• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52746768]What if the sport dictates I need to shoot at a lot of targets quickly[/QUOTE] Then you're shit out of luck because feels before reals dictate that no one should have a semi-automatic long gun with standard capacity magazines; even though we've already established 1000 times over that they aren't the problem.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746776]Well then you should practice? Rules of a sport are decided by people, as long as everyone has the same rules and tools there's nothing wrong with it. If someone decides there should be a sport using tanks, it wouldn't mean it's time to make those available for sale[/QUOTE] Actually i'm pretty sure you can buy tanks.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52746782]Then you're shit out of luck because feels before reals dictate that no one should have a semi-automatic long gun with standard capacity magazines; even though we've already established 1000 times over that they aren't the problem.[/QUOTE] Once again, the technicalities are for lawmakers, so idk what would our wouldn't be allowed [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;52746785]Actually i'm pretty sure you can buy tanks.[/QUOTE] Not in a readily available way, and you should see my point
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746754]That would be up to lawmakers to decide the technicalities, but probably limited rounds, and probably not fully or perhaps even semi automatic[/QUOTE] Semi-automatic firearms have been around a long time, and the kinds of capacities that our lawmakers identify as 'high-capacity' are in reality standard capacities and have been for an equally long time. A standard Ruger 10/22 is a semi-automatic rifle feeding from detachable magazines, and it was never in any way intended for killing people. Australia effectively banned semi-automatics and the result is that completely ordinary hunting shotguns (example: hundred-year-old [URL="http://www.browning.com/content/dam/browning/product/firearms/shotguns/a5/a5-pre2016/Browning-A5-Hunter-011800-158.jpg/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.web.835.835.jpeg"]Browning A5s[/URL]) went into the scrap pile, because the requirements for weapons intended for sports and self-defense are so similar that there is no way you can create a law that only bans one without impacting the other. That Browning A5 I just linked is a perfectly ordinary hunting shotgun intended for shooting birds and clays. Load it with slugs and it can hunt deer. Load it with buckshot and it can very effectively kill people- one such A5 was used by Clyde Barrow during his crime spree in the 1920s-30s. I'm not trying to tell you that an AR-15 is functionally identical to an Olympic target pistol, but the idea that 'guns are designed to kill' is ignorant of just how many firearms are [I]not[/I] designed to kill, yet are capable of killing when used for purposes not intended by their original designers. Conversely, most bolt-action rifles are derived from Mauser military rifles which were [i]explicitly[/i] designed to kill the enemies of Germany, yet those are virtually always untouched by gun control because they're bolt-actions with fixed, low-capacity magazines. Design intent doesn't tell you anything useful, it's capability that matters.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746787] Not in a readily available way, and you should see my point[/QUOTE] Define readily available.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52746794]Semi-automatic firearms have been around a long time, and the kinds of capacities that our lawmakers identify as 'high-capacity' are in reality standard capacities and have been for an equally long time. Australia effectively banned semi-automatics and the result is that completely ordinary hunting shotguns (example: hundred-year-old [url=http://www.browning.com/content/dam/browning/product/firearms/shotguns/a5/a5-pre2016/Browning-A5-Hunter-011800-158.jpg/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.web.835.835.jpeg]Browning A5s[/url]) went into the scrap pile, because the requirements for weapons intended for sports and self-defense are so similar that there is no way you can create a law that only bans one without impacting the other. That Browning A5 I just linked is a perfectly ordinary hunting shotgun intended for shooting birds and clays. Load it with slugs and it can hunt deer. Load it with buckshot and it can very effectively kill people- one such A5 was used by Clyde Barrow during his crime spree in the 1920s-30s. I'm not trying to tell you that an AR-15 is functionally identical to an Olympic target pistol, but the idea that 'guns are designed to kill' is ignorant of just how many firearms are [i]not[/i] designed to kill, yet are capable of killing when used for purposes not intended by their original designers. Design intent doesn't tell you anything useful, it's capability that matters.[/QUOTE] That just means that it needs to be handed with precision and context in mind
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746800]That just means that it needs to be handed with precision and context in mind[/QUOTE] Can you explain how?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746795]Define readily available.[/QUOTE] No, my point is not about the tanks, but more about the priorities involved. You don't make something legal and available JUST because a sport exists that uses it
There is a tank for sale down the road actually, could go buy it right now if I had the cash
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746801]Can you explain how?[/QUOTE] The types of guns used for different purposes would need to be taken into account basically, so that those used for hunting would be available to hunters and useful to then etc
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746812]The types of guns used for different purposes would need to be taken into account basically, so that those used for hunting would be available to hunters and useful to then etc[/QUOTE] How do you make that distinction? What exactly, fundamentally, is the difference between a gun thats for self defense, for hunting, or for sport?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746819]How do you make that distinction? What exactly, fundamentally, is the difference between a gun thats for self defense, for hunting, or for sport?[/QUOTE] Well you'd need to look at the requirements for each scenario
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746734]Oh, so you'd be okay with banning all guns but target shooters, or hunting rifles? Why didn't you say that before?[/QUOTE] Sure. I don't own a single gun that's not a target shooter or hunting rifle, including my AR15.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746821]Well you'd need to look at the requirements for each scenario[/QUOTE] Thats not an answer.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52746824]Sure. I don't own a single gun that's not a target shooter or hunting rifle, including my AR15.[/QUOTE] And i just use my Hellfire missles to remove stumps
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746812]The types of guns used for different purposes would need to be taken into account basically, so that those used for hunting would be available to hunters and useful to then etc[/QUOTE] Based on what, though? This is an AR-15: [t]https://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server2100/yrjoy4/images/stencil/500x500/products/177/1450/M8_Profile-9683__39187.1477951466.jpg?c=2[/t] This is a Ruger Mini-14: [t]https://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/l/6/637956_ts.jpg[/t] These rifles fire the same caliber, are both semi-automatic, and feed from detachable magazines with the same capacities. The Mini-14 is popular as a 'ranch rifle' (eg, for pest control and protection against animals like coyotes), and thanks to its unassuming aesthetics is untouched by assault weapons bans. One is frequently marketed as a self-defense weapon. The other is explicitly marketed as a weapon for farmhands and hunters. They're virtually the same thing. How do you differentiate? On what basis is the first unacceptable, but the second acceptable?
