# What Defines an "Assault" Weapon?



## Fernin (Jan 15, 2013)

So with the whole slew of knee jerk gun laws floating about the government right now there's talk about a return of the ban on "assault" weapons. However, the thing here is there is only one objective definition of an 'assault' weapon, and by that definition real 'assault' weapons already cost civilians tens of thousands of dollars and are quite difficult to get; so much so that banning them is largely a moot point in regards to effect it would have on gun control. But that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread it to find out what you fine furry folk think an 'assault' weapon is. 

This is not about ownership.

This is not about politics.

This is not about the legality of said weapons.

What this IS about, is what DEFINES an "assault" weapon to you.


Discuss, and please keep it civil.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

A *fully*-automatic weapon is the only kind of assault weapon.

The media may tell you about babby-killan 100-bullet-a-second assault clips that fire heatseeking cop-killer 223mm bullets from a shoulder thing that goes up, but they're frankly full of shit. The weapons used are really no more effective than most hunting rifles out there. 

Lets look at what the US looks for when it labels something as an "assault weapon" with its current legislation:

On rifles:

Folding or telescoping stock - So why do we allow pistols at all? Those are smaller by far. A hugeass rifle with its stock folded doesn't lose that much of its original size.
Pistol grip - What does this change aside from a little bit of comfort for the user (if they like it)? It's not a magical item that imbues the weapon with baby-killing powers.
Bayonet mount - Blades aren't regulated, why is this different? If I carry a knife with me while I'm holding a rifle, does that count as a bayonet too? 
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one - Basically most modern designs. Not that these flash suppressors don't change that much - not that many guns regularly make a hollywood muzzle flash and flash suppressors only reduce just a little of this, the media are wrong when they say it renders a shooter invisible. That's like saying "silencers" actually cause a gun to turn from a loudass bang to a stifled cough. Lay off the films and educate yourself a bit.
Grenade launcher - Fair enough, but this also includes weapons that _can_ accomodate these. Grenade launchers are already banned, why is this part necessary?

On "assault pistols" (what)

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip - Like a TEC-9? That thing is functionally identical to most 9mm pistols.
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor - Few modern pistol designs lack this.
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold - A barrel shroud is a safety feature to stop someone horrifically burning themselves, be they the user or someone picking the gun up after it's had a few mags dumped down the local range. 
Unloaded weight of 50 oz or more - If a pistol is large, heavy, and cumbersome, wouldn't that make it _less_ of a good weapon? There's a reason why nobody recommends giant magnum revolvers or Desert Eagles for general use.
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. - Fair enough, I guess. Though the US already has _many_ civilian copies of fully-automatic rifles that are built to not have full-auto functionality at all, why is this a problem here? Oh yeah, because they look scary and make ignorant soccer-moms shit their pants, and they also just happen to be TOTALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE about firearms.

Shotguns:

Folding or telescoping stock - Again, why does this matter?
Pistol grip - Again, what is so significant about a different style of grip that does nothing but appeals to someone's preferences?
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds - Most shotguns tend to have more than that, usually 6+1 to 8+1.
Detachable magazine. - so like a lot of rifles.

I'm not saying that _everyone_ should have an "assault weapon", but I think it would make the laws surrounding that much easier for both sides of the debate if they could go by what an assault weapon ACTUALLY IS.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 15, 2013)

if its a fully auto m16 or someshit. Just cause its black and has a fancy stock dont make it an "assault" weapon.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

dinosaurdammit said:


> if its a fully auto m16 or someshit. Just  cause its black and has a fancy stock dont make it an "assault"  weapon.



Exactly. Basically, everyone is labelling different guns as assault weapons because this one time, they saw it in a movie being used outside of hunting things or it was wielded by a bad guy.

If they want to ban guns so much, they could do everyone a favour and actually learn about guns and while they're at it, get rid of the ridiculous irrational fear of "the gun" before they start making decisions or pushing agendas. And maybe they could also look at the self-defense situation in the UK.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> -snip-



I am utterly amazed that the very first reply was the common sense post. Normally that kind of post comes after the "any thing black and not made of wood" posts. X3 Bravo.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 15, 2013)

I've no valid idea honestly. Perhaps a machine gun or a weapon with hundreds of bullets, something that a solider would use.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> A *fully*-automatic weapon is the only kind of assault weapon.
> 
> The media may tell you about babby-killan 100-bullet-a-second assault clips that fire heatseeking cop-killer 223mm bullets from a shoulder thing that goes up, but they're frankly full of shit. The weapons used are really no more effective than most hunting rifles out there.



Well that's your opinion.

And not to mention that the media isn't instilling some farce definition of what an assault weapon is.  While the exact universal meaning of the term is still up in the air, the most prevalent legally accepted definition usually revolves around a semi-automatic weapon whose features are comparable to that of a military-grade firearm, including the ability to switch to full-auto or burst-fire.  

What Gibby's list is referenced from is what was put in place before the expiration of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban put in place by the federal government.  However his list is missing some key factors about that law:

1) A weapon was classified as an "assault weapon" if it had a detachable magazine AND two or more of list of attachments/customization options, including under-mounted grenade launchers, adjustable stocks, etc.

2) There was no such classification as an "assault pistol".  It was simply "semi-automatic pistol".

3) Shotguns were specifically referenced as "semi-automatic" in the ban, which does not include "pump-action."

After the ban expired in 2004, seven states enacted their own assault weapons ban which closely mirrors this list, though some take it a step-further.  For instance, in New Jersey you're not allowed to own a rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip at all.  In New York, as of right now, magazines can only hold 10 rounds at maximum.

What is commonly confused in these debates on what is and isn't an assault weapon, on both sides is, as I mentioned, certain people believing that it only references a rifle with the capability of going "full-auto" which simply isn't the case and never has been.  A weapon does not have to have "machine-gun" capabilities to be considered a military-grade weapon or by extension an "assault weapon".

Now assuming that this new law proposed by the state of New York is put in place, semi-automatic firearms will only be allowed to have either a detachable magazine or one "military-style feature" which mirrors things such as a pistol grip, threaded-barrel, adjustable stock, etc, except in the cases of semi-automatic shotguns which will not be allowed to have any "military-style features."  Magazine size will also be diminished from 10-rounds to 7-rounds.  The law BTW will also empower law enforcement to confiscate weapons from the mentally ill if therapists report to mental health officials that their clients may become a danger to themselves or others.  Any weapons currently owned which violate this statute will be allowed to stay with their owners provided they register with the authorities that they own said weapons before this legislation is enacted.

