Support NeoGAF

[mkenyon]

I don't dispute that. But it would be better that serious public figures didn't continue to promote that line of argument. "If they don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, therefore moot"

As if semantic distinctions between gun features somehow make our absolutely staggeringly disproportionate level of murders, suicides and accidents by gun simply go away.

One thing I agree with NRA purists on - Guns don't kill people.

However, Americans with Guns kill people, and themselves, with astonishingly imbalanced frequency. We need to fix America. That means rules, regulations, and oh no! Paperwork!

I'd be happy forever with:

Background checks.
Sensible limitations on felons, registered offenders, watchlist persons - and more difficult - the mentally ill.
Waiting/Cooldown periods (even a couple of days)
And the "Gunshow" (i.e., facebook, Craigslist, you name it) loophole.


I'd also be enormously grateful if the NRA and its advocates didn't actively stop:

Research into biometric and other safety measures.
CDC research (funding, before someone pulls THAT shit) into the actual numbers and causes.
States or local jurisdictions choosing their own rules and detailed legislation.

I think you are missing the point. My issue is with the semantics themselves, and I'm trying to clarify them so people understand that bans on certain types of firearms (namely Assault Weapons) is meaningless and unhelpful. This clarification leads one to understand that the best way to move forward is through creating checks on the purchasing of any and all firearms, considering that a ban on semi-autos is impossible without and amendment.

Clarifying the semantics is the only way to show that they are pointless. People who do not understand that there's no real difference between a semi-auto and an assault weapon have all sorts of weird notions about legislation. Hell, there's a lot of people that think automatic rifles are widely available and legal. I've seen it on this very forum frequently.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Don't even pretend gun ignorance is limited to those for more control. Every time I go to the range I hear other shooters talking about their 'assault rifles' and referring to clips as magazines, and shot as bullets.

 

[Abstrusity]

Don't even pretend gun ignorance is limited to those for more control. Every time I go to the range I hear other shooters talking about their 'assault rifles' and referring to clips as magazines, and shot as bullets.

Yes, but they're not the ones trying to push restrictive laws down everyone's throats.

This primer, and realistically, just this primer except in some isolated cases ("can you tell me what a barrel shroud is?" "Uh, the shoulder thing that goes up?") can go a LONG way in bettering the bills and amendments that get pushed. It also, as the OP noted somewhere in the last page, negates the tendency for people to smugly sit around and discard your arguments out of hand because you used the wrong terminology.

Sometimes it's about giving the other side less ammunition to use against you, rather than taking their weapons away.

 

[mkenyon]

Don't even pretend gun ignorance is limited to those for more control. Every time I go to the range I hear other shooters talking about their 'assault rifles' and referring to clips as magazines, and shot as bullets.

OK.

 

[grumble]

All I know is I'm not storing my guns at the range and I want the ability to defend my home with a firearm. Not a smug denunciation from people that don't know the first thing about me, my history, my situation. I'm more than willing to agree on things that don't infringe on my second amendment rights. But not really interested in debating the definition of 2A.

I am sorry that you live in a situation where having to defend your home with a firearm is a real possibility. In the vast majority of the us this is extremely rare, like being bitten by a shark. Extremely poor and violent communities are the exception.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Do people actually hunt with AR-15s? I grew up hunting (quit because it's boring as hell) and lived with/around hunters most my life, but the most common rounds were 30-06 and .308 about 90% the time. Basically you'd look like one lost and goofy joker if you're caught out in the woods bear or deer hunting with anything other than a bolt-action (or shotgun with buckshot). And turkey/rabbit/birds are all shot.

 

[TomServo]

No it makes no sense. Statistically, you are more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member by accident, OR attract violence from outside, simply by having a weapon for home defense, than you are to protect yourself in the event of some external danger with that gun. And it's not even close. Like, your chances of being killed or injured SKYROCKET.

