Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

[sadhatter]

First off, I will pay attention to the details once there's an actual policy proposal. For that it's worth, seeing as it's a given that I want far more gun control than whatever half-ass measures congress+admin hatches. Knowing the details doesn't help me decide whether to support the measure -- I want all that and more. Knowledge will help me measure my disappointment though.

I don't know what I want but I damn well better get it.

Your logic does not seem to be founded on logic. I can't think of any other field in which a lack of knowledge is beneficial to a strong opinion, and I doubt guns are some unicorn topic that suddenly makes this line of reasoning appropriate.

You may be right, but you are in no way actually making your point and helping your cause.

 

[3point14]

I don't know what I want but I damn well better get it.

Your logic does not seem to be founded on logic. I can't think of any other field in which a lack of knowledge is beneficial to a strong opinion, and I doubt guns are some unicorn topic that suddenly makes this line of reasoning appropriate.

You may be right, but you are in no way actually making your point and helping your cause.

I don't think someone needs to know the details of the four stroke engine cycle or the difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini to opine that speed limits are a good idea.

 

[sadhatter]

Show leadership.

Australia had a ******** of semi-automatics. None now, in civilian hands at least.

That you can't comprehend something like this says a lot about you and the US in general. It takes political and moral courage, both absent in the US today.

Oh, can posters stop talking about the use of semi automatics for hunting. Proper hunters do not need to tear their prey in two with weapons like this.

So you, or whoever you got your stats from somehow conducted a thorough search of the country to confirm this? Including the barricaded gang club houses that have been an issue lately?

If so, and it comes with clear sourcing you may have changed my mind.

So let's see that source my friend. You made the claim no civilian in the country has a semi auto, let's see how you cane to that debate ending point.

 

[sadhatter]

I don't think someone needs to know the details of the four stroke engine cycle or the difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini to opine that speed limits are a good idea.

If the topic in discussion is lowering or raising it based on collisions by these car models, then damn right they would. I'd regard their opinion as having zero weight otherwise.

 

[Ranb]

Oh, can posters stop talking about the use of semi automatics for hunting. Proper hunters do not need to tear their prey in two with weapons like this.

Debating any topic is not helped by excessive hyperbole. Hunters don't use semi-auto firearms to "tear prey in two".

 

[3point14]

If the topic in discussion is lowering or raising it based on collisions by these car models, then damn right they would. I'd regard their opinion as having zero weight otherwise.

Not at all. Most people know nothing of the physics of car collisions. They just think that speed limits are a good idea.

They then lean on experts to work out friction coefficients and stopping distances. They don't need to know the technicalities and they certainly don't need to know the difference between an inline four and a V 6.


Are you saying that people without an intimate knowledge of the physics of collisions and the workings of a pressurised breaking system have no rights, due to lack of knowledge, to discuss speed limits?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This is ridiculous. The gun laws of, for example, alabama and California are wildly different (carry permits, magazine capacity, banned models, etc)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/get-ready-for-concealed-guns-in-all-50-states

Congress has decided that the local laws for Concealed Carry don't matter if they are more restrictive than those of the state you are bringing the gun from.
This literally means that people can go gun shopping where the laxest gun laws are and bring them back home.

 

[varwoche]

I don't know what I want but I damn well better get it.

Your logic does not seem to be founded on logic. I can't think of any other field in which a lack of knowledge is beneficial to a strong opinion, and I doubt guns are some unicorn topic that suddenly makes this line of reasoning appropriate.

You may be right, but you are in no way actually making your point and helping your cause.

This is an inane interpretation of my posts.

Just because I'm disinterested in feeding a red herring doesn't mean I'm disinterested in relevant facts. At the moment, the wording of the Brady Bill isn't high on my radar. BFD.

 

[Hellbound]

Without reading the thread to the end, could you imagine a definition of "assault-style" rifle that could be banned for civilians? The problem with the assault-rifle ban was that it was largely based on easily alterable cosmetics. Could you imagine a ban based on functional considerations? Say any rifle with a self-loading, semi-auto mechanism, barrel shorter than 24", magazine larger than five rounds. That would allow hunters to keep their Browning BARS, Remington 1100s, etc., but would prohibit military-style weapons from people who dream of going to war against their government.