Why do I bring this up?  Well it goes to show again how there's really no "exact" definition of an assault weapon because "states gonna do what states is gonna do" just as with things like marriage, eligibility to get a driver's permit, etc.  Most of it is based on an opinion, but the common denominator almost always leads to a "semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine and some number of other features or attachments commonly associated with military-usage."


----------



## Fernin (Jan 15, 2013)

@Term_the_Schmuck 

I pose the following to you. Let's say, I have an AR-15, it has a detachable magazine, it is functionally identical to any other semi auto hunting rifle. How does it magically become an assault weapon if I add a foregrip, a flash suppressor, and an adjustable stock. How does adding these thing fundamentally change the weapons function and lethality?

You are also incorrect, the exact, objective definition of an assault weapon IS, and always has been, an automatic weapon. The actual internationally recognized definition of an assault weapon is "An assault weapon is a selective fire (selectable among either fully automatic, burst-capable, or, sometimes, semi-automatic modes of operation) weapon with a detachable magazine." There is no reason any cosmetic change can affect ANY possible trait to change something into an 'assault' weapon when it does not already meet the select fire requirement.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 15, 2013)

Fernin said:


> @Term_the_Schmuck
> 
> I pose the following to you. Let's say, I have an AR-15, it has a detachable magazine, it is functionally identical to any other semi auto hunting rifle. How does it magically become an assault weapon if I add a foregrip, a flash suppressor, and an adjustable stock. How does adding these thing fundamentally change the weapons function and lethality?



Those are attachments commonly used for military-tactics and military practicality.  They serve no added support for the purposes of "hunting" or "home protection" other than making it easier for you to put multiple rounds down-range at a singular target, most of the time one that's not actively moving in the instance of say a deer if you're hunting properly and no more than an arm's reach away in terms of home defense.  Attachments such as that would only serve to help the weapon do it's job more effectively if you planned on raiding a building or attempting to effectively eliminate multiple targets, neither of which is what constitutes what the NRA and other gun-advocates claim they own their weapons for, aside from those few who foolishly believe that they're going to overthrow the US government with their gun club buddies and a couple of AR-15s.



> You are also incorrect, the exact, objective definition of an assault weapon IS, and always has been, an automatic weapon. The actual internationally recognized definition of an assault weapon is "An assault weapon is a selective fire (selectable among either fully automatic, burst-capable, or, sometimes, semi-automatic modes of operation) weapon with a detachable magazine."



Based on what?  Where is it written down that this is the be-all, end-all definition of an assault weapon?  On whose authority and how does it relate to US law?  You failed to supply any of that.  Usually when you put something in quotes you should reference where it's coming from, if not by linking then at list within the text of the post as I have done for you.

And what you mentioned more accurately describes machine-guns, more specifically assault rifles and sub-machine guns, as opposed to assault weapons.



> There is no reason any cosmetic change can affect ANY possible trait to change something into an 'assault' weapon when it does not already meet the select fire requirement.



Attachments which aide the user in the ability to carry-out military-esque operations as opposed to more practical things like general home defense and hunting do very much help in reclassifying a weapon.  Select fire is but one of several features which puts that weapon over the edge.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Fernin said:


> @Term_the_Schmuck
> 
> I pose the following to you. Let's say, I have an AR-15, it has a detachable magazine, it is functionally identical to any other semi auto hunting rifle. How does it magically become an assault weapon if I add a foregrip, a flash suppressor, and an adjustable stock. How does adding these thing fundamentally change the weapons function and lethality?
> 
> You are also incorrect, the exact, objective definition of an assault weapon IS, and always has been, an automatic weapon. The actual internationally recognized definition of an assault weapon is "An assault weapon is a selective fire (selectable among either fully automatic, burst-capable, or, sometimes, semi-automatic modes of operation) weapon with a detachable magazine." There is no reason any cosmetic change can affect ANY possible trait to change something into an 'assault' weapon when it does not already meet the select fire requirement.


Look at it like this: make it harder for the criminal to kill civilians in as quickly a manner as possible, and you're saving vital seconds while law enforcement prepares a response, and others escape.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Most assault weapons are made up of rifles and some shotguns (there is such a thing as an assault shotgun), and pistols that had fallen into the assault weapon ban were referred to as "assault pistols" for the sake of simplicity, even though it's not correct terminology. This is the exact pistol that was referred to as an assault pistol after the Cleveland massacre which was prior to the assault weapons ban in the 90s (I had no idea it expired). It's actually identical performance-wise to nearly any pistol of its calibre, yet it was banned. However, it was known to be able to accept magazines differing of size up to high numbers like 32, 50, or 72 rounds. Now that's ridiculously large and I don't think that's appropriate for general civilian useat all, yet there were a lot of civilian pistols available at the time that could accept magazines of similar sizes, and they remained legal despite that thing being banned.

So that gun was pretty much banned for what it looked like.

The media can sensationalise that gun as being very dangerous - well, it is, but no more than most others out there - but media bias exists, which does have an influence on who supports what side of a debate with its choice of words/what to show, we all know how that works.

You're right that people do have different opinions on what passes as an assault weapon, but some opinions are shit. Taken from this woman's article on Wikipedia (hurr) if you don't feel like watching:



> On the April 18, 2007, episode of MSNBC's program Tucker, Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy about the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds,  one of the many provisions included in her bill. She did not directly  respond, instead stating it was more important that the legislation  would ban large capacity "clips"  (sic) of the type used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class  of guns chosen prohibited by the law were those used by gangs  and killers of police officers. That statement was factually incorrect;  Cho's largest magazines held fifteen rounds, thus making them legal  under the AWB.[SUP][22][/SUP]  When Carlson pressed her twice more on the question about barrel  shrouds, she admitted that she did not know what a barrel shroud was,  and incorrectly stated, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up."[SUP][23] [/SUP]



 The main thing is that if there is going to be any actions taken against gun ownership, they should definitely be bills written by those who actually know what they are talking about, know what they are banning, know the different reasons for gun ownership, and understand how guns work to be sure that they're not pretty much banning something for what it looks like. 

A military expert would be the biggest helping hand in this.

