Gun control

I think that is Snow Job's custom M-16 designed specifically to fit his kung fu grip.

chaos_sl said:

According to federal law, all of those would be considered assault weapons, would they not?

Click to expand...

If I'm reading that correctly, the first one would not be.

US Code_sl said:

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

Click to expand...

From that list, the only thing it has is bayonet lugs. And you could theoretically replace any pistol grip with a thumbhole stock, although I've never used a thumbhole so I can't say how it compares to an actual pistol grip. The point of me posting those pictures was more in response to Zodiacs comment about people looking at 2 pictures of the same gun and thinking one is an assault rifle and the other isn't, since all three of the pictures I posted are of M14s.

I still don't understand the weight limitation of 50 ounces on an unloaded pistol. Inner-city gang members can't afford Desert Eagles.

Haast_sl said:

So a question for the gun knowledgable: what are the legitimate uses of high capacity magazines? Do you actually want massive capacity magazines to stay legal, or are you more concerned that moronic legislators will bumblefuck the law wording and end up screwing you on more legitimate sizes?

I'd like to hear some opinions on the "pro" side (or at least the "don't regulate" side) so I have an informed opinion. Also, I did a cursory check, but may have still screwed the pooch on mag vs clip. Sorry if so.

Click to expand...

For me personally it's more about the 2nd Amendment and what values I believe our founders had when they wrote it. I can't believe i'm going to say this but I agree with Araysar about class 3 weapons as well.

Practical reasons for hi-cap mags? Well, I use a .308 AR while trying to exterminate the fucking hogs that are ruining our land and I wish I had a belt fed MG rather than hi-cap mags.

Even if you did ban high capacity magazines from "assault" weapons.....There are some very high tech work adjustments one can make to bypass it, various special forces in Africa have perfected it.



Duct tape--granted, I'm sure it will take Americans a long time to work out it's mysteries but the arcane knowledge of wrapping tape around magazines will soon become common place, I'm sure.

Aren't 30 round mags being defined as high cap?

Araysar_sl said:

or are we going to make a simple piece of molded polymer illegal too?

Click to expand...

Probably not possible. My uncle had an unopened kit to extend the magazine on his 20ga semi-auto. The kit has absolutely no legal use, but owning the kit itself is completely legal.

A lot of the maker/hacker guys who are big into 3d printing are talking about the concept of making a shape illegal. As that is basically what it comes down to if you use a 3d printer to make a weapon.

Tuco_sl said:

Chaos you're correct in that you don't need specific knowledge to have a valid opinion on something. You're just treading into dangerous waters when you espouse uninformed opinions. (Note that I'm not talking about you specifically since you're obviously informing yourself before you post). The reason gun enthusiasts are so sensitive to that is because the pro-gun control movement is generally uninformed and the strongest force against gun ownership. So if someone enters a gun control discussion and mistakes clip/magazine they've inadvertently grouped themselves with the uninformed gun control movement.

The last page is a good example of why this should be abhorred. The media and politicians are so focused on how to define and whether to remove assault weapons that their focus has determined the gun control discussion. The reality is that's just a red herring. A pistol is such an efficient killing tool that if you were to snap your fingers and remove all semi-automatic rifles from the hands of non-military/law enforcement you'd accomplish nearly nothing in improving our safety from firearms.

Click to expand...

I just think it is really two different arguments. People are arguing from ignorance to support banning weapons they don't understand using supporting evidence they misinterpret or just do not understand, and that is a problem. But people are also trying to argue that ubiquity of guns in our society allows for increased potential for violence. Arguing the larger issue does not require knowledge of weapons beyond the basic.

Heylel_sl said:

The whole assault weapon thing is strange, but I can somewhat understand the purpose of the "at least two" section of the code. Yes, the basics of the rifle may well be the same... but they're not the same gun. It's not a matter of one being black and the other wood-grain. The various attachments on those other pictures make a tangible difference in how the gun handles, do they not? Otherwise, why do people spend exorbitant amounts of money customizing their weapons?

