The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Larry]

Fully automatic is generally referred to as "automatic".  But I think some in the media try to spin it and refer to semi-automatic as "automatic" as well sometimes.

 

 

And that's the way the terms have been used, for my lifetime. 

 

The Army's venerable M1911 has, I believe, been referred to as an automatic since before WW2.  To distinguish it from a revolver. 

 

It's not people being misinformed, nor is it some recent liberal media conspiracy. 

 

(Rather, what you're seeing is, I believe, a deliberate effort to try to distract, by trying to falsely claim that 1) people are misusing the term, and 2) this proves that they're either ignorant or liars, and should be ignored.) 

[PleaseBlitz]

 

 

EDIT:  This is why the assault weapon ban is commonly referred to as the Scary Looking Weapon Ban.

 

By gun nuts.

 

They are also referred to as the gun i am taking with me for this shooting spree, by mass murderers.

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[TheGreatBuzz]

By gun nuts.

 

They are also referred to as the gun i am taking with me, by mass murderers.

Well I don't consider myself a gun nut.  Do you consider me a gun nut?  And what criteria is needed to be a gun nut?

 

I consider my self gun informed. 

[PeterMP]

 

Let's create a hypothetical scenario, and pretend that this guy goes to buy an AR-15, and he gets told "No.  The government is suspicious about you." 

 

What happens then?  Does he buy a shot gun, and do the same thing?  And if he does, does his lower-grade weaponry really save that many lives? 

 

 

Frankly, I've got more confidence in the notion of restricting everybody's ability to do this kind of thing, than in our government's ability to selectively predict what one particular individual will or won't do, in the future. 

 

I just think that flat out banning AR-15s has a better chance of working, than the odds of the government successfully picking and choosing which individuals will or won;t do something. 

 

(Although, yes, there are some people who do deserve watching.) 

 

1.  It gets hard to restrict weapons because a lot of times it is easy to modify a weapon.  You can ban automatic (semi-automatic or fully-automatic) (to make GreatBuzz happy)) weapons, but the gun manufactures made it relatively easy for a person to convert it into a semi-automatic weapon (which happened with the assault weapons ban), and then it is relatively easy to make your semi-automatic weapon act like it is essentially a fully-automatic weapon.

 

2.  You can buy semi-automatic shot guns.  If he has a traditional bolt or pump action shot gun, in the same amount of time of shooting he absolutely kills fewer people (though, I'm still not sure how long he shot vs. how long the police showed up in numbers to the point they could have effectively do something.)

 

3.  Can it be, I can't sell you a gun until you talk to this psychiatrist?

Edited June 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[tshile]

never mind, it's not worth it. certain statements just give you away.

Edited June 13, 2016 by tshile

[Larry]

Well I don't consider myself a gun nut.

You sure do seem to be working really really hard, to push their talking points.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1.  It gets hard to restrict weapons because a lot of times it is easy to modify a weapon.  You can ban automatic (semi-automatic or fully-automatic) (to make GreatBuzz happy)) weapons, but the gun manufactures made it relatively easy for a person to convert it into a semi-automatic weapon, and then it is relatively easy to make your semi-automatic weapon act like it is essentially an automatic weapon.

 

 

Thanks!

 

It is pretty easy to make some semi's into full auto.  What is even worse is the fact I can find instructional videos on youtube.  And they can't be taken down because they are "free speech".  I have a major issue with that and I'm surprised more don't.  I don't think that should fall under the 1st amendment.

 

 

You sure do seem to be working really really hard, to push their talking points.

I enjoy an informed discussion.

 

I'm am certainly open to gun reform.  Wasn't it you that just yesterday I was able to come to an agreement with in like 10 minutes.  Then I went on ****ing about why can't politicians compromise like we just did?  Could have been someone else I was talking to. 

 

That's why I don't like being labeled a gun nut.  To me, they are the ones thinking everyone should be allowed to carry a missile launcher through airport security.

Edited June 13, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[tshile]

You sure do seem to be working really really hard, to push their talking points.

 

he's ridiculed the NRA, repeatedly, in multiple threads, in the last 2 days alone.

 

he's for magazine limits.

 

the only 'talking point' he's pushing is about the assault weapons ban. which, apparently you're a gun nut if you think the ban is a joke.

[Sticksboi05]

Strange this took place about two weeks before this weekend's terrible shooting.

 

[Larry]

1.  It gets hard to restrict weapons because a lot of times it is easy to modify a weapon.  You can ban automatic (semi-automatic or fully-automatic) (to make GreatBuzz happy)) weapons, but the gun manufactures made it relatively easy for a person to convert it into a semi-automatic weapon (which happened with the assault weapons ban), and then it is relatively easy to make your semi-automatic weapon act like it is essentially an automatic weapon.

Uh, I'm really not sure where you get this notion that it's somehow simple to convert a weapon from non-semi-automatic to semi-auto. I've certainly never heard of that.

 

Yes, I have heard claims that lots of semi-auto weapons are supposedly easy to convert to full auto.  (Although I also wonder how easy those claims actually are.) 