But I personally think that gun control should change state-by-state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some states have high gun ownership and little gun crime, and some have high ownership and high gun crime. It's the latter states that need a review. I don't believe that someone should have to have their privileges/rights removed from them because a subset of the population of a huge country abused theirs.


----------



## Azure (Jan 15, 2013)

What really needs to be done is a study about how much gun crime is committed with legal weapons versus illegal weapons.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

I can see the state by state argument, but carrying that into a public that's already armed to hang the NRA by it's ... non-folding stocks, would make you sound a pro-gun nutter attempting to strawman the national issue of spree violence. It's not that you are, or would be, but any other approach besides "ban weponz lol" doesn't sound like a solution to the panicked.

I don't have any better solutions necessarily, just highlighting my own difficulties in suggesting that maybe solutions that go county-by-county be implemented at the state level, Gibby, rather than laws that attempt to address everything, and everyone on a much larger scale. Not sure how that'd go over, probably terribly ... but hey, it's a start.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jan 15, 2013)

A fully automatic, high caliber, and high capacity rifle.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 15, 2013)

Azure said:


> What really needs to be done is a study about how much gun crime is committed with legal weapons versus illegal weapons.



Such studies already exist. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the majority of reported crimes is with illegal weapons or illegally wielded weapons- IE someone wielding another person's weapon, which may be legally obtained. 

In my view if the second case is significant- that weapons bought legally eventually wind up in the hands of people other than the first time buyers and then go on to cause crime, then restriction in legal sales is well supported. 

If not, then perhaps enforcement of other laws would be more important. 

If you mean 'legal v illegal' by type, then I believe it is the handgun, but this should be divided by the number of copies.



d.batty said:


> A fully automatic, high caliber, and high capacity rifle.



What about Uzi's and other spray'nprays? They have low caliber.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> What about Uzi's and other spray'nprays? They have low caliber.



There are UZIs adapted for the civilian market which are incapable of fully automatic fire, which doesn't qualify them as anything more than just semi-automatic pistols that happen to be way more awkward and bulky than their traditional still-legal counterparts.

Yet the UZI is a "bad guy gun" and people are quick to look at it in disgust and assume it's more than what the civilian versions really are.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 15, 2013)

An 'assault weapon', to me, is a firearm designed specifically for military use. Such weapons either have automatic-fire capabilities (assault rifles, submachineguns, etc.), or exceptionally high power (such as rocket launchers or anti-materiel rifles).


----------



## Fernin (Jan 15, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> -snip-



You know your name here is awfully fitting, so let's break it down.

1: A fore-grip does not change the shooters ability to shoot accurately, it provides an alternate holding point that some shooters find more comfortable, with no effect on performance in a semi automatic application.

2: A flash suppressor can held to reduce eye strain, this is particularly handy at ranges that allow night time shooting as it reduces the visible flash to a point that it won't be a bother to the shooter, or to others at the bench besides him. The same argument applies to sound suppressors, they do not make a weapon silent, what they do is soften the sound enough that it's much more tolerable and less painful, they can still be heard from a mile away, and again, using them at a range is courteous to other shooters there, not to mention protects ones own hearing.

3: An adjustable stock allows the gun to be used by more than one person comfortably, if my little brother is with and shooting as well he has shorter arms than I and thus needs a shorter stock, once again it has no impact in regards to making a weapon more dangerous. It's also handy if you find standard short stocks too short, or full stocks too long, and need something in the middle, an adjustable stock is no different that and adjustable seat in a car in regards to how it effects FUNCTION of the weapon.

4: Your counter argument is a weak strawman, exactly what "military-esque operations" do these attachments allow me to carry out that I couldn't with a regular AR-15? You never addressed how they change the FUNCTION of the gun.

5: "And what you mentioned more accurately describes machine-guns, more specifically assault rifles and sub-machine guns, as opposed to assault weapons." - This is one of the stupidest, self defeating piles of crap I have ever heard, did you even think before you typed it?

6: Let's see, NATO for one, and just about anyone else when pressed to give a definition of the FUNCTIONAL aspect that makes something an assault weapon.

7: Saying cosmetic attachments can allow a gun to be reclassified is stupid beyond words, it's akin to saying that putting a wing, rims, and light weight hood on a Honda Civic suddenly makes it a race car. What's even more ridiculous is that by that same logic adding only the wing and rims, or rims and hood, or hood and wing does NOT make it a race car, that it's only a race car if you add all three items to something with four wheels.

Either explain to me, in your expansive gun knowledge and wisdom just how exactly cosmetic items change the FUNCTION of a gun to make it an assault weapon, or don't reply at all.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jan 15, 2013)

Anything I decide to assault someone with.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 15, 2013)

Azure said:


> What really needs to be done is a study about how much gun crime is committed with legal weapons versus illegal weapons.



Not the subject of this thread.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jan 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Such studies already exist. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the majority of reported crimes is with illegal weapons or illegally wielded weapons- IE someone wielding another person's weapon, which may be legally obtained.
> 
> In my view if the second case is significant- that weapons bought legally eventually wind up in the hands of people other than the first time buyers and then go on to cause crime, then restriction in legal sales is well supported.
> 
> ...


Those are sub machine guns.  I suppose they are assault weapons, but an ak-47 or a m-16 and the like are far more damaging.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Anything I decide to assault someone with.



This is gonna sound dumb, but I don't like the logic of assaulting someone with something so it becomes an assault weapon. You could use a teeny little .38 snub revolver in self-defense (and killing a man, eeech) and then it suddenly turns from legal weapon to illegal weapon so it gets your arse in jail. Quite similar in the UK where a knife is treated as a tool until it's used in self-defense where it becomes an ILLEGAL OFFENSIVE WEAPON FOR KILLING.

So we'll end up having assault derringers, assault knives, assault bats, assault frying pans, assault cars, and assault pillows. :V


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 15, 2013)

I have no knowledge of guns and such since I do not own one...but, I found something online that makes a good read.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/assault_weapons.pdf

Have fun.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Most assault weapons are made up of rifles and some shotguns (there is such a thing as an assault shotgun), and pistols that had fallen into the assault weapon ban were referred to as "assault pistols" for the sake of simplicity, even though it's not correct terminology. This is the exact pistol that was referred to as an assault pistol after the Cleveland massacre which was prior to the assault weapons ban in the 90s (I had no idea it expired). It's actually identical performance-wise to nearly any pistol of its calibre, yet it was banned. However, it was known to be able to accept magazines differing of size up to high numbers like 32, 50, or 72 rounds. Now that's ridiculously large and I don't think that's appropriate for general civilian useat all, yet there were a lot of civilian pistols available at the time that could accept magazines of similar sizes, and they remained legal despite that thing being banned.



