to pass the {senate|house|some state leg}, it's blamed on the NRA and the 'gun lobby', but when a new regulation is proposed, it's all, "Oh, the NRA is a paper tiger, don't worry 'bout them."

[virginia mountainman]

19. A bit of history for you..

I would care NOT to repeat it..........

Excerpts from "My Life" by Bill Clinton:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

It's only an election year, what do we have to loose??

[slackmaster]

21. My answer is very simple - Laws that restrict peoples' choices have to pull their weight

We don't take options away from people without good reasons. If it could be shown that prohibiting things like bayonet lugs and folding stocks on rifles resulted in a measurable improvement in public safety, there could be a rational discussion about whether the benefit was worth the cost.

But the results of a 10-year experiment with banning features from firearms failed to produce any measurable result. The expired "assault weapon ban" was a failure of public policy. But it also resulted in an expansion of the number of firearm manufacturers, and ultimately in a massive proliferation of the kinds of weapons its well-meaning but misguided sponsors wanted to eliminate.

[Cary]

28. I have practiced law for 28 years now.

I have been up and down every which way to Sunday on tens of thousands of laws every which way those laws can be dealt with. I have yet to find a perfect law.

We restrict people all the time for reasons good and bad and for no reason at all. And you know what? When it goes to court the judges ultimately do whatever the hell they want to do. Yes, they do.

My question is not about whether you think the law is effective. My question is not about whether or not the results are effective. My real question is why the fuck are you all whipping this into such a clusterfuck?

You haven't answered. None of you have answered. None of you will answer that. And why won't you answer?

Because let's face it slackmaster, you don't know.

[slackmaster]

47. My answer is that there is no reason TO ban them

Banning them, and enforcing the ban would be a waste of resources.

And I just don't like people telling me what I can and can't do, especially when they have no justification for placing limits on my choices.

[Cary]

49. Your nonanswers are the answers I expected.

Enough of you admitted that the ban didn't really interefere with anything in any meaningful way. I suppose that half hearted admission was honest enough.

Where you all really lived down to my expectations was in your inability to grasp the idea that it is better to focus on things that actually matter and your pathetic attempts to rationalize your inflexibility and obstinance.

[rrneck]

56. It interfered with a lot of things.

It made the Democrats That supported it look like idiots. People don't vote for candidates that look like idiots. Research Anne Richards sometime.

[NewMoonTherian]

60. I am inflexible and obstinate.

I refuse to accept any ban or law that does not have a positive effect. Opposing useless, bad, obnoxious, unjust laws is purpose enough in itself. Emotion does figure into it. It makes me angry when the government restricts my activity without cause.

I'm confused as to why you focus on the size and weight of the stock. That isn't a strictly cosmetic feature. It is an ergonomic feature that affects the comfort and accuracy of the gun. Different shooting styles and positions sometimes require different stock lengths on the same gun. A collapsible stock is a perfectly reasonable feature for everyday gun use.

[Cary]

64. I've met DU gun reactionaries for the first time yesterday

I see these people putting their talent and energy into obfuscation and mayhem.

I have no respect for that. You could instead put your energy and talent into something positive and constructive. Instead you juat whip this up.

You are a waste of time.

[NewMoonTherian]

74. I want to work toward positive change, and I do.

But I also can't just ignore bad laws. I don't want to obfuscate anything. I'm being as honest as I know how to be. I think that gun rights are very important, and I wish to protect and expand them.

[Cary]

87. The proof is in the pudding

If you gun reactionaries have a positive purpose then you will stop whipping things up and start offering positive solutions.

So far all you are doing is whipping things up.

[NewMoonTherian]

106. I've been saying for a long time...

that in order to reduce violent crime we have to increase access to mental health care and work to alleviate poverty. Ending the war on drugs would go a long way also. Any one of these measures would provide more public safety benefits, for less expenditure of resources and political capital, then any further gun control measures. What's more, these can be done without disenfranchising innocent gun owners.

[Cary]

109. Explain to me how you treat a violent psychopath

Talk therapy doesn't work on psychotics. It has never worked and it never will work. Medications are good these days to treat certain kinds of psychoses, but as far as I know they don't work well, or they don't work at all on psychopaths.

If you're going to prevent these tragedies that seem to occur every few months you are going to have to take preemptive action of some sort. "Disenfranchising innocent gun owners" may be the solution, I don't really know, but there are all sorts of actions that can be taken short of that extreme.

Your claim that any inconvenience amounts to "disenfranchising" is pure hyperbole.

[NewMoonTherian]

122. It's not possible to prevent every violent act.

I'm looking at ways to prevent as much violence, with as few negative side effects, as possible. The measures I discussed are not a panacea, but they offer more benefit with less harm.

As far as inconvenience versus disenfranchising, we are already far beyond inconvenience. The laws currently in place too harshly restrict the activity of innocent people, and need to be scaled back in order to comply with the 2nd amendment.

[Cary]

135. Translation

You didn't realize that there was no known treatment of violent psychopaths but you can't own up to your error.

You're addressing a completely different subject.

[NewMoonTherian]

140. I don't know anything about the treatment of violent psychopaths.

I thought we were discussing public safety. I oppose tighter gun restrictions, and you challenged me to provide alternatives. I did that. I think that some violent crime is the result of treatable mental illness. Not all of it is, and I don't pretend to know what is treatable and what isn't.

I think you're reading more into my words than I am expressing. You don't have to be as combative with me as with some of the other Gungeoneers. If I've failed to communicate my ideas clearly, I'm sorry.

[Cary]

141. It's not your run of the mill mentally ill person who goes out and shoots up a crowded theater

I'm sorry that I'm fed up with all of you "Gungeoneers" but you all have collectively disgusted me completely. I think you all ought to be ashamed. I may not have any real right to take that out on you but so it goes. I don't claim to be perfect.

On the other side of that I don't think you ought to lump in all mentally ill persons with violent psychopaths. I don't think you provided any real alternatives. Of course we should fund research to help mentally ill persons. That goes without saying but it has absolutely nothing to do with how we prevent psychopaths from going on these rampages that we're seeing on a fairly regular basis.