Are there any studies that are normalized based on *how* the guns in the home are stored? I've seen studies that show, for example, that the majority of gun-owning parents of toddlers think that hiding a loaded handgun in the sock drawer is proper storage.

 

[mkenyon]

Do people actually hunt with AR-15s? I grew up hunting (quit because it's boring as hell) and lived with/around hunters most my life, but the most common rounds were 30-06 and .308 about 90% the time. Basically you'd look like one lost and goofy joker if you're caught out in the woods bear or deer hunting with anything other than a bolt-action (or shotgun with buckshot). And turkey/rabbit/birds are all shot.

.308 AR-15s are very popular for hunting. .223 AR-15s are very popular for hog hunting.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

I was actually preparing a nice OP for this type of thread, but you beat me to it! I was also going to go into things like caliber, parts, amd some history but I havent had time to throw it all together yet. Thanks though, a lot of people of Gaf need some learnin about firarms.

However, I would like to point out the incorrect terminology used in the OP!

Silencers are a made up word, used in fiction and by people who take it as fact. The proper term is a suppressor, as it doesn't silence the weapon, it only suppresses the sound by slowing the discharge of the gas in a confined area. They still make noise, flea fart shots you see on TV are a myth.

Granted, some weapons you can make frighteningly close to silent if you set them up right at a severe loss of range and power. Great for showing off, not much use anywhere else.

 

[ColdPizza]

Don't forget AK's!

Totally safe:

Super dangerous:

Unfortunately those who'd like to take a nuanced realistic approach will be drowned out by those screaming "Ban all guns! Fuck that!" But good write-up.




Agreed when it comes to broad generalities like "People shouldn't drive drunk" and "People shouldn't open carry guns". Some knowledge is good when getting into the nitty gritty details of gun laws when suggesting things that sounds simple up front "All ammo sold should have a background check" but has backend considerations for gun owners and the system that should be taken into consideration. This is hard to do when unfamiliar with the process. This is just one example.

What makes these two AKs basically the same? Does the receiver have the same firing mechanism?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Silencers are a made up word, used in fiction and by people who take it as fact. The proper term is a suppressor, as it doesn't silence the weapon, it only suppresses the sound by slowing the discharge of the gas in a confined area. They still make noise, flea fart shots you see on TV are a myth.

The ATF and Department of Justice refers to them as silencers. In fact if I remember right they were called silencers before being called suppressors.

 

[Makai]

This is helpful, but I'd also like to point out how much of a fallacy it is that if someone doesn't know much about guns they shouldn't have an opinion about them.

You don't need to know a lot about cars to know that drunk people shouldn't be driving them.

But the argument there wouldn't be to ban specific classes of cars. You'd want to be informed on alcohol when making that argument.

You definitely want to be genuinely informed rather than just say we need ambiguous "regulation" or "deregulation."

 

[Stinkles]

Are there any studies that are normalized based on *how* the guns in the home are stored? I've seen studies that show, for example, that the majority of gun-owning parents of toddlers think that hiding a loaded handgun in the sock drawer is proper storage.

Yes, but the CDC, which could theoretically do a much more valid and scientific study, is prevented from doing so because the NRA has successfully lobbied to prevent such studies being funded.

Now...why would they do that?


However I will say that responsible gun owners will make it basically impossible for even the most mischievous and clever child to unlock/find/discover the components to load a gun.

But, Counterpoint: Do you think most drivers are "responsible" to that degree, and do you think people who love guns are somehow more responsible than the average iPhone user swerving around the freeway in his/her car?

Gun owners are statistically average people. And to paraphrase a comedy genius, think about how stupid the average person is, and remember that half the people are stupider than that.

We need to be protected from ourselves sometimes. Seatbelts, for example.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

The ATF and Department of Justice refers to them as silencers. In fact if I remember right they were called silencers before being called suppressors.

Well shit, no wonder so many people can't figure that one out. I guess I stand a bit corrected, and have learned something today.