One would have to ask though, if you require a barrel shroud to handle a pistol such as a Tec-9, how is that a practical weapon for home defense as opposed to something which you handle like a normal handgun?  Why would choose a weapon that you'd feel the  need to have an attachment which makes the weapon easier to handle for the purpose of performing tactical maneuvers?  Again, by definition of what the weapon and attachment does we're slowly moving away from something that would be practical for home defense or hunting and moving into a realm of questionable motives.  Not to mention, as you have, the fact that the weapon was manufactured with magazine sizes upwards of 72 rounds, when even the 20 round magazine itself is far and away more than anyone would realistically need in a home-defense scenario (certainly not a practical weapon design for conceal-carry).



> So that gun was pretty much banned for what it looked like.



Maybe that's what some pols did, but as someone who understands what a barrel shroud is, I'd have to ask again why get that when it'd be more practical to get a revolver or some other 9mm?

Though on the topic of appearance, if someone is so concerned about home defense, I'm not sure why they'd be putting so much stock in getting a weapon that closely resembles a sub-machine gun as the Tec-9 does (its design is based on the Interdynamic MP-9) as if a home-invader is really going to be more concerned that you're pointing that on them instead of say a Ruger LC9 (which by the way would be legal in New York since it only has a 7-round magazine).



> The media can sensationalise that gun as being very dangerous - well, it is, but no more than most others out there - but media bias exists, which does have an influence on who supports what side of a debate with its choice of words/what to show, we all know how that works.



"No more than the others" is a bit subjective.  While the stopping power of the weapon may be similar to say the aforementioned Ruger, the fact that the weapon has the ability to hold high-capacity magazines while also utilizing a feature for tactical maneuvering of the firearm is well enough to define the weapon as an "assault weapon".



> You're right that people do have different opinions on what passes as an assault weapon, but some opinions are shit. Taken from this woman's article on Wikipedia (hurr) if you don't feel like watching:



I can't stand Tucker Carlson and his stupid bow-tie, so thanks for the transcript.



> The main thing is that if there is going to be any actions taken against gun ownership, they should definitely be bills written by those who actually know what they are talking about, know what they are banning, know the different reasons for gun ownership, and understand how guns work to be sure that they're not pretty much banning something for what it looks like.



Well wouldn't that be dandy?  Legislators who understand every aspect of the bill they're proposing/signing on to?

If you're shocked that this woman didn't have a clue what a barrel shroud was then you're as naive as she is, frankly.  Most of these bills that are put through governments around the world are often handed off to aides and interns whose job it is to come up with a one-to-two paragraph summary as to what the bill is and whether or not it agrees with the stated platform that politician holds.  Very rarely, if ever will you have a politicians who actually goes through every bill themselves.  More often than not they're more concerned with their own constituents and what the people in their specific district want.  But in this instance, regardless of whether or not they truly understand what they're talking about, I'd say the definition of an assault weapon as has been used since at least 1994 has been upheld.



> But I personally think that gun control should change state-by-state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some states have high gun ownership and little gun crime, and some have high ownership and high gun crime. It's the latter states that need a review. I don't believe that someone should have to have their privileges/rights removed from them because a subset of the population of a huge country abused theirs.



Except when we're talking about something like the issue of mass shootings and things of that nature, there is no localization associated with it.  The criminal aspect of gun control is just that, one aspect.  There are other factors which play heavily into these types of restrictions and it's not surprising that when their guns are threatened, the pro-gun crowd likes to ignore that part of the gun control debate and rely on the "CRIMINALS STILL GET GUNS" argument which has no bearing on the arms used in the many mass shootings we had in the US alone last year, many of which used legally acquired weapons by the shooter or someone the shooter lived with/knew and weapons acquired in states which don't require background checks/waiting periods for private sales.

And bringing it all back to the topic of this thread, a state-by-state redefinition of an assault weapon is impractical in the long run because of how easy it is to move those weapons across state-lines, just as many people in New Jersey easily make their way into Pennsylvania to buy fireworks since it's illegal to be in possession of them if you're not a trained pyrotechnic/member of a fire department.

Will answer Fen's post in a minute.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 15, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Those are sub machine guns.  I suppose they are assault weapons, but an ak-47 or a m-16 and the like are far more damaging.



Incorrect, the only functional advantage here is range. A 9mm hollow point will kill just as effectively as 7.62x39 or 5.56x45 within its range envelop.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jan 15, 2013)

Yeah, but you couldn't shoot through anything, especially with a hollow tip.  Everyone thinks hollow tips were made for maximum damage. While this may be true, they were designed for police so the rounds wouldn't pass through anything and harm innocent bystanders.

You see you asked for our opinions, we give them to you and you shoot them down with your "facts". Did you just create this thread so you could act superior to everyone with your knowledge of weapons? That's what I'm getting out of all of this.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Fernin said:


> 1: A fore-grip does not change the shooters ability to shoot accurately, it provides an alternate holding point that some shooters find more comfortable, with no effect on performance in a semi automatic application.


Right, and if you're more comfortable holding a weapon in that manner, than you are also going to be more capable of seeking out and eliminating additional targets. Foregrips also allow people to fire more accurately from the hip, negating some need to aim down the sights in close quarters, hence it's definition of "assault grade".



Fernin said:


> 2: A flash suppressor can held to reduce eye strain, this is particularly handy at ranges that allow night time shooting as it reduces the visible flash to a point that it won't be a bother to the shooter, or to others at the bench besides him. The same argument applies to sound suppressors, they do not make a weapon silent, what they do is soften the sound enough that it's much more tolerable and less painful, they can still be heard from a mile away, and again, using them at a range is courteous to other shooters there, not to mention protects ones own hearing.


Removal of flash suppressors from the consumption of civilian shooters is simple logic: having one gives a potential shooter advantages in both recoil control and overall weapons performance. Bleed the advantages out, and it makes it much easier to deal with a potential gunmen, that's the logic of assault weapons bans.