You have communicated your ideas. You don't want any gun control under any circumstances and you don't want to consider whether any kind of gun control would solve our problems. I get it.

I don't respect that extreme position, but I get it.

[MicaelS]

143. "Take preemptive action of some sort"???

I can accept that.

But, if you're going infringe on my freedoms as a gun owners, than I am going to demand it that other sacrifice their freedoms, too. Including you.

That means make it a lot of easier to commit someone to a mental hospital, without their consent. Modify HIPAA as necessary.

Most assuredly it means preventing lawyers from throwing up every possible legal roadblock to prevent someone being committed for as along as necessary.

I'd would love to see Universal Single Payer National Health Care with comprehensive Medical, Dental and Mental Health Care. And that means we end up building hundreds of thousands of mental hospital beds instead of prisons cells.

Finally that means if a lawyer get some mentally ill person out via some legal trickery, and said mentally ill person commits a spree killing like Holmes, then that means said lawyer gets a prison cell.

[Cary]

145. That makes sense.

Oh, wait.

Actually it doesn't. It doesn't make any sense at all.

[MicaelS]

147. Coming from lawyer, that's a compliment.

Considering how complicated and fucked up you and your fellow high priests of the law have made the modern world.

[Cary]

149. Oh good!

A hateful lawyer comment from an incoherent babbling fool! What joy.

[NewMoonTherian]

165. Well, I'm glad we understand each other, to an extent.

I wish we could share ideas and enhance public safety through measures that would actually work, and have a chance of getting done. I don't know how much consideration you want me to give further gun control, but I've given it a great deal. I imagine that, until I agree with you that it's the only viable solution, I'll not have considered it. If you're fed up with me, I won't pursue any more discussion. I'm pretty frustrated with idle conversation on the subject myself. I think you've motivated me to start organizing my community and talking with legislators to create positive change, both for better public safety and for repealing gun restrictions.

[Cary]

168. Not fed up with you personally and I am certainly not demanding that you

agree with me. I don't know the answer. I have said that. I don't have the answers here. I only have questions.

And I seriously doubt that no gun control of any kind under any circumstances is the answer. It may be, but I doubt it.

But please, if you take anything I said to heart, don't lump the mentally ill in with psychopaths.

[slackmaster]

66. It's your judgement that taking away my option to get a rifle with a folding stock would not be a...

..."meaningful" interference with my life.

My point is that THERE WOULD BE NO BENEFIT TO ANYONE to pass such a law, and I am glad that your opinion on the matter carries no weight whatsoever. All you have is bias and prejudice, that is obvious.

[Aerows]

50. In other words

You don't have a good answer. Why the hell don't we just open up legislation and let nuclear weapons be on demand items, too, because, you know, when it comes to self-defense, there is nothing too strong, am I right?

I do, to an extent, agree that this psycho would have gone off of the deep end regardless, but there is no reason to play into the fantasies of would-be murderers by keeping assault rifles legal. All that gets you is more psychos doing more damage.

If you need to hunt with an AR-15, you clearly have no fucking idea what you are doing. There is only one reason for it - to either kill people, or pretend at the range that you are shooting people. Why the need to pretend to kill people, I wonder?

[X_Digger]

53. Free clue.. paint them camo..

Remington has the R-15 and R-25..



Same gun, different configurations.

Just because you can't imagine hunting with one has no bearing on what people actually do with them.

[Aerows]

70. You need 100 round clips in them, too

because you can't hit the broad side of a barn without firing 60 rounds/min.

Fantastic argument.

[X_Digger]

75. No silly, you hunt with 5 round magazines (or whatever your state allows.)

But that has nothing to do with your silly argument about not hunting with them.

[Aerows]

78. And you think your argument isn't silly?

That these are necessary? Explain how a 100 round clip is "necessary" unless it is in a warzone. I really would like to hear the purposes for such ammunition clips outside of killing in mass numbers.

[X_Digger]

81. Feel free to set that goalpost down..

You said, "If you need to hunt with an AR-15", you didn't mention a magazine size at all. AR-15's are great for hunting game, if one is inclined to hunt (I'm not). There are various 'uppers' of different calibers, suited to different sized game.

[slackmaster]

68. Let's play Nuclear Straw Man.

On second thought, let's not.

If you need to hunt with an AR-15, you clearly have no fucking idea what you are doing.

You've just made it clear that you have no fucking idea what you are blathering about.

For the record, I have never hunted. If I lived in a rural area and had a reason to use a firearm for varmint control, I think an AR-15 would be a perfectly suitable choice. For hunting deer I would certainly choose something more powerful (I don't believe my state even allows deer hunting with 5.56 mm ammunition.)

[Aerows]

69. I desperately need a 100 round clip to hunt

Because I'm that bad of a shot.

Is that the argument you are actually using?

[slackmaster]

73. You're trying to change the subject, your tone is hostile and rude

Have a great evening.

[Aerows]

79. It's hostile and rude to YOU

because the argument you are making doesn't make sense to me, but for some reason makes perfect to you, and I turned it around on you.

It doesn't make a grain of sense for anyone to pack a 100 round cartridge. What is the purpose for that except to play "I have the biggest gun on the play ground". And yes, it sounds just that stupid to people with normal sensibilities that want to protect gun rights, but think people have gone over the edge when they say it is necessary to have a 100 round clip.

[slackmaster]

91. The topic of this thread is characteristics of firearms, not of ammunition magazines

You are attempting to change the subject. Go back and read the OP. If you want to have a thread about magazine capacity, go ahead and start your own.

[4th law of robotics]

90. Because we already have bad laws on the books we should go ahead and add a few more?

Is that what you're saying?

Could you list your reasons for banning them?

I think it's ridiculous that some people own 500+ pairs of shoes (how are you going to wear that many shoes?). But since I can't think of any good reason to ban such a thing I won't push the issue.

/and statistically those are about as dangerous as a bayonet lug on a civilian rifle.

[benEzra]

30. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are nonhunters.

Fewer than 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter, and that percentage is falling. The primary reasons Americans own guns are defensive purposes, followed closely by recreational target shooting. And a lot of the features some would like to ban are highly desirable on target rifles and HD guns.