 

[commedieu]

What about shotguns? Do they have a barbie mode?

And barbie mode, with hand stops and scopes. Doesn't that improve accuracy?

 

[mkenyon]

What makes these two AKs basically the same? Does the receiver have the same firing mechanism?

The only difference is that one has a sporting stock, the other has a pistol grip and a threaded barrel for using a muzzle break (reduces felt recoil).

 

[Mohonky]

GAF desperately needs this thread. Thanks for posting OP.

GAF does?

Havent seen anything in OP that makes any reasonable argument to be against gun reform. Its still the same argument, we cant ban semi's or pistols because 2nd Amendment and as we know Amendmen, even by definition means unchangable.....

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Are there any studies that are normalized based on *how* the guns in the home are stored? I've seen studies that show, for example, that the majority of gun-owning parents of toddlers think that hiding a loaded handgun in the sock drawer is proper storage.

I don't know of any studies, but my father and grandfather always had loaded guns in the house in easily accessible drawers, even when I was a child. When I was capable of thinking for myself I realized how amazingly stupid and asinine that was. I personally own revolvers, a shotgun, and bolt-action rifle, and even though I live alone I have trigger/barrel locks on most of them, and I lock them in cases, in a locked room, with ammunition in an entirely separate locked container (that was also kept in a separate room until I moved recently).

 

[mkenyon]

What about shotguns? Do they have a barbie mode?

And barbie mode, with hand stops and scopes. Doesn't that improve accuracy?

Yeah, shotguns do have a Barbie mode. I'm on mobile, so just google "Keltec KSG", "Saiga 12", and "Tactical mossberg 500" for some fun images.

Sure, the accessories improve accuracy. But to put it in gaming terms, it'd be like getting a specific mouse, mouse pad, and keyboard. The average gamer is totally fine with using whatever and not see much difference. But a pro gamer would legitimately benefit from the use of them.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

What about shotguns? Do they have a barbie mode?

And barbie mode, with hand stops and scopes. Doesn't that improve accuracy?

Just search 'tacticool shotgun' and see loads of nonsense.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

What about shotguns? Do they have a barbie mode?

And barbie mode, with hand stops and scopes. Doesn't that improve accuracy?

Some do, it depends on the model. But nothing like a tricked at AR. You can add a scope, a light, a tactical grip, and maybe a clip holder to high end ones. But a dressed out AR can hold all of that, and about a dozen more things. But in all reality, it's more for show than actual use. They can be referred to as 'Tacticool' weapons for a reason.

Example:

As for accuracy after the scope and the grip, everything else is just dressing.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

As for accuracy after the scope and the grip, everything else is just dressing.

Well... depending on the shotgun there's also the choke tube. Which I'd actually say affects accuracy more than a grip. But usually that's not seen.

 

[mkenyon]

GAF does?

Havent seen anything in OP that makes any reasonable argument to be against gun reform. Its still the same argument, we cant ban semi's or pistols because 2nd Amendment and as we know Amendmen, even by definition means unchangable.....

I am not making the case for or against reform. I'm telling you what kind of reform is reasonably achieved without a 2/3 majority while also actually affecting change.

 

[TomServo]

But, Counterpoint: Do you think most drivers are "responsible" to that degree, and do you think people who love guns are somehow more responsible than the average iPhone user swerving around the freeway in his/her car?

No, I don't - when I read studies like the one I mentioned, and read news stories about toddlers picking up loaded weapons from the floor of a car, I realize I'd have to have a healthy bit of cognitive dissonance to think otherwise.

I don't like to discuss my own firearm ownership, but I will say that the ease in purchasing a firearm surprised me. Going through my local FFL, the background check is done in minutes. Florida has waiting periods on handguns, but frankly a Glock 19 scares me more than an AR-15, so I don't own handguns and have never been subject to said waiting period.

Now compare that to my motorcycle endorsement, which was required to legally ride as a FL resident.