Fernin said:


> 3: An adjustable stock allows you the gun to be used by more than one person comfortably, if my little brother is with and shooting as well he has shorter arms than I and thus needs a shorter stock, once again it has no impact in regards to making a weapon more dangerous.


No, an adjustable stock allows a shooter to adjust the length of his rifle. It also allows him to compress the stock to make his rifle, or whatever weapon is equipped with that style of furniture, smaller, or longer, so that it can be used either in close quarters more effectively, or better stabilized for long range fire. 

Again, this is why some of these things are classified as belonging to "assault weapons".


Fernin said:


> 4: Your counter argument is a weak strawman, exactly what "military-esque operations" do these attachments allow me to carry out that I couldn't with a regular AR-15? You never addressed how they change the FUNCTION of the gun.


I could!

Shrouds are used to: 

influence the external air-flow around gun barrels to change cooling dynamics 
conceal silencers 
control the spread of residue and discharges while firing a rifle 
operate as silencers that appear to give no sign of actually having that function 
conceal illegal barrel breaks that can influence the trajectory, or spread of bullets, pellets, rods, or flechettes. 
conceal upgrades or changes to the barrel as a whole 
hide the imperfect machining of some barrels to reduce the likelihood that light will reflect and then telegraph the shooters position to another who hasn't spotted him yet ... and thus their classification of "assault" like upgrades! 
Pistol grips are used to:

balance the grip and use of a weapon such that the weapons center of mass is easier to control during rest or fire (this applies to most after-market grips that attempt to address this issue either by change of material to lighter synthetics, or different machining techniques.) 
after market grips, and pistol grips, can be used to conceal or alter the performance of regular weapons by allowing bump-fire like changes to be implemented more seamlessly 
pistol grips can also be used to integrate directly with the internal workings of any other weapon to make it fully automatic, similar to bump firing, but this time allowing for that full-on functionality ... and thus concluding this bit. 
Bayonet Attachments are used to:

Stick a fucker, duh!         (see, close quarters use.) 
Equip blades (close quarters use) that make it easier to repel police and other law enforcement personnel attempting to tackle a shooter so he can be taken into custody ... and so ends this bit. 
Folding Stocks are used to:

Give a shooter more choice in terms of comfort, and how relatively cumbersome a firearm is to handle with shipping furniture. (Wooden stock too long? Equip a shorter, synthetic, folding stock or something ... Bing! Problem solved!) 
Give a shooter more choice in terms of range (Close quarters? Fold the stock.) 
Give a shooter more choice in terms of weapon balance (More comfortable the shooter, and the more balanced he can make a weapon feel, the more effective he will be at killing.) 
Grenade Launcher attachment points are used to:

Equip grenade launchers (take out squad cars) 
Equip special "launchers" that can also accommodate different types of munitions (switch from 30mm, 45mm, to 25mm, etc., which means more ammunition types available; multi-purpose.) 
Equip smaller assault shotguns that allow a potential shooter to repel close quarters assault.) Hence why these are classified as "assault" style upgrades and banned from commercial sale (unless you're a gun collector.) 

Just some thoughts.



Fernin said:


> 7: Saying cosmetic attachments can allow a gun to be reclassified is stupid beyond words, it's akin to saying that putting a wing, rims, and light weight hood on a Honda Civic suddenly makes it a race car. What's even more ridiculous is that by that same logic adding only the wing and rims, or rims and hood, or hood and wing does NOT make it a race car, that it's only a race car if you add all three items to something with four wheels.


Except that many "cosmetic" upgrades aren't used for the purpose of looks at all ... just saying.


----------



## Tango (Jan 15, 2013)

All 'civvie' assault weapons are are cosmetic cousins of the military versions. Not only that but most deaths from guns are due to hand guns, not 'assault weapons'. Shootings like the recent one have another thing in common: mental illness. Maybe if we didn't pump every kid struggling with homework with ritalin or other shit like that maybe we would have this crap going on. I rarely ever heard of school shootings when I was growing up before all these behavior altering drugs came along and I was raised around guns -literally- all my life. Also didn't the shooter not use the AR but pistols instead? Iirc he left the rifle in the car. 

To me it's just one of those 'think of the childrens' moments that politicians masturbate over when need something to beat their chest with.



Bambi said:


> Right, and if you're more comfortable holding a weapon in that manner, than you are also going to be more capable of seeking out and eliminating additional targets. Foregrips also allow people to fire more accurately from the hip, negating some need to aim down the sights in close quarters, hence it's definition of "assault grade".
> 
> Removal of flash suppressors from the consumption of civilian shooters is simple logic: having one gives a potential shooter advantages in both recoil control and overall weapons performance. Bleed the advantages out, and it makes it much easier to deal with a potential gunmen, that's the logic of assault weapons bans.
> No, an adjustable stock allows a shooter to adjust the length of his rifle. It also allows him to compress the stock to make his rifle, or whatever weapon is equipped with that style of furniture, smaller, or longer, so that it can be used either in close quarters more effectively, or better stabilized for long range fire.
> ...





Hahahahaah....Oh god, my sides ^-^


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> One would have to ask though, if you require a barrel shroud to handle a pistol such as a Tec-9, how is that a practical weapon for home defense as opposed to something which you handle like a normal handgun?  Why would choose a weapon that you'd feel the  need to have an attachment which makes the weapon easier to handle for the purpose of performing tactical maneuvers?  Again, by definition of what the weapon and attachment does we're slowly moving away from something that would be practical for home defense or hunting and moving into a realm of questionable motives.  Not to mention, as you have, the fact that the weapon was manufactured with magazine sizes upwards of 72 rounds, when even the 20 round magazine itself is far and away more than anyone would realistically need in a home-defense scenario (certainly not a practical weapon design for conceal-carry).
> 
> Maybe that's what some pols did, but as someone who understands what a barrel shroud is, I'd have to ask again why get that when it'd be more practical to get a revolver or some other 9mm?
> 
> "No more than the others" is a bit subjective.  While the stopping power  of the weapon may be similar to say the aforementioned Ruger, the fact  that the weapon has the ability to hold high-capacity magazines while  also utilizing a feature for tactical maneuvering of the firearm is well  enough to define the weapon as an "assault weapon".



You don't _require_ a barrel shroud to handle the Tec-9, it's just a little extra so you can hold it like a very small rifle if you felt like it, but other than that, it's typically held like any old pistol. All pistols with the exception of revolvers and some sporting semiautomatics have the slide all the way down the barrel so if you were to grab the gun by the slide you wouldn't burn your hand, much like proper barrel shrouds. Besides, if the Tec-9 if of such a bulky, wierd, inefficient design, then why ban it?