For example, vertical handgrips may get in the way on a straight-stocked hunting rifle, which is carried a lot but shot very little, but vertical grips are much preferred on target rifles and on light-recoiling defensive carbines. Adjustable-length stocks allow you to use the same carbine for bench shooting as for checking out the proverbial bump-in-the-night. Flash suppressors make shooting fast smallbores like .223 more pleasant during the day and may keep you from flash-blinding yourself if you have to shoot in low light. None of those things make a rifle more dangerous.

Bayonet lugs don't matter (I own two rifles with bayonet lugs, one of which is 107 years old, and I don't own a bayonet for either) but bayonet lug bans are the height of stupidity, if you think about it.

The thing is, rifles are the least misused of all weapons in this country (<3% of murders) so banning popular rifle features that don't affect rifle misuse is just counterproductive, IMO.

[cbrer]

35. Reasonable voices should prevail.

But based on the structure of our political system, the gun PAC is in charge of our politicians and puts legislation in front of them to rubber stamp into existence. This sad state of affairs is consistent across the political spectrum.

American citizens won't get to bring about the set of regulations we believe in under any conditions. And the necessary debates aren't even taking place. It's a polarizing subject that politicians and their masters are getting maximum emotional mileage out of.

[Reasonable_Argument]

38. That's one factor

Another you need to consider to have the full picture is that gun rights is one of the issues where those on the left and right join together to give a collective "no" when you advance new gun control laws.

[cbrer]

58. Is it more accurate

To say that some on the left and right join together...? Or do you really believe that all do?

Not trying to nitpick. You're right. I'm trying to refine concepts to narrow causes & effects.

And going back to my original point, how many of those people are influenced emotionally by vested interests?

Whether it be the "Someone's trying to take away my Constitutional rights".

Or "Another senseless slaughter has happened".

You would figure that after all these tragedies over the years, we'd be further along towards understanding the individual and social causes behind these acts. But we're not. We argue about gun ownership instead.

[Cary]

40. I'm sure this is true.

Look at my little experiment here. I asked an intentionally direct question. It was just a question.

You can look at the responses yourself. How many of the responses were dictatorial? How many lectures did I get? How many people told me what I think? How many told me what I should think? How many judged me? How many picked fights with me?

I am not good at backing down from a fight. It's just not my nature. But that's not the point here. People don't want reasonable regulations. People want to fight about what certainly appears to me to be much ado about nothing, and that's exactly what they're doing.

[rrneck]

55. There are two intentionally direct questions

waiting for you in post #24. You're not backing down are you?

[cbrer]

59. Difficult

To debate that.

Seems sad.

But evidently many people from both parties are easily swayed by manipulative statements.

I'd be willing to bet that somewhere, someone has statistics on what percentage of the population can be counted on to react viscerally on both sides of the issue. Geographically cross referenced too.

[hobbit709]

39. A couple that can and have been used

[Cary]

42. True.

Actually I have practiced martial arts for awhile now. Tai chi, Bagua, Zhingyi, and Shotokan Karate. The most deadly weapon is indeed a knife, mostly because you can be cut anywhere and go into shock thus diminishing your capabilities of defending yourself combined with the fact that you almost never see the knife in order to defend yourself against it. But at the end of the day the defenses, other than grabbing a weapon of your own, simply don't work.

But that isn't what my question was about. If people really want to work on this issue they have to get a grip on what's really important. You don't have blood feuds over minor points.

[hobbit709]

46. I've seen a tightly rolled up newspaper shred someone's face.

The problem is that what are minor points to some are considered major obstacles by others.

[Cary]

52. It is my experience that shrill DU voices

Are never representative of anything. This isn't the real world and I doubt that the bullies are a majority.

[slackmaster]

95. Shrill DU voices?

[Cary]

98. You don't have to like my judgment

That's okay but unfortunately for you I am entitled to my opinion. And if my opinion bothers you, that works for me.

It's pretty clear to me that gun reactionaries are shrill, throwing out all manner of irrelevance and the typical smoke screens that extremists of all stripes throw out. Somehow my expertise as a lawyer doesn't qualify me as an expert on how to prove something or make an argument. Somehow I'm supposed to accept your expertise as an expert on how gun laws should be crafted because you claim you're an expert on guns. You don't answer direct questions and you proffer all manner of bullshit and then you come up with this pot calling the kettle bullshit.

Like I haven't seen this extremist b.s. ten thousand times before.

There will be more of these senseless murders with assault rifles. You aren't going to be able to bully and bluster your way out of a real dialogue forever, any more than "conservatives" are going to be able to continue to bullshit their way with their tax mythology. The NRA has what? 4 million members?

Eventually people are going to call you all what you are: shrill gun reactionaries. Do you know why? Because that's the truth.

[slackmaster]

100. I answered your direct question TWICE, and you ignored my answer because you don't like it.

[Cary]

103. I didn't say I didn't like your answer. Those are your words, not mine.

I said you didn't really answer my question. I said that because it's true, you didn't answer my question. You grandstanded about how my question doesn't matter because you don't like gun control.

I never asked your opinion on gun control.

[Cary]

104. And at this point I'm lumping you with all other gun reactionaries

...because you are all obstreperous extremists and you bore me.

[RebelOne]

45. My only reply is that no weapons should be used for hunting.

I am totally against hunting and blasting away animals.

[petronius]

48. When the state wants to ban, limit, or restrict any choice, liberty, or freedom,

it needs to have a good reason for doing so. It doesn't matter if the thing in question is rifles, My Little Pony dolls, bibles, foie gras, ugly sunglasses, pit bulls, or whatever. Neither the importance of the thing being banned nor the availability of alternatives are relevant. The onus is not to show why something shouldn't be banned, it's to show why it should be.

So I honestly think you have it backward, and it's not really even a gun issue: any unsupported and unnecessary restriction on choice is absolutely worth having a shit fit about...

[flvegan]

61. So, should we outright ban hunting to eliminate them all?

And no, my Bambi-slaying fellow DUers, I'm not advocating for such a thing, so settle down.

[ManiacJoe]

71. The banned features have legitimate uses.

They do good things for the weapon, the accuracy, and/or the user.