Had to sign up for a safety course weeks in advance, pay hundreds of dollars for said course, attend and pass the three day class which included both classroom testing and range skills (and yes, they failed multiple people for poor performance). Wait a few days for the test results to be sent to the DMV, then go to the tax collector's office to pay for a new license with the motorcycle endorsement on it.

I'm pro second amendment, but that difference strikes me as a bit nuts.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

I'd like to see more information regarding:

-What's involved in a background check
-What tools do police have to chase bullets back to a particular weapon or what tools exist to chase a stray weapon back to the owner or from the shop in which it came

 

[Arkos]

I appreciate this OP. I work with gun nuts enthusiasts and I really would like to be able to engage them and express my views in a way that doesn't just make our differences worse. Thank you

 

[Stormhammer]

I want everyone to have a one shot manual reload hunting rifle.

You can reload your damn gun after shooting at bambi once. If you need two bullets and can't reload fast enough to shoot bambi twice, get gud.

Shotguns, semi-auto anything and hand-guns can DIAF as far as I'm concerned there is no real need for them. Unless you have some cause to be in potential snake dens, then you can have a hand-fun with shot-shell.

bruv, shotguns are used for fowl huntin'

 

[LlamaJohnson]

Great post OP.

 

[JP_]

An assault weapon is a term used to describe a rifle that looks like a military rifle, but it is made for civilian use. This means that it typically has a polymer furniture, a collapsible/retracting stock, detachable magazine, and rails for gun people to play Barbie doll with accessories.

I don't like how gun advocates often describe assault weapons as just "looking" like assault rifles. For the most part, these aren't cosmetic (or as you describe, "aesthetic") differences, they're ergonomic differences. That collapsible/retracting stock is designed for greater maneuverability in tight quarters while still allowing steady firing for longer distances -- it's not merely a fashion accessory. The pistol grip allows the rifle to be overall shorter and easier to maneuver in tight spaces (say, inside buildings). The detachable mag allows for quicker reloading.

It's not a coincidence that assault rifles often have these same design features and the advantages they bring don't vanish just because the gun can only fire in semi auto -- in fact, trained soldiers/officers using fully automatic assault rifles will use semi auto fire most of the time anyway (contrary to how they're depicted in movies/video games).

edit: This is a perfectly legal civilian weapon (semi auto ar-15):

I also think it's worth pointing out that semi-auto rifles can still fire quite fast: https://youtu.be/TuNSB9jkpyQ?t=1m32s

 

[LlamaJohnson]

I don't like how gun advocates often describe assault weapons as just "looking" like assault rifles. For the most part, these aren't cosmetic (or as you describe, "aesthetic") differences, they're ergonomic differences. That collapsible/retracting stock is designed for greater maneuverability in tight quarters while still allowing steady firing for longer distances -- it's not merely a fashion accessory. The pistol grip allows the rifle to be overall shorter and easier to maneuver in tight spaces (say, inside buildings). The detachable mag allows for quicker reloading.

It's not a coincidence that assault rifles often have these same design features and the advantages they bring don't vanish just because the gun can only fire in semi auto -- in fact, trained soldiers/officers using fully automatic assault rifles will use semi auto fire most of the time anyway (contrary to how they're depicted in movies/video games).

This is all true, however those changes don't change the firing mechanism to full auto, as you obviously know. If we are talking about how much (I hate talking about it like this) damage you can do (fucking hell) with a modified weapon as opposed to a stock one, I'd argue that it depends on the skill of the shooter. For example, you can give a fully customized AR to someone with limited to basic skills, and I'll outshoot them with iron sights, and outmaneuver them in close quarters because I've spent many hours training. When I was first trained with an M-16, then switched to an M-4, it was great for all the reasons you said. But my shots were still on target with the M-16, you know?

