Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[GreatOak]

So you're not arguing that people should move if they don't like the laws?

No, why would I?

[nyc81991]

I would support making guns ilegal if I thought it would actually do anything. However, making them ilegal only puts them into the hands of criminals and anyone who isn't a "criminal" but has a gun is turned into one.

It's really no different than drugs. Sure they are ilegal but that doesn't stop people from getting them. Infact it makes it an even worse situation by giving power to underground criminal markets.

[vastx]

FusedMass..I think I know the problem here.

You started from a position of opposing "assault weapons" before having even a rocky knowledge of the matter.

In the future, educate yourself before taking a stance.

[Dillon]

You said fully-automatic rifles were better for long range over semi-automatics.

That's blatantly incorrect.

Gimme a nice .308 bolt action for real range.

[FusedMass]

FusedMass..I think I know the problem here.

You started from a position of opposing "assault weapons" before having even a rocky knowledge of the matter.

In the future, educate yourself before taking a stance.

Expect the thread is not about me personally or even my knowledge on the matter. It's about the Gun Control Debate in America right now. Whatever I believe does not matter overall in regards to what they are doing. However I still do oppose assault weapons because the supreme court never had a national defined meaning what that means.

It could mean almost virtually anything.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Expect the thread is not about me personally or even my knowledge on the matter. It's about the Gun Control Debate in America right now. Whatever I believe does not matter overall in regards to what they are doing. However I still do oppose assault weapons because the supreme court never had a national defined meaning what that means.

It could mean almost virtually anything.

You oppose assault weapons because the Supreme court hasn't defined what an assault weapon is?

[Dillon]

However I still do oppose assault weapons because the supreme court never had a national defined meaning what that means.

It could mean almost virtually anything.

Yet another fantastic reason to not ban a single thing.

[FusedMass]

Yet another fantastic reason to not ban a single thing.

If you mean to imply I want to ban it because the supreme court has not defined it. You are incorrect. I meant to say the court can see it as dangerous and usual weapons like sawed off shotguns. Seriously why does everyone try to to cite ONE EXAMPLE as a way to dismiss an entire argument. Just because you say..another reason not to..doesn't actually make it a reason not to.

I'd like it banned because its capable of shooting a hundred rounds in less then a minute and easily modified to fully automatic and that's a fact.
You do know that right..

[PhaelixWW]

I'd like it banned because its capable of shooting a hundred rounds in less then a minute and easily modified to fully automatic and that's a fact.

Good lord, are you still trying to claim that they're easily modified to automatic? You're wrong; it's not a fact.

From the wikipedia entry on AR-15s:

Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. This was done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic.

...and...

Since 1993 The Bolt Carrier Groups used in AR-15 type rifles for civilians have employed additional measures to prevent modification to full auto.

And once again, if you want to ban anything capable of shooting a hundred rounds a minute, you'd have to ban all semi-automatics, handguns included.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

If you mean to imply I want to ban it because the supreme court has not defined it. You are incorrect. I meant to say the court can see it as dangerous and usual weapons like sawed off shotguns. Seriously why does everyone try to to cite ONE EXAMPLE as a way to dismiss an entire argument. Just because you say..another reason not to..doesn't actually make it a reason not to.

I'd like it banned because its capable of shooting a hundred rounds in less then a minute and easily modified to fully automatic and that's a fact.
You do know that right..

Those aren't facts. I bet my life on it that YOU could not "easily" make an AR-15 shoot 100 rounds in less than a minute, and I bet my life you couldn't machine it into a full auto either.

[Dillon]

If you mean to imply I want to ban it because the supreme court has not defined it. You are incorrect. I meant to say the court can see it as dangerous and usual weapons like sawed off shotguns. Seriously why does everyone try to to cite ONE EXAMPLE as a way to dismiss an entire argument. Just because you say..another reason not to..doesn't actually make it a reason not to.

I'd like it banned because its capable of shooting a hundred rounds in less then a minute and easily modified to fully automatic and that's a fact.
You do know that right..