Yes, and a functional definition is what's needed for any ban to be enforceable or effective. Frankly, instead of making up terms, I'd just define the ban in terms of function and be done with it.

Now, the devil would be in deciding what function(s) should be included. And the unintended effects; your proposal just banned all the semi-auto .22 rifles out there

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/get-ready-for-concealed-guns-in-all-50-states

Congress has decided that the local laws for Concealed Carry don't matter if they are more restrictive than those of the state you are bringing the gun from.
This literally means that people can go gun shopping where the laxest gun laws are and bring them back home.

Actually, that's based on reciprocity...the same principal that makes all states (for example) recognize a marriage performed elsewhere. It means if you have a concealed carry license, other states have to recognize it. And there's never been anything preventing someone from buying a gun in another state and bringing it home; this doesn't really affect availability.

What it does allow them to do is get a concealed carry license from another state with laxer (more lax?) laws, and that's problematic.

 

[Aber]

What it does allow them to do is get a concealed carry license from another state with laxer (more lax?) laws, and that's problematic.

Problematic?- ah, the little seen US form of British Understatement.


******* insane would be closer.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think someone needs to know the details of the four stroke engine cycle or the difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini to opine that speed limits are a good idea.

Varwoche isn't talking about speed limits.

 

[Reheat]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/get-ready-for-concealed-guns-in-all-50-states

Congress has decided that the local laws for Concealed Carry don't matter if they are more restrictive than those of the state you are bringing the gun from.
This literally means that people can go gun shopping where the laxest gun laws are and bring them back home.

Get your facts straight. Purchasing is not equivalent to carrying. This entire discussion is plagued with hyperbole and ignorance removing the possibility of any reasonable discussion. This is a perfect example.

A non-resident can not legally purchase a firearm in a State where he does not live without going through an FFL for a transfer of the firearm. That means a background check is required to be done. The process would go from a FFL in the state of purchase to an FFL in the resident's state where a NICS check would be accomplished.

Carry laws are different. With State reciprocity one can legally carry a firearm in another State other than his residence. The laws of the State occupied apply.

 

[3point14]

Varwoche isn't talking about speed limits.

It's an analogy. If you could tell me why it's a poor one, as it may be, then I can discard or reinforce it.

 

[theprestige]

It's an analogy. If you could tell me why it's a poor one, as it may be, then I can discard or reinforce it.

Or, since every element in your analogy must map to its corresponding element of the thing itself, you could spend all the of that discarding and reinforcing effort on arguing the thing itself in its own terms.

This isn't kindergarten. You don't need to tell "lies to children". You can freely discuss guns as such, without having to waste your time trying to figure what "speed limits" are supposed to be analogous to. It's a thread about guns. Just talk about guns.

 

[3point14]

Or, since every element in your analogy must map to its corresponding element of the thing itself, you could spend all the of that discarding and reinforcing effort on arguing the thing itself in its own terms.

This isn't kindergarten. You don't need to tell "lies to children". You can freely discuss guns as such, without having to waste your time trying to figure what "speed limits" are supposed to be analogous to. It's a thread about guns. Just talk about guns.

It's not a waste of time to establish if people share similar thoughts abut similar things at all. It's a necessary and productive part of dialogue. It speaks to the consistency of thought across issues which frequently seems to be lacking in discussions on gun control.


Personally, I believe the obsession with the technical aspects of firearms is an attempt by what might loosely be called the 'pro-gun side' to dismiss legitimate arguments with which they would otherwise have to engage.

 

[Reheat]

And there's never been anything preventing someone from buying a gun in another state and bringing it home; this doesn't really affect availability.

Wrong!

 

[BStrong]

Just curious. Is a "full-auto Glock" something that is actually marketed, or was a standard semi-auto Glock doctored? If the latter, what would Glock need to do to make such a modification impossible?

Glock manufactured a selective-fire version of their flagship model G17 pistol, the G18.

Factory original examples in the U.S. are few and far between and because they were manufactured in Austria and imported they are/were not transferable to individuals - post-May dealer samples and LE/Military use only.