Do I think it's ridiculous for a civilian to own a 30 round magazine? Sure, I don't see the need for it. But banning them will have little effect on an experienced shooter. I can most likely reload a 10 round magazine twice and have a better target faster than you can blow through 30.

My point is that all of the custom parts may make it easier to shoot the gun, but it doesn't make it any more deadly, at least in my opinion.

 

[aeolist]

Beyond that, you can't outlaw them without a new amendment.

you keep saying that but the current judicial interpretation of the second amendment is relatively new and could easilybe overturned by liberal scotus appointees

 

[mkenyon]

The major things that affect their lethality would be rate of fire, caliber, detachable magazine, and ease of use.

For sake of argument let's say we rate the lethality of the AR platform, put an M4 at a 100, an assault style weapon AR at a 50, and perhaps a .22LR AR as a 1. A sporting semi-auto AR would be maybe a 45-49.

Sure, the forward grip makes some difference, but not really enough to do much. Shooting a rifle with the stock collapsed reduces the lethality, it just makes it easier to carry.

Full disclosure: at one point in time I would have cared about the legality of these things, but I definitely do not any more. I don't see a huge reason to keep them legal, but I don't really see a good reason to make them illegal either.

I may have erred on the side of trivializing them for the sake of the big picture, being that the best possible choice for gun control is reduced ease of access when purchasing.

you keep saying that but the current judicial interpretation of the second amendment is relatively new and could easilybe overturned by liberal scotus appointees

Not really. The recent rulings are simply a clarification on long standing case law.

Take a gander through here to get an appreciation of the scope of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States

 

[JP_]

This is all true, however those changes don't change the firing mechanism to full auto, as you obviously know. If we are talking about how much (I hate talking about it like this) damage you can do (fucking hell) with a modified weapon as opposed to a stock one, I'd argue that it depends on the skill of the shooter. For example, you can give a fully customized AR to someone with limited to basic skills, and I'll outshoot them with iron sights, and outmaneuver them in close quarters because I've spent many hours training. When I was first trained with an M-16, then switched to an M-4, it was great for all the reasons you said. But my shots were still on target with the M-16, you know?

Do I think it's ridiculous for a civilian to own a 30 round magazine? Sure, I don't see the need for it. But banning them will have little effect on an experienced shooter. I can most likely reload a 10 round magazine twice and have a better target faster than you can blow through 30.

My point is that all of the custom parts may make it easier to shoot the gun, but it doesn't make it any more deadly, at least in my opinion.

Unless you're suggesting legislation that makes it illegal to own certain weapons when you become skilled enough at using them, isn't that kind of silly to compare people with different levels of training? When you're comparing how deadly different guns are, shouldn't the shooter be a constant?

 

[Blueliner]

Worse comes to worst and they ban all semi autos, just give me a M44 Mosin Nagant, nothing like a bolt action. Cheap too at about 250-300 bucks per. Heard they used to be 99 bucks back in the day.

 

[LlamaJohnson]

Unless you're suggesting legislation that makes it illegal to own certain weapons when you become skilled enough at using them, isn't that kind of silly to compare people with different levels of training? When you're comparing how deadly different guns are, shouldn't the shooter be a constant?

Maybe I wasn't clear, sorry it's been a long day. It seemed to me that you were against the customization of guns because you felt that it makes them more deadly. My response was to that, and in saying that the extra options don't change that, it's the shooter. Does that make sense? I'm sorry I worked a 14 hour day and need sleep.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

Worse comes to worst and they ban all semi autos, just give me a M44 Mosin Nagant, nothing like a bolt action. Cheap too at about 250-300 bucks per. Heard they used to be 99 bucks back in the day.

My Nugget is a fucking machine, not gonna lie. Loud as hell, heats ups like nothing else. But god damn can it bust some cinder blocks, those old Russian rifles are not to be trifled with.

 

[Astral/H3X]

ITT: People ignore OP and shit on him for worrying about semantics, when semantics was the entire point of the thread.

You tried OP. And I applaud you for that.