This is your argument? That it can fire "a hundred rounds in less than a minute"? And easily be modified to automatic?

The AR-15 is not an "unusual" weapon, in fact it is rather prominent in American closets, even more so now, with the talk of banning it. In fact I'll be looking to get one soon myself.



Notice the difference in the internal components, between the M16 and its baby brother. To convert an AR to a M16, you need to find an M16 lower receiver which is no longer produced for civilian use, causing limited supply, or you must mill out the AR-15 receiver. You will require an entirely different parts kit, which are no longer permitted to be manufactured for civilian use, meaning you must either machine them yourself or find an already existing set of parts and buy them from someone for thousands, if they are willing to sell at all.

At the end of all this, the gun is either a frankenstein monstrosity or is actually an M16, neither of which will be an AR-15. I wouldn't call that "easy".

So, a hundred rounds in less than a minute... would you prefer muskets? I mean, the purpose of a weapon being semi-automatic is that it will fire each time the trigger is depressed, granting no malfunction and the weapon has finished cycling. Any weapon that will fire a round each time the trigger is pulled has this capability, but your barrel will melt or warp.

[ugotownd]

Those aren't facts. I bet my life on it that YOU could not "easily" make an AR-15 shoot 100 rounds in less than a minute, and I bet my life you couldn't machine it into a full auto either.

I'm betting my AR's that she couldn't even get one into battery. Not with out youtube or something.

[Grizzly Willy]

No, why would I?

I must be misinterpreting this quote then.

A lot of people don't value the freedom of movement apparently. I never got that line of thought myself.

Force is a drug.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I'm betting my AR's that she couldn't even get one into battery. Not with out youtube or something.

I just don't see how you can state something is easy, without being able to do it yourself... I would never say shooting 3 pointers in the NBA is easy because I see it done on TV all the time by the best players in the world.

[Dillon]

Thought I'd link the following:

Green Berets

1100 Green Berets sign and disseminate letter to various news outlets


Utah Sheriff's Association

Utah Sheriff's Association letter to President Obama

[Kazull]

Banning so called "assault weapons" will do nothing to solve the problem. Criminals will still always get them because they by definition don't abide by the law. The people it will effect are people like me who enjoy sport shooting my AR-15 at a range. Change needs to happen but it needs to happen by stopping the ability to purchase firearms at gun shows without background checks and by better database management and information sharing by government agencies to determine if an individual should own certain types of firearms. Best way to protect our schools is by having armed guards in them and authorizing certain faculty to conceal carry (with extensive training of course)

[Wells]

Criminals will still always get them because they by definition don't abide by the law.

So we should only pass laws criminals would abide by?

This talking point has never made any sense.

[IdTheDemon]

For those who played the classic and heralded PC game Deus Ex......

http://deusex.wikia.com/wiki/Nationa...sionist_Forces

In 2042, new gun control legislation in the form of the Sporting Weapons Act was passed, and the NSF appeared again as the National Secessionist Forces. The new NSF was composed of individuals who refused to give up their rifles, grenades, land mines, and other "collectibles" prohibited by the Act. Led by Leon Woods, the goal of the NSF was to violently overthrow the U.S. government and restore the right of the nation's citizens to bear arms. Originally based mainly in the Western United States, the movement spread eastward, eventually creating a large support base in major eastern urban centers such as New York City. While the United Nations and the U.S. government classified the NSF as a terrorist group, many people saw the NSF as liberators from an increasingly authoritarian U.S. federal government.

By Odin's Beard, it's really happening.....

Now where are all the cool stuff like human augmentation and amazing music actually being played at night clubs?

[Kazull]

Makes perfect sense a ban will only stop law abiding citizens from getting them, not criminals. At least better information sharing and monitoring would help the government keep track of who has them and assist with trying to track them if they get stolen, which is where a majority of criminals get access to weapons like that.

[Wells]

That's like saying there's no reason to make theft illegal because its not going to stop criminals.

You make laws.......then you enforce them.