To fill the gap for legal individual possession, SOT (Special Occupational Taxpayers) licensees developed their own version of parts that would facilitate full auto fire that would be legal for possession and use under the N.F.A. for transferable registration. Other interested individuals of the un-licensed type either developed their own versions or acquired information on how to manufacture the legal parts and converted their Glocks illegally.

This is not in anyway a new phenomenon:

lhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_S._Lehman

Born into a prominent Texas family, Hyman Saul Lebman became an accomplished gunsmith and leather worker. During the 1930s, he opened a gun store and saddlery shop at 111 S. Flores Street in San Antonio.[4] Lebman was frequently asked by his customers to secure unusual weapons, including the Thompson submachine gun built by Colt, which at the time could be ordered through the mail and purchased at gun or hardware stores. Soon, Lehman began customizing Colt pistols and other small arms, including conversion into fully automatic weapons.[4]

One of his Lebman's specialties was the "Baby machine gun", a Colt Model 1911 semi-automatic pistol in .45 Automatic or .38 Super caliber, converted to full-auto fire. This machine pistol featured an oversized ammunition magazine, a muzzle brake or compensator, and a fore grip adapted from the more familiar Thompson submachine gun.[1][2][3] Lebman's son Marvin described his father's development of the Colt "machine pistol" concept:

Lebman continued to sell his machine pistols and other automatic weapons until the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934. When Chicago bootlegger Roger "The Terrible" Touhy was arrested in Wisconsin on July 19, 1933, one of Lebman's "baby machine guns" was found in his car. Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, and several known associates of the Dillinger gang were also customers.[6] A full-auto Lebman Colt belonging to Dillinger was found at one of his hideouts in St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 31, 1934, as well as one left behind at the Little Bohemia Lodge three weeks later.[1][2][3]

 

[theprestige]

It's not a waste of time to establish if people share similar thoughts abut similar things at all. It's a necessary and productive part of dialogue. It speaks to the consistency of thought across issues which frequently seems to be lacking in discussions on gun control.


Personally, I believe the obsession with the technical aspects of firearms is an attempt by what might loosely be called the 'pro-gun side' to dismiss legitimate arguments with which they would otherwise have to engage.

Of course it's a waste of time. Your goal is to find out what people think about guns, right? You could accomplish that by talking to them about guns.

Instead you've decided to embark on a much longer, irrelevant journey: Establish that cars are similar to guns in certain specific ways. Establish that the person you're talking to sees the similarity you do. Establish that the person reaches same conclusions as you, about cars. Establish that the person agrees that the conclusion about cars properly carries over to the similar thing about guns.

I don't want to help you unpack and map out all the points of your analogy, just to have a conversation about guns.

If you want to talk about gun policy, talk about gum policy. If you want to know what someone thinks about gun policy, don't ask them what they think about speed limits.

With your analogy, the best case scenario is that you are ready to show the analogy between speed limits and whatever aspect of gun policy you *really* want to talk about. In which case, you could cut out the analogy entirely, and just talk about gun policy itself.

 

[BStrong]

I had no idea that I, an anonymous person on the internet posting on a backwater forum, am so vastly influential.

If you were the only one and no other individual or politician had ever used the term "A good first step" wrt firearms restrictions you'd have a point.

As it is, you're one of many supporters of gun control that have made it clear that any compromise on the issue boils down to what you'll settle for taking away today and what you're willing to wait to take away later.

 

[lobosrul5]

Yes, and a functional definition is what's needed for any ban to be enforceable or effective. Frankly, instead of making up terms, I'd just define the ban in terms of function and be done with it.

Now, the devil would be in deciding what function(s) should be included. And the unintended effects; your proposal just banned all the semi-auto .22 rifles out there



Actually, that's based on reciprocity...the same principal that makes all states (for example) recognize a marriage performed elsewhere. It means if you have a concealed carry license, other states have to recognize it. And there's never been anything preventing someone from buying a gun in another state and bringing it home; this doesn't really affect availability.

What it does allow them to do is get a concealed carry license from another state with laxer (more lax?) laws, and that's problematic.

Uh, you can't, for example, go to say Nevada and buy something that is illegal in California and then bring it back to California. In fact dealers are required to check ID and not sell to someone that can't legally purchase in their state. Of course you could go to a gun show, and bring it home, and risk getting in serious trouble.