Using your examples:
Why require the stock to be heavier than it needs to be?
Why require the stock less ergonomic than it could be?

There exists no legitimate reason to ban these useful features.

What then is the purpose of any such ban beyond paying lip service to "crime fighting" for the ignorant masses?

[patrice]

76. *If* the purpose of our guns is to authentically protect freedom . . .

... why would that FREEDOM extend ONLY to those who conform to the POLITICALLY CORRECT position that everyone, regardless of who they are and what weapons they possess, exhibits the level of behavioral skills, personal responsibility, and respect for the rights of others that actually do serve the purposes of FREEDOM, rather than actually resulting in new forms of oppression, such as the fear of going to a public place and the consequences of un-necessary violence?

Why would that freedom not also encompass those who advocate against the proliferation of guns?

[Aerows]

80. There are so many cooked up arguments against assault weapon bans

that you would think it's an episode of Iron Chef. If you need a gun that shoots 100 rounds per clip, you are a shitty shot and shouldn't be using a gun in the first place, unless you are in the military.

[krispos42]

82. Oh, it's the little things.

It's absolutely true that any decent hunter can pick up any decent rifle in any decent caliber and do a halfway decent job with shooting. But it's all the little things... balance, location of the controls, after-market accessories, ease of customization, length, width, height, distance between the trigger and the buttplate, distance from the barrel to the bottom of the buttstock, calibers offered, shape of the stock, method of loading...


This was how "assault weapons" were defined. Keep in mind an "assault weapon" could be a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun. We generally think of a rifle when we talk about assault weapons, but that's only a portion of what an assault weapon could be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon

[Cary]

115. That's a good answer Krispos42

It's factual. It's not emotional.

You beg some other questions but at this point I'm grateful to have found someone who is not so drunk on their extremism that they can give me a straight answer. Please excuse me if I quit while I'm ahead. Perhaps we could leave the noise in this cesspool and continue the discussion in a fresh thread?

[krispos42]

125. Certainly we can. :-) n/t

[4th law of robotics]

89. Perhaps you could instead provide reasons for them to be banned

also "assault weapons" not assault rifles. Assault rifle is a real term and it means that the weapon is automatic.

Assault weapon is the made-up term de-jour and just means "scary looking".

Given how often this comes up and is corrected I'm starting to think it's intentionally mislabeling to create confusion.

Either way you should provide evidence as to why things like a bayonet lug (one of the features banned in the AWB) makes a weapon that much more dangerous and justifies and expensive new program.

[badtoworse]

92. It creates the illusion that the problem is being addressed

The reality is that the horse has left the barn and inconveniencing millions of law-abiding gun owners will accomplish nothing. If there was a valid reason for reinstating the AWB, the OP wouldn't be deflecting the question.

The real solution to the problem involves better mental health screening, greater availability of mental health services and addressing the underlying causes of the desperation (unemployment, foreclosures, poverty, etc.). Dealing with violence in the media and educating our kids to have more respect for human life wouldn't hurt either.

[4th law of robotics]

93. I agree 100%

guns aren't the root cause.

And this amounts to nothing more than political theater. Giving the impression of doing something rather than actually doing something.

[Cary]

101. Versus what?

Your position that we should do nothing.

There is no shame in making a mistake, if in fact it wasn't a mistake. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. You gun reactionaries don't impress me.

There is shame in what you gun reactionaries are doing, which is throwing your hands in the air and saying that we can't do anything because it irritates you that we want to try. And there's more shame in the rest of us if we knuckle under to your bullying.

[badtoworse]

116. My post was clear about how the problem should be addressed

You're just unhappy that my suggestions didn't involve new gun laws.

We have all the laws we need already. We need to do a better job enforcing those laws and addressing the root causes of gun violence.

[Cary]

119. How do you know what I am happy or unhappy about?

You don't know me. You never will know me and you've just made a really stupid comment.

[badtoworse]

121. I'm reading between the lines of your posts in this thread.

[Cary]

99. I haven't advocated any ban

I asked a specific question for a specific purpose. That's all. I haven't advocated anything, except that the extremists should STFU and become more reasonable and objective.

But of course that's like asking a scorpion not to sting.

[4th law of robotics]

102. You haven't asked for a ban

but you'd said we should have one and that anyone who disagrees should "STFU".

Ok . . .

[Cary]

107. I said we should have a dialogue and that the gun reactionaries who are stifling that dialogue

should STFU.

But it doesn't matter what I say and it doesn't matter that the gun reactionaries are trying to stifle the dialogue. We will have that dialogue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/obama-gun-control_n_1704246.html

You can whine all you want. In the end your whining it won't matter.

[4th law of robotics]

108. Ok, but shouldn't any dialogue about potentially banning something

commence with a strong fact-based argument from those who support such a ban?

Rather than simply saying we must do this because "duh" and if you don't want a ban you must prove your case.

/innocent until proven guilty ought to apply in policy making as well. I'm not arguing against a ban so much as arguing for people who support a ban to prove the need for one.

//also you definition for stifling the debate seems to be "replying". I would disagree with this.

[Cary]

112. I don't buy that "conservative" limited government meme

We elect our officials. We delegate to them the duty to investigate the facts and to make legislation that promotes the general welfare. Then we get to second guess them at the next election.

I can buy the concept that we ought to allow people to do what they want to do, but that's not an over-arching "innocent until proven guilty" proposition. We do the best we can to promote the general welfare. We will not prevent these mass murder tragedies completely and it is irrational to think that we can. A lone nut is going to pull something off here or there. However it's equally irrational to argue that we can't do anything about it because we would be inconveniencing gun owners.

And please don't tell me your gun reactionary friends or compatriots don't throw a shit fit against anyone who tries to hold a serious discussion of the issues. I don't toe the NRA line so what happens whenever I express an opinion or bring up the subject?

You all jump down my throat.

Don't try to tell me you don't and don't project this dysfunction back on me. There's nothing you can say to me that will convince me that I'm not seeing what I am seeing.

[4th law of robotics]

114. Saying proponents of a ban should provide evidence for why such a ban

is in our best interests is somehow wrong?

