About America And Guns.

[leibowde84]

More importantly than making them harder and more expensive to get, it makes them illegal to possess. Meaning that when discovered, they will be taken, and destroyed, and the person in possession of them will be punished. This would make a huge difference in the number of these weapons out there. AND in the willingness to carry them around in cars, and show them off to buddies, and brag about them in bars, and so on. Having them just wouldn't be any 'fun' anymore.

Great point.

 

[esmith]

They are machines that have been designed and engineered for the singular purpose of killing as many humans as quickly and easily as possible. How is it that you can't see these machines as being "insanely dangerous to the general public"?

Would you provide the factual information that a fully automatic firearm has been used after 1935, in the U.S. that cause civilian deaths.

 

[PureX]

Would you provide the factual information that a fully automatic firearm has been used after 1935, in the U.S. that cause civilian deaths.

You're trying to employ "lawyer tricks" because you have no reasonable argument, otherwise. The Vegas shooter's guns were effectively automatic. But that isn't the point, anyway. The point is that no citizen has any need for such weapons, yet many want them. Why? Because they are a fetish. They are ego-toys, used to enhance the internalized fantasy of the 'lone warrior', protecting his own, and dishing out his own brand of 'justice'. Self-empowered and autonomous. The American male ideal.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're trying to employ "lawyer tricks" because you have no reasonable argument, otherwise. The Vegas shooter's guns were effectively automatic. But that isn't the point, anyway. The point is that no citizen has any need for such weapons, yet many want them. Why? Because they are a fetish. They are ego-toys, used to enhance the internalized fantasy of the 'lone warrior', protecting his own, and dishing out his own brand of 'justice'. Self-empowered and autonomous. The American male ideal.

Jumping in (& stepping on Esmith's foot), knowing the distinction between "fully automatic" &
a semi-auto which has been modified to mimic full auto function matters. The stricter regulation
of full auto arms is arguably the reason they're seldom involved in crimes since the 1930s.
This has bearing on regulating things like "bump stocks" (which still require that the trigger
be released & pulled for each firing).

 

[leibowde84]

Would you provide the factual information that a fully automatic firearm has been used after 1935, in the U.S. that cause civilian deaths.

Many were just used in the biggest mass murder in U.S. history. Semi-automatic guns gerry-rigged to become automatic, for all intents and purposes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Many were just used in the biggest mass murder in U.S. history. Semi-automatic guns gerry-rigged to become automatic, for all intents and purposes.

To understand the distinction between "full auto" &
those guns is necessary if you want to regulate them.

 

[leibowde84]

To understand the distinction between "full auto" &
those guns is necessary if you want to regulate them.

I understand the technical difference, sure. But, if anyone tries to use that technicality to say that automatic weapons weren't used in Las Vegas, they are being dishonest. The guns used were automatic, as they had been altered to fire multiple shots while holding the trigger down. That is what the bump stock is for, right. They make a semi-automatic weapon automatic.

It doesn't matter what is added to a gun. If the final product can fire multiple shots while you hold the trigger down, it is automatic. Not "fully automatic", but it doesn't matter at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand the technical difference, sure. But, if anyone tries to use that technicality to say that automatic weapons weren't used in Las Vegas, they are being dishonest.

Or they're being pedantic in order to keep you honest (& informed).

The guns used were automatic, as they had been altered to fire multiple shots while holding the trigger down.

Incorrect.
The trigger is released & depressed each time.
What's happening is that the finger is held in one position, & the trigger
(attached to the receiver) moves back & forth without input from the user.

That is what the bump stock is for, right. They make a semi-automatic weapon automatic.

It makes it function similarly, but not with the same capability for firing rate & accuracy.

It doesn't matter what is added to a gun. If the final product can fire multiple shots while you hold the trigger down, it is automatic. Not "fully automatic", but it doesn't matter at all.

It matters because if we're to regulate "bump stocks" & similar devices, they must be
accurately described. Why oppose getting it right? (You'd make a lousy engineer.)

 

[PureX]

Jumping in (& stepping on Esmith's foot), knowing the distinction between "fully automatic" &
a semi-auto which has been modified to mimic full auto function matters. The stricter regulation
of full auto arms is arguably the reason they're seldom involved in crimes since the 1930s.
This has bearing on regulating things like "bump stocks" (which still require that the trigger
be released & pulled for each firing).