Sure, you have the magazine capacity issue, but that's more of an aftermarket thing. I'm sure everyone here knows the Glock range of pistols, they're extremely popular in the US for home defense, target shooting, and police use, they're one of the most common handguns there that also features a lot in popular culture. It's still legal and not considered an assault weapon despite the manufacture of magazines that can hold a huge amount of ammunition ranging from about 32 to 100.

I wouldn't be against a ban on non-standard magazines such as these. 100 rounds in a traditional pistol, I mean gee.



> Though on the topic of appearance, if someone is so concerned about home defense, I'm not sure why they'd be putting so much stock in getting a weapon that closely resembles a sub-machine gun as the Tec-9 does (its design is based on the Interdynamic MP-9) as if a home-invader is really going to be more concerned that you're pointing that on them instead of say a Ruger LC9 (which by the way would be legal in New York since it only has a 7-round magazine).



I don't think such a restriction is bad for home defense purposes only. But you have to consider that guns are a legitimate hobby also. Some countries enable people to have guns that are regulated in such a manner, but you can obtain licenses for collecting purposes. I'm not one of the people who view registration/regulation as "omg nazi gubmint taking my gurns", I think it has some great reasoning behind it. But look at all those history buffs, hobbyists, sport shooters - they are a minority, but should we let them suffer? If a gun ban passes, it makes criminals out of people who just have an interest in guns as objects.



> Well wouldn't that be dandy?  Legislators who understand every aspect of the bill they're proposing/signing on to?
> 
> If you're shocked that this woman didn't have a clue what a barrel shroud was then you're as naive as she is, frankly.  Most of these bills that are put through governments around the world are often handed off to aides and interns whose job it is to come up with a one-to-two paragraph summary as to what the bill is and whether or not it agrees with the stated platform that politician holds.  Very rarely, if ever will you have a politicians who actually goes through every bill themselves.  More often than not they're more concerned with their own constituents and what the people in their specific district want.  But in this instance, regardless of whether or not they truly understand what they're talking about, I'd say the definition of an assault weapon as has been used since at least 1994 has been upheld.



I guess we agree about how these guys do their job.



> Except when we're talking about something like the issue of mass shootings and things of that nature, there is no localization associated with it.  The criminal aspect of gun control is just that, one aspect.  There are other factors which play heavily into these types of restrictions and it's not surprising that when their guns are threatened, the pro-gun crowd likes to ignore that part of the gun control debate and rely on the "CRIMINALS STILL GET GUNS" argument which has no bearing on the arms used in the many mass shootings we had in the US alone last year, many of which used legally acquired weapons by the shooter or someone the shooter lived with/knew and weapons acquired in states which don't require background checks/waiting periods for private sales.
> 
> And bringing it all back to the topic of this thread, a state-by-state redefinition of an assault weapon is impractical in the long run because of how easy it is to move those weapons across state-lines, just as many people in New Jersey easily make their way into Pennsylvania to buy fireworks since it's illegal to be in possession of them if you're not a trained pyrotechnic/member of a fire department.



So perhaps bans may not be helpful in this case? So many people support a  ban, and so many people do not, different states are different. A nationwide ban doesn't sound like  it'd go down well at all, but I think the gun-lovers out there would  have to open up to the idea of regulation, gun registration, more  extensive background checks, and so on.



Bambi said:


> *snip*



Oh dear god. l2guns. And read and think about me and fernin's posts a bit more thoroughly. I can break it down into a full post if you like, if you don't want to re-read.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 15, 2013)

Fernin said:


> You know your name here is awfully fitting, so let's break it down.



I'd just like to point out this quote from the OP I'm reminded of after this introduction in the 18th post of his own thread



Fernin said:


> What this IS about, is what DEFINES an "assault" weapon to you.
> 
> *Discuss, and please keep it civil.*



Emphasis mine.  We'll see how civil he keeps the conversation as we take this journey down the road of a gun nut's response to a calm and collected counter-argument and what "civil" truly means to them.  Come along won't you?



> 1: A fore-grip does not change the shooters ability to shoot accurately, it provides an alternate holding point that some shooters find more comfortable, with no effect on performance in a semi automatic application.
> 
> 2: A flash suppressor can held to reduce eye strain, this is particularly handy at ranges that allow night time shooting as it reduces the visible flash to a point that it won't be a bother to the shooter, or to others at the bench besides him. The same argument applies to sound suppressors, they do not make a weapon silent, what they do is soften the sound enough that it's much more tolerable and less painful, they can still be heard from a mile away, and again, using them at a range is courteous to other shooters there, not to mention protects ones own hearing.
> 
> 3: An adjustable stock allows the gun to be used by more than one person comfortably, if my little brother is with and shooting as well he has shorter arms than I and thus needs a shorter stock, once again it has no impact in regards to making a weapon more dangerous. It's also handy if you find standard short stocks too short, or full stocks too long, and need something in the middle, an adjustable stock is no different that and adjustable seat in a car in regards to how it effects FUNCTION of the weapon.



Again, I'd find these great attributes for a weapon that someone is planning on conducting a military operation with, searching room-by-room a building in a hostile environment.  Not exactly what I'd think Joe and Sally will require for home defense.  Considering that one of the biggest arguments for guns is the fact that you should never have to use the damn thing, if someone is forced to fire the weapon in a practical confrontation which again, typically occurs within arm's reach or close to it, why are you suddenly so concerned about being absolutely comfortable?  Also it stands to reason that if the shooter is more comfortable then their shot would be more accurate and would make it so that person could also quickly acquire another target and put another accurate shot at that one would it not?  Just a common sense observation, Bambi could likely correct me if I'm wrong there since I know he's actually a military guy. (And it appears he has)

And by the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with what so-and-so is doing at a gun range.  I'd be in full support of people being allowed to use these weapons in a controlled environment at a gun range for target practice with trained, certified-professionals/experts, provided the weapons stay at said facility.  I'd rather they not remain in that private individual's possession.  But then again, this isn't "about ownership" it's about what defines an assault weapon to us.  Moving on.



> 4: Your counter argument is a weak strawman, exactly what "military-esque operations" do these attachments allow me to carry out that I couldn't with a regular AR-15? You never addressed how they change the FUNCTION of the gun.