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

 

 

It is pretty easy to make some semi's into full auto. 

 

Bump Fire stocks?

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

And that's the way the terms have been used, for my lifetime. 

 

The Army's venerable M1911 has, I believe, been referred to as an automatic since before WW2.  To distinguish it from a revolver. 

 

It's not people being misinformed, nor is it some recent liberal media conspiracy. 

 

(Rather, what you're seeing is, I believe, a deliberate effort to try to distract, by trying to falsely claim that 1) people are misusing the term, and 2) this proves that they're either ignorant or liars, and should be ignored.) 

 

 

I'm just speaking in terms to the general media, doesn't have to be liberal or not, but more so to which headline will generate more hits/views:

 

1. Gunman with semi-automatic rifle opens fire in Orlando nightclub

 

or

 

2.  Gunman with automatic rifle opens fire in Orlando nightclub

 

Both are technically correct from a specific point of view, even though "automatic" alone is generally used to describe a weapon that is fully automatic. 

[Hooper]

I've been spending a lot of time in Canada lately for work. 

 

If it wasn't for two things -- the currency and pretty much complete lack of gun violence -- you seriously wouldn't know you weren't in America.

 

The fact that were not even trying to fix a uniquely American problem is outrageous. Gotta be some middle ground.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Hooper

[PleaseBlitz]

Well I don't consider myself a gun nut.  Do you consider me a gun nut?  And what criteria is needed to be a gun nut?

 

I consider my self gun informed. 

 

Not sure what I think yet.  I think a solid criteria is if you see a mass killing and wonder how it will impact your ability to buy the gun used in that mass killing.  A paid membership to the NRA is also on the list.  Thinking that Wayne LaPierre makes solid points is a dead giveaway.

 

And yes, I would think that most gun nuts would describe themselves as gun informed.  And patriots.  Definitely patriots.

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

That's why I don't like being labeled a gun nut.  To me, they are the ones thinking everyone should be allowed to carry a missile launcher through airport security.

 

Yeah, anyone who thinks anyone who's actively posted in this thread is a gun nut, hasn't actually met a gun nut.

 

Missile launcher sounds like an exaggeration but for some it isn't, and for others they honestly seem to think they should be able to drive around with a .50 cal mounted to their jeep and not have anyone "judge" them for it. They're not only 'nuts', they're stupid.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Uh, I'm really not sure where you get this notion that it's somehow simple to convert a weapon from non-semi-automatic to semi-auto. I've certainly never heard of that.

 

Yes, I have heard claims that lots of semi-auto weapons are supposedly easy to convert to full auto.  (Although I also wonder how easy those claims actually are.) 

I was assuming he meant the second part and just didn't know exactly.  I was going to let it go since I already made my point about terminology.  Some guns are extremely easy to go from semi to full auto.  Some I can do in 10 minutes with a screw driver and a file.  Many are harder.

[tshile]

 Many are harder.

Granted, I know nothing about *actually* converting it, but my understanding was that many are harder... as in, any manufactured in the last 40 years.

 

Didn't federal law require the manufacturers to change the guns so that the pin couldn't just be filed down (I believe what was the standard practice of this 'conversion') ?

 

Like 40 years ago?

 

As in - you need an old gun to do this, and then sure, it's easy?

[Larry]

he's ridiculed the NRA, repeatedly, in multiple threads, in the last 2 days alone.

 

he's for magazine limits.

 

the only 'talking point' he's pushing is about the assault weapons ban. which, apparently you're a gun nut if you think the ban is a joke.

 

Or if you attempt to claim it's a joke, by trying real hard to pretend that the only difference between an AR-15 and my brother's semi-auto skeet gun is their appearance.  (And claiming that anybody who uses the term "automatic" to refer to weapons that aren't full auto is either ignorant or a liar.) 

 

Me, I've pointed out a few time that the term "assault rifle", as used in recent laws, has some really screwy definitions to it.  But I also have proposed some much simpler, less cosmetically focused, definitions that would allow placing restrictions on AR-15s, rather than trying to come up with forced analogies to try to argue why we have to treat them like all other rifles. 

[PleaseBlitz]

Or if you attempt to claim it's a joke, by trying real hard to pretend that the only difference between an AR-15 and my brother's semi-auto skeet gun is their appearance.  (And claiming that anybody who uses the term "automatic" to refer to weapons that aren't full auto is either ignorant or a liar.) 

 

Me, I've pointed out a few time that the term "assault rifle", as used in recent laws, has some really screwy definitions to it.  But I also have proposed some much simpler, less cosmetically focused, definitions that would allow placing restrictions on AR-15s, rather than trying to come up with forced analogies to try to argue why we have to treat them like all other rifles. 

 

Good post.  I also think that labeling it the "Scary Looking Weapons Ban" is a self-defeating argument.  If the only difference is cosmetic, then, given the fact that they are the guns of choice for mass shooters, why is it so important that they remain freely available?  They aren't any more functional or useful, after all.