I think it's basically a distinction without a difference. A semi-automatic gun fires a bullet as fast as the trigger can be pulled and released. That's a couple of rounds per second. I've fired an M-16 on full auto, and as I recall it fires about 5 or 6 rounds per second. And I can't see a substantial difference in terms of reasonable use. So I can't see any reason whatever that any citizen would need an automatic weapon as opposed to a semi-automatic weapon. And I have not heard anyone offer any reason except for some paranoid fantasies about armed revolutions and armageddon (again, the lone warrior protecting his own, and dealing out his own brand of justice, his own way; the classic American male mythological hero). So I think we all agree that these weapons should be illegal, and are except for the gaping loopholes and the total lack of enforcement.

So next comes the semi-automatic assault rifles. Does anyone actually need one of those for home protection? Probably not. But I think this aspect of the debate misses the real goal. The goal is not to deny responsible citizens the right to protect themselves with firearms. The goal is to keep firearms away from irresponsible citizens. So the real questions we should be asking, is how best do we do that?

And the answers begin with way we enforce social responsibility with the use of other potentially deadly machinery. We teach, we test, investigate, and we license. And then we punish those who don't comply. You want to own a semi-automatic assault weapon, you can. But first you have to get a license. And then you have to prove that you know when, and how to use it, and when and how not to. Then you must accept, and pass, scrutiny, and agree to follow these rules, thereafter.

 

[esmith]

Many were just used in the biggest mass murder in U.S. history. Semi-automatic guns gerry-rigged to become automatic, for all intents and purposes.

If one what's to make a technical point one should use technical information shouldn't one. In other words the answer is NO.to being able to provide the information in : "Would you provide the factual information that a fully automatic firearm has been used after 1935, in the U.S. that cause civilian deaths".

 

[esmith]

I understand the technical difference, sure. But, if anyone tries to use that technicality to say that automatic weapons weren't used in Las Vegas, they are being dishonest. The guns used were automatic, as they had been altered to fire multiple shots while holding the trigger down. That is what the bump stock is for, right. They make a semi-automatic weapon automatic.

It doesn't matter what is added to a gun. If the final product can fire multiple shots while you hold the trigger down, it is automatic. Not "fully automatic", but it doesn't matter at all.

I wish when someone makes a post that they would use factual information. The trigger on that weapon had to be released and reengaged prior to another round being fired.
Almost 95% of the time that someone tries to make a point about further gun laws they use incorrect information. Just as you just did.

Here is how a "bump stock" works. What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work?

So, want to change your above statement now?

 

[esmith]

I think it's basically a distinction without a difference. A semi-automatic gun fires a bullet as fast as the trigger can be pulled and released. That's a couple of rounds per second. I've fired an M-16 on full auto, and as I recall it fires about 5 or 6 rounds per second. And I can't see a substantial difference in terms of reasonable use. So I can't see any reason whatever that any citizen would need an automatic weapon as opposed to a semi-automatic weapon. And I have not heard anyone offer any reason except for some paranoid fantasies about armed revolutions and armageddon (again, the lone warrior protecting his own, and dealing out his own brand of justice, his own way; the classic American male mythological hero). So I think we all agree that these weapons should be illegal, and are except for the gaping loopholes and the total lack of enforcement.

So next comes the semi-automatic assault rifles. Does anyone actually need one of those for home protection? Probably not. But I think this aspect of the debate misses the real goal. The goal is not to deny responsible citizens the right to protect themselves with firearms. The goal is to keep firearms away from irresponsible citizens. So the real questions we should be asking, is how best do we do that?

And the answers begin with way we enforce social responsibility with the use of other potentially deadly machinery. We teach, we test, investigate, and we license. And then we punish those who don't comply. You want to own a semi-automatic assault weapon, you can. But first you have to get a license. And then you have to prove that you know when, and how to use it, and when and how not to. Then you must accept, and pass, scrutiny, and agree to follow these rules, thereafter.

Well your figures on the cycle rate of a M16 on full auto is considerably off; it is around 700-950 rounds a minute (11-15 rounds per sec)
Well your figures on the cycle rate of a AR15 style firearm is also off. The current record is 10 rounds in 1.59 sec.

You see those of use that love to shoot enjoy using the AR15 style weapon in many competitive event like say the 3 gun competition.

Well as far as keeping firearms away from people that should not own a firearm is already in place. So what's your problem.

And no to your idea to license anyone who want a own any semi-auto firearm. Now if you don't like the current federal laws governing firearms, just more to CA, I'm sure they would be happy to have you.

 

[leibowde84]

Or they're being pedantic in order to keep you honest (& informed).

Fair point. I welcome that.

Incorrect.
The trigger is released & depressed each time.
What's happening is that the finger is held in one position, & the trigger
(attached to the receiver) moves back & forth without input from the user.