As you may recall from previous posts, I've mentioned the weapons become more effective at being able to carry out specific tasks like being able to put multiple rounds down-range at multiple or moving targets.  While personal skill of the shooter is also a factor, attachments and/or features which aide a shooter to use the weapon in such a way that it can be used for something outside of what would be practical for the kinds of basic "defense" or "hunting" reasons commonly used by the pro-gun lobby appears clearly to me to be something which would classify that weapon as an "assault weapon".



> 5: "And what you mentioned more accurately describes machine-guns, more specifically assault rifles and sub-machine guns, as opposed to assault weapons." - This is one of the stupidest, self defeating piles of crap I have ever heard, did you even think before you typed it?



Ahh, there's that civility again.  It's a good thing we're not letting our emotions dictate our responses here, eh?



> 6: Let's see, NATO for one, and just about anyone else when pressed to give a definition of the FUNCTIONAL aspect that makes something an assault weapon.



Where did NATO say this?  When?  Even then, they're not a governing body which defines what firearms are, nor do they set any sort of regulations on firearms or basic guidelines.  I was hoping you could give me something more along the lines of say the ATF.  Instead you give me a vague answer of NATO with no reference to any sort of statement or charter as well as pretty much justifying yourself by saying "anyone who's anyone knows I'm right."  Which doesn't exactly impress me nor effectively answers my question.



> 7: Saying cosmetic attachments can allow a gun to be reclassified is stupid beyond words, it's akin to saying that putting a wing, rims, and light weight hood on a Honda Civic suddenly makes it a race car. What's even more ridiculous is that by that same logic adding only the wing and rims, or rims and hood, or hood and wing does NOT make it a race car, that it's only a race car if you add all three items to something with four wheels.



By adding those things to a Honda Civic I can feasibly increase the potential of that car.  If I'm making the car more aerodynamic and light-weight I can make it go faster.  This is basic science, and is the same concept behind something like an Olympic Athlete's swim suit or a bicyclist's helmet: lightweight material and efficient design choices to maximize performance.  Weapon attachments and features offer the same.  But with weapons we're hoping on never actually having to use said weapon yes?  That's what a "responsible gun-owner" would say wouldn't they if they're talking about defense?  If you're truly worried about accuracy and hitting your target in a home defense scenario, then why not buy a shotgun?  Point in general direction and there's a pretty good chance you'll hit that intruder who's standing five-feet in front of you.  I'm not sure why you'd need an AR-15 with an effective range over five football fields with a silencer, adjustable stock, hybrid sight, and a 30-round magazine to accomplish the task of home defense or hunting.  There's such a thing as "overkill" otherwise known as using a chainsaw instead of a scalpel.



> Either explain to me, in your expansive gun knowledge and wisdom just how exactly cosmetic items change the FUNCTION of a gun to make it an assault weapon, or don't reply at all.



"Answer in such a way as it pleases me and my viewpoints or shut up."

Ahh, and we wrap it all up with another civil remark.

This is why I'm loving these debates recently.  Because the gun-nuts cry and moan about being civil and being "logicial" but when someone asks some honest questions or gives some decent counterpoints, suddenly they decide to fly off the handle and start attacking the other side's intelligence.

And you wonder why I don't trust people with guns.  :V


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Tango said:


> Hahahahaah....Oh god, my sides ^-^


So ... what?

That's exactly how the government looks at those sorts of things. Giggle 'on the internet' all you want, but when they say: "Gee, lets get rid of x, because x allows someone to do z", and it turns out they're right ... you lose that to a vote and a people united in fear.



Gibby said:


> Oh dear god. l2guns. And read and think about me and fernin's posts a bit more thoroughly. I can break it down into a full post if you like, if you don't want to re-read.


No, I can pretty much sum up your posts thoroughly (I double-post like a boss however -- ooops!) *You're welcome buddy - Term*

You two don't like the way the national debate in this country has transformed from say, issues of mental health in what causes spree killers, to the guns they use. Okay, see? That was simple.

Let's do this while we're on the topic: you're (somebody is, Fernin, fuck. I don't know. EDIT: Fernin) using your little brother as an emotive fallacy to suggest that "upgrades", which you argue are "purely cosmetic", don't do anything short of making your weapon look "cool". Honestly, fuck the pro-gun crowd at this point. It's like a big, stupid sin to call them out on their bullshit. They live in a bubble where changing the stock on a rifle does nothing for the weapons weight. Where you can add in a scope, and oh, hey, it's not for ranging a target, but looking "Ooooo cool!"

I wasn't born yesterday, fellas. Write a letter to CNN, start a blog. Your pro-gun bullshit is just a circle jerk that's meant to bait people out of attamans thread so you can thrash them without having to worry about his territory.

U mad, bro?


----------



## Tango (Jan 15, 2013)

What I love is that when people say "Oh, are you and your gun club buddies going to take on the US military? hurr-hurr!" Yeah, it worked for the IRA/RIRA when the British Army said we can't beat them. The insurgency in Iraq and Afgahistan was pretty much just AKs, improvised explosives, and crap training did a pretty good job of holding the US at bay. Finally we have that lovely little event called the Vietnam War. 

If a civil war -did- break out, and it's more likely then you think, we have enough weapons floating around our country in civilian hands to arm every man, woman, and child almost twice over. Not only that but you're likely going to have a hard time when your soldiers refuse to fight their family and friends. The military would be fractured beyond repair. The country would likely break into different regional factions vying for control. If not it will be a 'war of the flea' scenario. All I can say is good luck with that.


Tango


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Tango said:


> What I love is that when people say "Oh, are you and your gun club buddies going to take on the US military? hurr-hurr!" Yeah, it worked for the IRA/RIRA when the British Army said we can't beat them. The insurgency in Iraq and Afgahistan was pretty much just AKs, improvised explosives, and crap training did a pretty good job of holding the US at bay. Finally we have that lovely little event called the Vietnam War.
> 
> If a civil war -did- break out, and it's more likely then you think, we have enough weapons floating around our country in civilian hands to arm every man, woman, and child almost twice over. Not only that but you're likely going to have a hard time when your soldiers refuse to fight their family and friends. The military would be fractured beyond repair. The country would likely break into different regional factions vying for control. If not it will be a 'war of the flea' scenario. All I can say is good luck with that.
> 
> ...