:snip:
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746826]Thats not an answer.[/QUOTE] Why not???
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746831]Why not???[/QUOTE] Because i'm asking you what the difference is.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746829]I'm asking you specifically.[/QUOTE] I'm not a hunter or a target shooter, so looking to me for those specifics is silly [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;52746828]Based on what, though? This is an AR-15: [t]https://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server2100/yrjoy4/images/stencil/500x500/products/177/1450/M8_Profile-9683__39187.1477951466.jpg?c=2[/t] This is a Ruger Mini-14: [t]https://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/l/6/637956_ts.jpg[/t] These rifles fire the same caliber, are both semi-automatic, and feed from detachable magazines with the same capacities. The Mini-14 is popular as a 'ranch rifle' (eg, for pest control and protection against animals like coyotes), and thanks to its unassuming aesthetics is untouched by assault weapons bans. One is frequently marketed as a self-defense weapon. The other is explicitly marketed as a weapon for farmhands and hunters. They're virtually the same thing. How do you differentiate? On what basis is the first unacceptable, but the second acceptable?[/QUOTE] Which is more readily modifiable?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746838]I'm not a hunter or a target shooter, so looking to me for those specifics is silly[/QUOTE] But arent you saying that they should be separated based on specialization so some can be allowed and others cant? Shouldnt you try to understand any and all fundamental differences between them when you say that?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746827]And i just use my Hellfire missles to remove stumps[/QUOTE] This makes no sense whatsoever.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746838]Which is more readily modifiable?[/QUOTE] From a quick google search it looks like both.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746846]But arent you saying that they should be separated based on specialization so some can be allowed and others cant? Shouldnt you try to understand any and all fundamental differences between them when you say that?[/QUOTE] If i was the lawmaker then sure
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746838]I'm not a hunter or a target shooter, so looking to me for those specifics is silly [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] Which is more readily modifiable?[/QUOTE] Define modifiable, because I can take anything semi-automatic and make it full auto. I build guns for a living, and as I've said multiple times guns are pretty simple mechanical devices.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746838]Which is more readily modifiable?[/QUOTE] That's an odd metric. They're about the same, maybe more flexibility to the AR. You can dress up an AR-15 as this: [t]http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/R-15-AR.jpg[/t] And you can dress up a Mini-14 as this: [t]http://www.mansfieldsportingarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/IMG_9146-2.jpg[/t] But none of the changes involved to either affect their functional characteristics: They're both semi-automatic .223 rifles feeding from detachable magazines.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52746848]This makes no sense whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Use of something doesn't matter if potential use is too dangerous or illegal
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746862]If i was the lawmaker then sure[/QUOTE] That doesnt matter, you're still trying to argue it, are you not? Theres no excuse to be ignorant on a topic if you choose to involve yourself in discussion of it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52746866]That's an odd metric. They're about the same, maybe more flexibility to the AR. You can dress up an AR-15 as this: [t]http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/R-15-AR.jpg[/t] And you can dress up a Mini-14 as this: [t]http://www.mansfieldsportingarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/IMG_9146-2.jpg[/t] But none of the changes involved to either affect their functional characteristics: They're both semi-automatic .223 rifles feeding from detachable magazines.[/QUOTE] In that case it seems to me that it would be the same as a hunting rifle then
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746868]Use of something doesn't matter if potential use is too dangerous or illegal[/QUOTE] Is this a shitpost? This thread is discussing firearms, not missiles.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.