And please don't tell me your gun reactionary friends or compatriots don't throw a shit fit against anyone who tries to hold a serious discussion of the issues. I don't toe the NRA line so what happens whenever I express an opinion or bring up the subject?

Judging by our exchange here it's because you continue to dodge questions, make emotion-based appeals, and generally misrepresent the opposition in a very dishonest way.

I think you're taking the response you're getting and generalizing it.

Try approaching this rationally and see what response you get.

So to begin: start by posting some studies that suggest an AWB would make us safer and are worth the cost.

[Cary]

117. Hahahahaha

I'm supposed to post studies that an AWB would make us safer? That's my burden?

Look at you. You admit above that I haven't taken a position on this but then you accuse me of making an emotion based appeal and now you're suggesting I ought to advocate that an AWB make us safer.

And I'm supposed to take you seriously?

[4th law of robotics]

124. Yes, if you're pushing for a ban

on something currently legal the burden of proof is on you. We've covered this. Do keep up.

[Cary]

130. ROTFLMAO

My error. Can you believe I actually tbought you were a rational human being?

How silly of me.

[MicaelS]

96. Because the attempted ban is on guns that look "bad" or "evil" to some people.

There is no functional difference between an AR-15 which is a 50 year old design, and the Browning BAR rifle which is also a 50 year old design.

Both use the gas produced from the burning powder in the cartridge to:

(a) expel the bullet from the rifle,
(b) cycle the action to eject the spent cartridge,
(c) reload a new cartridge
(d) cock the weapon for another shot.

The Browning is actually more powerful than the AR-15.

And the answer is your question is gun owners are not going to let a bunch of people who don't know the first thing about guns, other than how they look, restrict them based on their appearance.

[Marinedem]

97. Not to nitpick, but..

The AR15 is over 60 years old.

The BAR is over 90.

[Ian David]

105. You need a 100 round magazine if you want to shoot at bees. n/t

[Erose999]

110. If these features of assault weapons are merely "cosmetic," why do gun nuts insist on having them?

If a pistol grip, a 30 rd. box magazine, etc are not important, why do these weapons sell like hotcakes over more less "tactical" versions of the weapons?

[Cary]

113. Why are you asking me?

I didn't come up with the word "cosmetic".

[MicaelS]

118. Several reasons...

(1) Because they look "cool", and as anyone knows "Cool" sells stuff like hotcakes. Guns, cars, motorcycles, phones, WTF-ever. Cool is always better than uncool, ask James Dean.

(2) They're a good way of giving the finger to and / or freaking out people who don't know the first things about guns other than their "scary" or "evil" appearance, and who almost piss themselves at the sight of a gun.

(3) When you try to ban things, it just makes that thing more appealing. Plus, buying the thing is a gesture of defiance to those who are banners.

And I say this as a lifelong gun owners.

[Erose999]

120. So 100 round magazines in civilian hands are absolutely necessary because they "look cool". And this

fact totally mitigates the damage they can do when in the hands of homicidal maniacs.

[MicaelS]

123. "Absolutely necessary"??? Nope....

I'm just telling you why people buy stuff. Go back and re-read what I wrote. It boils down to "because they want to".

And the attitude is among many guns owners is that since less than 1% of gun owners every commit a crime with their guns, why should the 99+% have to compensate for the misdeeds of the less than 1%?

[Erose999]

128. Consider that just one of that "1%" shot about 70 people, killing at least 12 of them last week. And

last year another of that "1%" gunned down 13, killing 6 of them.

The latter of these 2 shooters, Jared Lee Loughner (who shot Rep. Gabby Giffords) was using extended capacity magazines. He was rushed by the victims when he stopped to reload, which ended his killing spree.

[belcffub]

129. for me living in a ban state...

one of things the bugs me is the ban on adjustable stocks. I live in New York and we still have the 1994 AWB on the books.

I can own a rifle with a short stock... one with a long stock... but not one that goes from short to long. It is cosmetic. It is also functional. If I have a rifle setup for me my wife and kids have to put the stock under their armpits. Not safe or proper. So I have rifles setup for both.

I'd prefer to just have one stock that can be adjusted for the individual and the season. During the winter a slightly shorter stock is better to compensate for additional clothing.

And as soon as someone can explain how allowing short and long stocks but banning ones that go from short to long makes us safer I will shut up on the mater...

[ManiacJoe]

132. The cosmetic features serve legitimate uses.

Pistol grips are more ergonomic for firing from the shoulder than traditional stocks.
Detachable box magazines make reloading quicker and less error prone.
Flash suppressors help protect your night vision and redirect the gas to kick up less dust.

What other features do you want to know about?

[Kaleva]

126. What the AWB did.

As far as rifles are concerned, the AWB only affected those semi-automatic rifles that had a detachable magazine.

Assault weapons made after the AWB went into effect remained legal to buy if the rifle did not have more then one of the following features:

A bayonet lug
A grenade launcher
a pistol grip
A folding or collapsible stock
a muzzle flash suppressor

Any assault weapon that was made prior to the AWB going into effect that had more then one of the above features remained legal.

It's my opinion that most people who wanted to buy a new assault weapon while the AWB was in effect wanted a pistol grip which meant the rifle then had to have a fixed stock to be legal.

[drm604]

127. Maybe because arguing about minutia is an effective way of derailing the conversation?

Just a thought. I admittedly don't know much about the subject and usually avoid these conversations, so I may be off base.

[Kaleva]

131. Lack of knowldege of the minutia made, IMO, the AWB an ineffective law.

Not long ago there was an effort to ban the so-called "cop killer" bullets. On the face of it, that would be a good thing to do as most everyone would support such a ban. But when one got into the details of what rounds would qualify as "cop killers", then most of the rounds commonly used for hunting, such as the .30-06 and .308, would end up being banned.

[Cary]

134. I thought that was about Teflon coated bullets. n/t

[Kaleva]

137. It was about rounds that could penetrate ballistic vests.

There is no federal law against teflon coated handgun ammo but a few states have restrictions on such. Actual armor piercing rounds are essentially prohibited by federal law. While it's legal to buy and own armor piercing rounds, it's now illegal to manufacture or import such for civilian use.