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[TheGreatBuzz]

Not sure what I think yet.  I think a solid criteria is if you see a mass killing and wonder how it will impact your ability to buy the gun used in that mass killing.  A paid membership to the NRA is also on the list.  Thinking that Wayne LaPierre makes solid points is a dead giveaway.

 

And yes, I would think that most gun nuts would describe themselves as gun informed.  And patriots.  Definitely patriots.

#1)  Yes I thought about how it would effect my purchase ability.  It sure wasn't my first thought.   Does that count?

 

#2)  Nope.  Have said time and time again I hate the NRA.

 

#3)  I had to google who that was.  I have seen him speak.  I think he has made some solid points.  I also think he has said some bat **** crazy things.  But he isn't someone I would enjoy spending a lot of time with.

 

I consider myself gun informed and a patriot.

 

How'd I do?

[tshile]

trying real hard to pretend that the only difference between an AR-15 and my brother's semi-auto skeet gun is their appearance.

That's not what the argument is... no wonder you're confused.

 

(And claiming that anybody who uses the term "automatic" to refer to weapons that aren't full auto is either ignorant or a liar.)

well, is the gun automatic?

no, it's not.

it's semi-automatic.

 

do those two terms have a difference? yes, they do.

you don't want to call it what it is? fine, but at least own the fact that you won't call it what it is. if you don't like what that makes you, then call it what it is.

 

Me, I've pointed out a few time that the term "assault rifle", as used in recent laws, has some really screwy definitions to it.  But I also have proposed some much simpler, less cosmetically focused, definitions that would allow placing restrictions on AR-15s, rather than trying to come up with forced analogies to try to argue why we have to treat them like all other rifles.

The issue with the "assault weapons ban", for me, isn't about the ar-15. I couldn't give two ****s about banning or not banning the ar-15. For me, and most everyone else (that's trying to be reasonable) that refers to it as the scary looking weapons ban, has to do with how it determines which guns should be banned and which shouldn't.

 

It's a bill that reads like someone that got their knowledge of guns from action movies wrote it. Recognizing that doesn't make you a gun nut.

Edited June 13, 2016 by tshile

[PleaseBlitz]

#1)  Yes I thought about how it would effect my purchase ability.  It sure wasn't my first thought.   Does that count?

 

#2)  Nope.  Have said time and time again I hate the NRA.

 

#3)  I had to google who that was.  I have seen him speak.  I think he has made some solid points.  I also think he has said some bat **** crazy things.  But he isn't someone I would enjoy spending a lot of time with.

 

I consider myself gun informed and a patriot.

 

How'd I do?

 

Solidly on the fence.

 

Edit:  Also, I find it hard to believe that someone could be both unaware of who Wayne LaPierre is and actually be "gun informed."  He is the most famous and effective gun rights advocate in history.  

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Granted, I know nothing about *actually* converting it, but my understanding was that many are harder... as in, any manufactured in the last 40 years.

 

Didn't federal law require the manufacturers to change the guns so that the pin couldn't just be filed down (I believe what was the standard practice of this 'conversion') ?

 

Like 40 years ago?

 

As in - you need an old gun to do this, and then sure, it's easy?

 

I don't know about 40 years ago.  But I remember being in high school and the talk was about how easy it was to convert an SKS assault rifle to fully automatic.  That was back in 1992 or 1993.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

Granted, I know nothing about *actually* converting it, but my understanding was that many are harder... as in, any manufactured in the last 40 years.

 

Didn't federal law require the manufacturers to change the guns so that the pin couldn't just be filed down (I believe what was the standard practice of this 'conversion') ?

 

Like 40 years ago?

 

As in - you need an old gun to do this, and then sure, it's easy?

In general, yes.  Not sure exactly about the timeline though.  But even still, new guns really depend on your tools available and machining skills.  With a little knowledge and about a grand in tools, it's still doable.

 

Or if you attempt to claim it's a joke, by trying real hard to pretend that the only difference between an AR-15 and my brother's semi-auto skeet gun is their appearance. 

Well an AR is a rifle and skeet is usually done with a shotgun so there's that.

 

Good post.  I also think that labeling it the "Scary Looking Weapons Ban" is a self-defeating argument.  If the only difference is cosmetic, then, given the fact that they are the guns of choice for mass shooters, why is it so important that they remain freely available?  They aren't any more functional or useful, after all.

The functional benefit to an AR style is mainly the modular design.  It is much easier to change, repair, and upgrade parts.  Plus you can add neat little flashlights and freakin' lasers!

[Larry]

Both are technically correct from a specific point of view, even though "automatic" alone is generally used to describe a weapon that is fully automatic.

No. It isn't. I just pointed at an example of how the term has been used to refer to all clip-fed pistols, since they were invented.

This notion that "automatic" can only be properly used to refer to machine guns is a recent phenomenon.

 

The weapon that Captain America used to shoot Nazis was an "Army automatic".  Not an "Army semi-automatic"  When my dad and brother took me to the trap range, there were three kinds of weapons used:  "Over and under", "Pump", and "Automatic".  Not "Semi-automatic".