There's an image going around Facebook that shows two guns, a standard AR-15 and a kitted out one, then a standard Honda and one with rims, a spoiler etc. It's clever, but not exactly an accurate argument. If there's more than a cosmetic difference between them (and I assume that flash suppressors, folding sticks, different grips etc. provide a tangible difference in functionality), then the analogy is closer to a stock Crown Vic and a police cruiser.

Click to expand...

Zodiac and Araysar are right, all of the additions do nothing to change the fundemental way the gun handles. It really is nothing more than a riced out honda with a big wing, wheels and NOS stickers. The aftermarket support of an AR 15 is more about peronalizing that weapon to your needs than anything else. You add things like a red dot that gives you a quicker sight picture at short ranges, or a telescopic scope if you are more interested in long distance shooting.

Quick break down of the "scary" parts on a "Assault Rifle"

Muzzle Device/Flash Hider - Take a minute to find a youtube video of someone firing just about any firearm at night, there is a muzzle flash that extends about 2-3 feet from the barrel, a flash hider minimizes that flash "from the shooting position". Meaning that nothing changes from the front or side, but only looking down the sights of the weapon. This is so the shooter does not become blinded by the flash while shooting at night. You also have compensators or muzzle breaks. These channel the escaping gas from the barrel up/downbackwards depening on the design in order to lower recoil and allow for faster follow up shots. These also greatly increase muzzle flash and muzzle report (noise). And last but not least, we have a suppressor. The greatly decrease report and muzzle flash in sub sonic (less than roughly 1150fps depending on elevation) ammunition. The only round they will trully "silence" would be sub sonic .22 long rifle, and to a lesser extent sub sonic pistol calibers (9mm,.40, .45). Suppressors already fall under NFA legislation and require reqistration and a seperate tax stamp for each device.

Pistol grip - Uhhh, you hold it? The funny thing about this is, all of us 3 gun shooters have gone back to exclusively non pistol grip stocks on shotguns because the straight stock is much faster and easier to shoot from a variety of positions.

Folding stocks/Adjustable stocks - Allow for easier transportation by reducing the footprint, and allow one weapon to be usable by shooters of different sizes.

Bayonette lug - You can put a pointy knife on your rifle. This is done... never. Also can be a mounting point for a 40mm grenade launcher, these are illegal.

Barrel shroud - This is designed to allow heat to dissipate from the barrel, primarily in light machine guns. They are purely cosmetic on modern sporting arms.

That is all i can think of off hand, just ask if you can think of anything else.

Fair enough. Re-loads provide an opportunity for something to go wrong, but high capacity magazines are more likely to jam. So that sounds like an even trade-off.

I personally wouldn't care if high capacity mags got banned, but I also don't see a need to push for that ban. It clearly won't stop a mentally ill person from killing a bunch of people.

Haast_sl said:

So a question for the gun knowledgable: what are the legitimate uses of high capacity magazines? Do you actually want massive capacity magazines to stay legal, or are you more concerned that moronic legislators will bumblefuck the law wording and end up screwing you on more legitimate sizes?.

Click to expand...

This has been posteda few times but I will post it again with the relevant portion in the quotes, because the author says it better than I can.

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually?contrary to the movies?you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don?t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.

The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn?t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.

Also, you?re going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don?t penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, ?Darn, I wish I hadn?t brought all that extra ammo.?

So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.

Click to expand...

The bayonet lug ban always amused me because

1. who the fuck even uses a bayonet anymore, this isnt the Napoleonic era
2. whats the difference between mounting a bayonet or duct taping a spear to the side of your AR-15? or are we gonna make spears illegal too?

Click to expand...

Sad thing is that spears are likely illegal in many areas because of dual sided knife/dagger/stiletto bans.

Haast_sl said:

Fair enough. Re-loads provide an opportunity for something to go wrong, but high capacity magazines are more likely to jam. So that sounds like an even trade-off.

I personally wouldn't care if high capacity mags got banned, but I also don't see a need to push for that ban. It clearly won't stop a mentally ill person from killing a bunch of people.

Click to expand...

When you look at it from that perspective, there is no law that you can pass that will ensure that mentally ill people never kill anyone. People who support gun control see it as a larger argument than that, though. I would question the mental illness part of that, too. Sure we all assume that the dickhead at Sandy Hook was crazy, because "normal" people would never do that. But we don't really know that.