"A common misconception, often perpetuated by films and television, is that coating normal bullets with Teflon will give them armor-piercing capabilities. In reality, Teflon and similar coatings were used primarily as a means to protect the gun barrel from the hardened bullet; the coating itself does not add any measurable armor-piercing abilities to otherwise normal ammunition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet#United_States

One of the bills in Congress would have banned any round that could have penetrated ballistic vests as normally worn by police offices. This would have in effect have banned a number of popular hunting rounds as they are powerful enough to penetrate such vests.

[Cary]

138. I am still certain that the "cop killer bullet" issue was about Teflon coated bullets.

I have no idea where you're getting your information from but I do find it interesting that you cite to Wiki.

There are a lot of bills that in Congress that have gone nowhere. That doesn't mean anything.

I still don't understand why I'm supposed to be so sympathetic about a bunch of nuts who want Teflon bullets and folding rifle stocks so that they can conceal their assault rifles.

[Kaleva]

142. A lot of bills don't go anywhere becasue people take the time and look at the details of it.

The Biaggi-Moynahan bill died because people got involved in the details of it and realized it cold potentially ban common hunting rounds.

The effort to ban Teflon coated ammo also died because people tested it and found it was no more dangerous to police officers then any other round of similar caliber that wasn't coated with teflon. The banning of actual armor piercing rounds for civilian use has essentially been enacted. It being illegal to manufacture or to import such rounds for sale to civilians.

As for the folding stocks which you mentioned in your post, those remained legal while the AWB was in effect. The AWB didn't outlaw them.

Edit: If you think folding stocks ought to be banned, I don't have any problem with you having that view. I won't agree with it but you have to make up your own mind.

[Cary]

146. Kaleva, I don't have a point of view either way.

You "gungeoneers" all have a tendency to paint me as being in favor of gun control. I have never said that I was in favor of gun control. I have not made up my mind one way or the other, except to say that I find you "gungeoneers" to be over the top and out of control.

[Kaleva]

171. Why do you think I'm a gungeoneer?

I think high capacity magazines ought to be banned.

I think there should be background checks done at gun shows.

I think anyone who wants to buy a gun or even just ammo ought to first complete a gun safety course and go thru a background check before being issued a permit which would allow them to buy a gun and/or ammo. For a private sale, the buyer would need such a permit and the seller required to call in to verify the permit is valid.

I think anyone purchasing large quantities of ammo ought to be red flagged.

[MicaelS]

144. Any centerfire rifle ammuntion will penetrate soft body armor

So technically any center fire rifle round is a "cop killer bullet". The whole "Cop killer bullets" issue was just another moral panic concocted by advocates of Gun Control.

[ManiacJoe]

152. This is where the technical knowledge comes in handy.

"I still don't understand why I'm supposed to be so sympathetic about a bunch of nuts who want Teflon bullets and folding rifle stocks so that they can conceal their assault rifles."

You admit you don't know what the advantages are with teflon coated bullets (less wear on the barrel in some cases), yet you find restrictions on them OK.

You admit you don't know what the advantages are with folding stocks (storage and ergonomics), yet you find restrictions on them OK.

After learning the pros and cons of the technical features, the questions you need to be asking are what are the purposes of these restrictions and do the restrictions actually achieve the stated purposes?

Far too many folks in this world depend on Hollywood for there gun knowledge. Once they learn the facts, they are often great ones to have conversations with.

[Cary]

155. Your "technical knowledge" is nothing more than a cheap tactic you use to change the subject

And you can save your patronizing for someone who appreciates your canards.

[ManiacJoe]

156. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

Technical knowledge is the exact subject being addressed by the posts in this subthread.

You seem to have the will to learn. Please do so and join in a meaningful conversation. You seem to be doing better in the "nine points" thread in the Guns forum.

[Cary]

159. I do have a will to learn.

What I don't have is a whole lot of patience left for the tactics being used by gun reactionaries.

I litigate all kinds of technical issues that are far more complicated than gun stocks and high capacity magazines. The technical issues aren't an impediment.

Try going into court some time and telling people that they can't litigate a matter because they don't understand the technical issues the way you do.

[ManiacJoe]

166. You show potential.

"I litigate all kinds of technical issues that are far more complicated than gun stocks and high capacity magazines. The technical issues aren't an impediment. "

Great. If we can increase your vocabulary to include the correct firearm terms and concepts, you will have an easier time discussing the firearm issues here and elsewhere.

"Try going into court some time and telling people that they can't litigate a matter because they don't understand the technical issues the way you do."

Why would I do that when it is standard practice to bring in topic experts to educate the court and juries as needed.

[Cary]

133. I think if you weed out the b.s.

...that's exactly what the gun reactionaries are doing.

They convinced me of that in this thread.

[drm604]

169. I'm trying to figure out which side you're referring to with that term.

[obamanut2012]

175. What is a "gun reactionary"?

[Egalitarian Thug]

136. Like damned near everything surrounding the process we've chosen to follow in this debate,

it's not that simple. This is just one of the minutiae surrounding it. A wooden stock requires much more maintenance and is much more susceptible to damage and wear. It is considerably heavier and costs more $ and hardwood trees. It is also much more attractive and normally makes the firearm more valuable.

OTOH, If you have to carry a rifle and ammo for it for days overland, you just have to trust them when they say that, given the choice, you too would opt for the synthetics and lightest ammunition available. Hiking, climbing, trailblazing, for days and then hauling the animal out when you're done, a couple of extra pounds does make a difference.

OTOOH, a 100 round magazine is just stupid and nearly useless for anything except separating suckers from their money.

[Cary]

139. There's a process in this debate?

Where?

[Egalitarian Thug]

174. Sure there is. Both sides stake out the most absurd positions they can find and

then demand complete submission by the other. Yell, yell, yell, scream, scream, scream, declarations of the end of civilization and evil intent by all. Walk away fuming with a new-found hatred and intolerance for anyone that doesn't agree with you 100% of the time.

That's a process...