 

[v0yce]

Can't we just tax ammo into oblivion and side step all of this nonsense.

Gun nuts can still have their toys they just won't be able to afford anything to put in them.

 

[HyperionX]

This thread is a good explanation for why all semi-auto guns should be banned. No more confusion over semantics while still being the correct course of action.

 

[zchen]

Don't even pretend gun ignorance is limited to those for more control. Every time I go to the range I hear other shooters talking about their 'assault rifles' and referring to clips as magazines, and shot as bullets.

don't get me started on the people I see at every gun show.

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

Just close the gun show loophole and I would feel a little bit better.

 

[Grisby]

Good write-up.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I also think it's worth pointing out that semi-auto rifles can still fire quite fast: https://youtu.be/TuNSB9jkpyQ?t=1m32s

Heck, if that wasn't fast enough there's perfectly legal modification like the slide fire that make them even faster.

Edit:

My point is that all of the custom parts may make it easier to shoot the gun, but it doesn't make it any more deadly, at least in my opinion.

You don't think the above linked slide fire will make a gun more deadly? Imagine it being fired in close proximity of a crowd compared to the other video linked.

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

Let's go the other way around, how can we take illegal guns off the streets? Have there ever been any suggestions made?

 

[Durask]

I don't know you so don't take it personal. I'm looking sideways at far right/alt right guy with three missile launchers, six glocks, 10 desert eagles, 2 AR-15s, three sniper rifles, two aa-12s, three saiga-12s, etc. This is America and all but I am scared and feel the need to report such suspicious activity to the authorities.

Here's the thing.

http://mycoool.com/www_news_com/lif...s/news-story/9ee47e8a89e8700adda0d6bce51a2559

The article is panicky to the point of being funny but:

Fact: there are rich people in Australia collecting guns.
Chances of you being shot and killed by a rich guy in a 4 million dollar house...pretty much zero.
Why do you care if a rich guy keeps 70 guns at home?

 

[TwoDurans]

I don't personally think all guns should be outlawed, but can someone explain how a hunter or recreational gun owner needs a high capacity clip? Maybe we start there.

I you can't kill a deer in 15 shots, let it go, man.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I don't personally think all guns should be outlawed, but can someone explain how a hunter or recreational gun owner needs a high capacity clip? Maybe we start there.

They don't. In fact I'd say to any hunter who needs more than a single shot that they need to abandon hunting. I was raised to never take a shot when hunting unless I know it will achieve the objective of swiftly killing the animal, and that remained true for when I hunted.

 

[LlamaJohnson]

You don't think the above linked slide fire will make a gun more deadly? Imagine it being fired in close proximity of a crowd compared to the other video linked.

No no no. Slide fire is horse shit. Slide fire changes (sort of) the firing mechanism in a far different way than 99% of accessories. The fact that it is legal is all you need to know about the current state of our gun laws. This changes your gun from semi auto to full auto on a technicality basically. This is not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the so called "scary looking" add-ons that people often associate with assault rifles. This is something completely different, and as I said, horse shit.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

No no no. Slide fire is horse shit. Slide fire changes (sort of) the firing mechanism in a far different way than 99% of accessories. The fact that it is legal is all you need to know about the current state of our gun laws. This changes your gun from semi auto to full auto on a technicality basically. This is not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the so called "scary looking" add-ons that people often associate with assault rifles. This is something completely different, and as I said, horse shit.

Do you also include high-capacity mags as well? Because fact of the matter is it'd be really easy to create a device like the bump/slide fire. So as long as semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines exist there will be the possibility for any average citizen of achieving a sub-fully automatic fire rate to mow down a crowd. I'm actually shocked it hasn't already happened.

 

[Staccat0]

ITT: People ignore OP and shit on him for worrying about semantics, when semantics was the entire point of the thread.

You tried OP. And I applaud you for that.

Yeah, this is actually an amazing OP.