The person holds the trigger down and the trigger on the gun moves back and forth. I never said it was the only trigger. But, it doesn't really matter at all. The weapon becomes automatic.

It makes it function similarly, but not with the same capability for firing rate & accuracy.

This seems irrelevant, as the term "automatic firearm" doesn't technically require any kind of firing rate, does it?

It matters because if we're to regulate "bump stocks" & similar devices, they must be
accurately described. Why oppose getting it right? (You'd make a lousy engineer.)

First, you are correct. I would make an outright terrible engineer. Second, I think they should describe it simply saying "devices that can be used to change any firearm into an automatic." What's wrong with that?

 

[leibowde84]

If one what's to make a technical point one should use technical information shouldn't one. In other words the answer is NO.to being able to provide the information in : "Would you provide the factual information that a fully automatic firearm has been used after 1935, in the U.S. that cause civilian deaths".

Well, the idea is not to merely outlaw fully automatic weapons. It is to outlaw all automatic weapons and the devices that can make firearms automatic.

 

[leibowde84]

I wish when someone makes a post that they would use factual information. The trigger on that weapon had to be released and reengaged prior to another round being fired.
Almost 95% of the time that someone tries to make a point about further gun laws they use incorrect information. Just as you just did.

Here is how a "bump stock" works. What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work?

So, want to change your above statement now?

I admit I was wrong. But, why does it make a difference. It still makes the gun operate as an automatic weapon, for all intents and purposes. You don't have to keep pulling the trigger. You hold your finger in one position and the bump stock moves the gun back and forth for you, continuously pulling the trigger "automatically".

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's basically a distinction without a difference.

The courts would differ with you.
So would anyone familiar with firearms.
But it's beyond me to explain it any further...nothing new to add.

 

[Revoltingest]

The person holds the trigger down and the trigger on the gun moves back and forth.

Wrongo pongo.
A semi-auto cannot fire more than one shot without releasing the trigger.
The shooter's finger releases it because of the motion of the receiver in the
stock, which the trigger finger presses against (in addition to the trigger.)
One other device I know of accomplishs the same function with no "bump stock".

I never said it was the only trigger. But, it doesn't really matter at all. The weapon becomes automatic.

It matters because it doesn't meet the legal definition of fully automatic.
If it did, they wouldn't be selling these things like hotcakes without
the license required for a fully auto/select fire rifle.

This seems irrelevant, as the term "automatic firearm" doesn't technically require any kind of firing rate, does it?
First, you are correct. I would make an outright terrible engineer. Second, I think they should describe it simply saying "devices that can be used to change any firearm into an automatic." What's wrong with that?

What's wrong is that you refuse to understand.
Your ilk might not advocate for new legislation
because you believe the existing law covers it.
Perhaps nothing will change, eh?

 

[PureX]

Well your figures on the cycle rate of a M16 on full auto is considerably off; it is around 700-950 rounds a minute (11-15 rounds per sec)
Well your figures on the cycle rate of a AR15 style firearm is also off. The current record is 10 rounds in 1.59 sec.

All the more unnecessary, then.

You see those of use that love to shoot enjoy using the AR15 style weapon in many competitive event like say the 3 gun competition.

A lot of people would really enjoy blowing things up, too. Or they would if they were allowed to do it. But they aren't allowed to do it because it's dangerous, and stupid, and unnecessary. Take up paint-ball warfare, instead.

Well as far as keeping firearms away from people that should not own a firearm is already in place. So what's your problem.

Well, clearly that isn't true since we are killing ourselves and each other with firearms at an alarming rate. Many thousands per year! And that's the problem. We are not keeping them from the people who should not have them.

 

[leibowde84]

Wrongo pongo.
A semi-auto cannot fire more than one shot without releasing the trigger.
The shooter's finger releases it because of the motion of the receiver in the
stock, which the trigger finger presses against (in addition to the trigger.)
One other device I know of accomplishs the same function with no "bump stock".

It matters because it doesn't meet the legal definition of fully automatic.
If it did, they wouldn't be selling these things like hotcakes without
the license required for a fully auto/select fire rifle.

What's wrong is that you refuse to understand.
Your ilk might not advocate for new legislation
because you believe the existing law covers it.
Perhaps nothing will change, eh?

Got it. I was wrong. Thanks for the info.
But, any device that increases the rate of fire for a semi-automatic weapon, removing the necessity to move your trigger finger, should be included in the automatic weapon group.

 

[Revoltingest]

Got it. I was wrong. Thanks for the info.
But, any device that increases the rate of fire for a semi-automatic weapon, removing the necessity to move your trigger finger, should be included in the automatic weapon group.

Now we're get'n somewhere!