[leeroysphitz]

148. Listen, we, as True Americans™, have a God given 2nd Amendment right to carry as much military grade

firearms and ammunition as we can afford and if I need a special stock to fit it all under my Matrix style trench coat then that is my right. It says so in The Bible.

Further, we have a Moral Obligation to carry our rifles, or as I like to call them "Safety Sticks", every where we go just in case a nig... Uh, I mean a "gang banger" or some LONE NUT out there threatens innocent True American™ families who, for some reason, aren't carrying their own AR-15s and body armor.

Even if we had 3 school shootings a day for the next six months, as far as I am concerned, it would only illustrate our desperate need for a better armed populace. So Obama can just keep passing all of his thousands of pages of gun control legislation and keep arming MEXICAN drug lords in order to scare Decent White People™ into giving up their guns but he won't get my fully automatic ACR Safety Stick with the thermal scope and extended clips until he pries them from my cold dead hands.

[aikoaiko]

150. I deny your premise. It is the anti-gun forces who are having an emotional fit over mags >10 rounds

talk about emotional noise, oy.

[Cary]

151. You deny what premise?

I find it amazing that it's so common for the gun reactionaries to use the change the subject tactic. It's like you all have an instruction manual on how to quash this debate.

[aikoaiko]

157. Your premise is that pro-rkba types are emotionally resisting the AWB.You called it emotional noise.

I don't see that. Instead I've seen anti-rkba types have a shit fit over magazines > 10 rounds.

[Cary]

161. I'm not saying that "pro-rkba types" are emotionally resisting the AWB

I am saying that gun reactionaries are so emotional that they can't discuss the subject in any meaningful way. Perhaps they can do this amongst themselves, but I am not a gun reactionary. Nor do I advocate the AWB.

I haven't seen any "shit fit over magazines > 10 rounds." I have seen comments that large capacity magazines aren't necessary and that these may be misused to kill lots and lots of people. That seems to be a reasonably objective argument to me--not "a shit fit." But it's certainly possible that your experience is different.

My only point has been that our duly elected legislators need to hold some hearings. That's about it. And my experience here is that I have people telling me what I think, what I know, that because I'm a lawyer I'm evil and I don't know what I'm talking about, and various and sundry other things that clearly are aimed at my ego in some rather dysfunctional and emotional ways.

It's funny, too, because you would think they would want to actually convince me. I'm often reminded when I run into these kinds of discussions of my experience with LaRouchies. I have been confronted by these people and I tell them that I'm not interested. Invariably the run down the street after me accusing me of something, like being a drug dealer.

That's supposed to convince me to be a LaRouchie?

Same thing here. I have said I don't know how many times that I'm not convinced one way or another and that triggers some rather bizarre attacks on my ego?

In this thread I asked a question because it seemed to me that these particular things aren't a hill to die on. You would think I was sawing off someone's leg or something.

[aikoaiko]

164. really?

I have had some discussions with people who have pointed out that the assault weapons ban regulated things like the size and weight of stocks and such. It may be ridiculous, I don't know. But so what if you have to buy a weapon with slightly heavier stock? Who cares? I know I don't.

I am not endorsing that kind of legislation. I'm only denying that that kind of legislation is worth having a shit fit about.

Can you see why I might think you are saying what you claim you are not saying?

Ok so you think our legislators should hold some hearings. We've been down this road before. Both AWB reauthorization bills and solo mag limit bills aim to restrict at 10 rounds. Ten rounds is unreasonably low in my opinion and I offer civilian LEO insistence on being exempt from mag limits as my supporting argument. Civilian police interact with the same criminals I do just at a higher frequency. they want standard magazines in their full size pistols (12-19 rounds) and 30 round mags in their AR-15 carbines for the sake of self-defense or defense of others.

[Cary]

167. Really

I don't see gun reactionaries as being construcive. I don't see any sense of balance from gun reactionaries. I don't find them to be credible as I sense the same inclination in them to lie on order to have their way as I see in "conservatives." I certainly see those same tactics that we have come to know and love.

I am open to serious discusion of the merits and I am not going let a few hyperventilating zealots sway me one way or the other. But I do have to tell you that the gun reactionaries aren't winning any friends and influencing any people, at least not this one.

Moving on you have offered me one useful piece of information that I had not heard or considered. You say that people in the protection business want 30 round magazines.

I can appreciate that. I really and truly have no problem with people who want weapons for legitimate purposes. I do see a problem though where these things proliferate to the point where any nut job can have anything they want anywhere and at any time.

And as for the total freedom and it makes me sad not to smell my gun exactly as I want it "argument" well your good vibes are a sacrifice I am prepared to make.

Freedom without justice is anarchy and I am not an anarchist.

[Zorra]

153. We prefer to use shoulder-fired stinger missiles for hunting.

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2012, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"][font color="blue" size="size" face="face"]VAN HELSING PEST CONTROL[/font]
....

Ruins the meat, but vampires taste like shit anyway.

[randome]

154. Your initial premise is wrong.

Just because hunting is commonly suggested as a reason for guns doesn't mean that's what people are actually thinking about.

Even when they SAY that's what they want them for.

Some people just like the feel and the smell and the appearance of guns.

It's no more complicated than that.

[Cary]

163. That was supposed to just be an example.

But since you raise the point I don't really care about people's affinity for the feel, smell, or appearance of a gun. That means absolutely nothing to me and if that's what I'm weighing well then I give that no weight at all. People can live without fetish like that. On the other side I see people dying, being maimed, and losing their loved ones.

There's no question in my mind in that equation, if that's what I'm weighing.

I'm not saying that's what we're necessarily talking about--I'm just parsing that factor out for you (at least as where my mind is at). A lot of people here don't seem to be able to comprehend parsing things like that out. They're making this into something more than I intended and then accusing me of believing something that I don't necessarily believe.

So I'm thanking you for your response. It was helpful for me.

[jpak]

158. If a rife has the letters AR, AK, HK, SKS, FAL or TECH in its gun nut code name - ban 'em

Same for Bushmaster and other douchebag assault weapons.

Yup

[aikoaiko]

160. This is an example of brilliant thinking that led to the Olympic PCR during the AWB ban

[IMG][/IMG]

[jpak]

162. Ban that piece of shit too

Yup

[fascisthunter]

170. great thread!

[4th law of robotics]

180. Number of times hunting is mentioned in the 2nd amendment: 0

[Cary]

181. I think I have seen you on threads other than gun threads but I

cannot say the same for other gun reactionaries I have encountered in the last few days.

It would be interesting to catalog the posts of you gun reactionaries and to see if any of you are really liberals, at least in terms of other issues.

[4th law of robotics]

185. Oh I hope I pass your ideological purity test Mr. McCarthy

Really I do!

I don't think I'll get a wink of sleep until I know the verdict.

[Cary]

189. What ideological purity test would that be?

My statement was straightforward enough. How on earth did you manage to mangle it so badly?

[hack89]

205. "see if any of you are really liberals"

sounds like a purity test to me.

[Cary]

207. You aren't liberal, are you? n/t

[hack89]

209. Very much so - I support abortion rights, marriage equality, unions and single payer health care.

I also support the RKBA.

You really need to get over yourself - stop acting like you passing judgement on fellow Democrats has any meaning.

[Cary]

211. Of course you're just the right person to put me in my place.

What a great man you are!

[hack89]

226. No - I commonly answer rudeness with rudeness. One of my many human failings. nt

[Cary]

228. It was a sincere question.

I accepted your answer without challenge. There was nothing rude about my question.

[Cary]

215. Just perusing more of Meta

Seems like I'm not your only problem.

[hack89]

227. "Problem" is a relative term. I have to give a shit what you think first, right? nt

[Cary]

229. Generally when I encounter as much whining as I have from you,

I interpret the whiner as having a problem. I mean if you don't have a problem, why whine?

[rrneck]

230. So what's the problem you can't discuss your own OP?

[Cary]

233. It is my experience that a normal person understands when they're being mocked

But people of lesser intelligence seem to think they have "won" something.

[rrneck]

238. What have you won? nt

[Cary]

240. I haven't claimed to have won anything buddy boy.

But you have.

[rrneck]

244. You can't make any claim

because you haven't produced anything to discuss.

And again, for those just joining our farce already in progress, the OP is avoiding the discussion of the issues raised in post #24.

[Cary]

247. You can fabricate any claim that you want to.

And you do.

Life is good for you when you don't have to bother with things like truth and integrity. Isn't it?

[rrneck]

248. See post #24. nt

[Cary]

249. So dreck, you're claiming I have some kind of duty to respond to you?

I have some kind of moral obligation?

ROTFLMAO. Yeah, right.

[rrneck]

250. I think you've overestimated me. nt

[hack89]

232. I have no reason to complain

Life is good, I am still posting here at DU and this weekend I am going shooting with my family.

Do you think a slightly testy internet exchange with you is going to upset me? Because in the long run I know that for all your keyboard histrionics, a year from now gun control in America will be the same. That makes me happy. I suspect it makes you unhappy - which also makes me happy.

[Cary]

234. Good grief.

You mean absolutely nothing to me.

Right now I ought be drafting some very boring, routine pleadings. But I'm not. I am procrastinating.

And don't cry because it's no insult to you to say that you mean nothing to me. It is totally appropriate. I certainly hope that the feeling is mutual.

[hack89]

235. Yet you keep wanting to engage with me. Why don't you simply stop typing? nt

[Cary]

236. I told you already.

I am procrastinating.

Sometimes I am extremely productive. Sometimes I go out of my way to waste my time.

And I pulled a muscle yesterday in my Bagua class so I'm having some trouble concentrating on my work.

Why you want to know that is beyond me, but I have nothing to hide.

[hack89]

239. Procrastination is one of my talents too.

have a good evening.

[Cary]

241. I figure it's a cost of doing business.

I don't have a boss. Sometimes that concept, having a boss, is appealing.

Mostly not.

[LynneSin]

212. Well if you want to actually eat what you kill, Assault rifles shouldn't be used

I'm also a firm believer that one shouldn't go hunting unless they intend to use what they have killed. I'm related to many hunters and all of them use what they kill. I know I especially love venison!

You go hunting you want a nice clean hit to the animal else you'll splay body parts all over the place leaving little left to be harvested as food. Assault Rifles tend to be sloppy for hunting. You'll kill the animal but not much would be usuable as food and much of the pelt would be destroyed for those who like to preserve the pelt.

[belcffub]

216. why?

I have one shot killed deer with both 5.56 and 7.62... shotguns produce far larger holes the either cartridge... please explain

[Edweird]

245. What?

The AR15 (.223 / 5.56m) is generally considered too weak to hunt deer with. It is ILLEGAL to do so in some states.


"You go hunting you want a nice clean hit to the animal else you'll splay body parts all over the place leaving little left to be harvested as food. Assault Rifles tend to be sloppy for hunting. You'll kill the animal but not much would be usuable as food and much of the pelt would be destroyed for those who like to preserve the pelt."

Somebody is lying to you.

[badtoworse]

246. A good hunter will usually need only one shot and will match the round to the game

A .308 will vaporize a squirrel, but would be a good choice for deer. It doesn't matter what style rifle it came out of.

[Edweird]

243. What does hunting have to do with anything?

It's not in the 2nd amendment. It's not what the founding fathers were talking about when they wrote about guns. The ability to hunt with firearms is a side effect - benefit - of the 2nd amendment but not the point of the 2nd amendment.

[SunsetDreams]

251. Locking

Statement of Purpose

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.

Please consider posting in Gun Control & RKBA group or Outdoor Life group.

Thanks for your understanding

SunsetDreams
GD Host


FYI Skinner announcement to hosts this morning.

Skinner (56,085 posts)

You can once again enforce the prohibition against gun threads in GD.

I think it is clear that members' interest in discussing Guns has died down, and we are now focusing on other issues. (Thanks, Mitt!) So you can once again start enforcing the prohibition against gun threads in GD.

Of course, if you do want to lock any threads about guns, you should probably discuss it in here before you do.

FWIW, my personal opinion is that some narrowly-targeted discussion of the tragedy in Colorado might still be on-topic for GD. But we no longer need to provide an open environment in GD for all gun discussion.