See, this is why people think you're fucking crazy.

Why do you need a revolution right now? Why even threaten that? INB4 SOCIALISTS HURR


----------



## Tango (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> So ... what?
> 
> That's exactly how the government looks at those sorts of things. Giggle 'on the internet' all you want, but when they say: "Gee, lets get rid of x, because x allows someone to do z", and it turns out they're right ... you lose that to a vote and a people united in fear.




Yeah, not a lot of the spree killers have access to the machine shop you'd need to make a barrel shroud into a suppressor. And 'news flash'! A suppressor doesn't silence a firearm. All it does is reduce the noise by 20 to 30 decibels. Not only that, but HOW are you going to hide that under a barrel shroud? There isn't enough room. And if you try some Chechnyan-style home made modifications you're going to have the weapon blow up in your hands. 


I swear, you kids these days!


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Tango said:


> Yeah, not a lot of the spree killers have access to the machine shop you'd need to make a barrel shroud into a suppressor. And 'news flash'! A suppressor doesn't silence a firearm. All it does is reduce the noise by 20 to 30 decibels. Not only that, but HOW are you going to hide that under a barrel shroud? There isn't enough room. And if you try some Chechnyan-style home made modifications you're going to have the weapon blow up in your hands.
> 
> 
> I swear, you kids these days!


Yeah, except one thing Tango.

You're debating the wrong person -- take it to your representative official. Write a letter to your congressman, or woman, see debating us doesn't really do anything for you besides what? A quick, and witty way to dispense pro-gun lobby retorts to people who are trying to get you people to see that the reality of this situation isn't benefiting you by sticking your heads in the dirt?

And don't even pretend that this entire thing wasn't just set up to play King of the Hill with people who might understand what governments talking about with the assault weapons ban. I mean, fuck, the moment you debate what the government views as an issue, what it would define as an assault weapon, or making a weapon an assault weapon, the first strawman is, "Hah! You don't know guns enough to know that wood dispenses and absorbs recoil better than synthetic plastics!"

We don't give a shit to know the nuances, or pro-gun debate club bullshit; just hear us out: this is what the government thinks, some of us agree, some of us don't ... and for some fucking reason, you don't care to listen at all.


----------



## Tango (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> See, this is why people think you're fucking crazy.
> 
> Why do you need a revolution right now? Why even threaten that? INB4 SOCIALISTS HURR




See, there you go assuming I support this kind of action. Please don't put words in my mouth before making sure I agree with the flavor. And for your information I am pretty much a socialist so go eat dicks. I'm saying -if-. 

Don't get all upset and sad when I prove a valid point. It's okay. You're not right all the time.



Bambi said:


> Yeah, except one thing Tango.
> 
> You're debating the wrong person -- take it to your representative official. Write a letter to your congressman, or woman, see debating us doesn't really do anything for you besides what? A quick, and witty way to dispense pro-gun lobby retorts to people who trying to get you people to see that the reality of this situation isn't benefiting you by sticking your heads in the dirt?


 

I don't need to do that because Maine isn't retarded when it comes to guns. :grin:


----------



## Toshabi (Jan 15, 2013)

d.batty said:


> You see you asked for our opinions, we give them to you and you shoot them down with your "facts". Did you just create this thread so you could act superior to everyone with your knowledge of weapons? That's what I'm getting out of all of this.




Boohoo! He called my uneducated opinion wrong!


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Tango said:


> See, there you go assuming I support this kind of action.


You brought it up out of the blue, so ... you ... eat dicks too! Grrr! 


Tango said:


> Don't get all upset and sad when I prove a valid point. It's okay. You're not right all the time.


Honestly, what is your point?

"Oh noes! The talking heads in Washington are going to banzors my bayoned attachment lol1! silly campy politicians all not knowing what i kno, see here's evidence that they don't know."

Gee, wonder why they want them banned; wonder why you're complaining about them being banned in the first place. If these "cosmetic" upgrades do nothing, than why complain in the first place? It's because you know bayonet attachments, foregrips, adjustable stocks, all make shooting easier and more comfortable for others. You know after market parts can be made with durable plastics that can lighten a weapons weight by as much as a pound, maybe even more. You're staring at the exact reasons why government wants to shoot down some of these things ... and you're just refusing to see it.

Can't lead a horse to water, and you're right about wanting to be right about this point, because ... hmm, everybody does. And the conflict that arises from that shouldn't be enough for you to construe that my competitiveness to assert my position is that I want to win ... it's the internet. I win, still retarded. I think there's more to this than just that.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> No, I can pretty much sum up your posts thoroughly (I double-post like a boss however -- ooops!)
> 
> You two don't like the way the national debate in this country has transformed from say, issues of mental health in what causes spree killers, to the guns they use. Okay, see? That was simple.



Yeah, because I don't see why anybody should have to suffer because the health services don't really give a shit about people's mental health, pro-gun or gun-victim.



> Let's do this while we're on the topic: you're using your little brother as an emotive fallacy to suggest that "upgrades", which you argue are "purely cosmetic", don't do anything short of making your weapon look "cool". Honestly, fuck the pro-gun crowd at this point. It's like a big, stupid sin to call them out on their bullshit. They live in a bubble where changing the stock on a rifle does nothing for the weapons weight. Where you can add in a scope, and oh, hey, it's not for ranging a target, but looking "Ooooo cool!"



I don't have a little brother, that was Fernin. And yes, they are purely cosmetic. Let me suggest that you try going to a range. Try out any semi-automatic hunting rifle, then try out an EVIL AR-15 if you can. The only difference would be that the AR-15 looks like a gun from the movies, and it _may_ be a little more comfortable to hold. Then, when you get the chance, take a hunting rifle or a shotgun that happens to have no stock. Aim it at a target, and then shoot it. You won't get a broken nose or anything, I promise.

Also, no, removing the stock on an evil AR-15 doesn't change the weight very much. _They're made entirely out of plastic_. Only the functional, moving parts plus the barrel are heavy. It also doesn't make it any more special than a pistol. Hell, a pistol is the better choice for close quarters, why are you bitching about collapsible stocks? They don't even collapse that far at all.

Scopes are also used all the time for range shooting and hunting, yeah. Suddenly putting one on an AR-15 is such a crime. And are you familiar with guns as a hobby? People love militaria so much, they like to get cosmetic guns as a compromise for rifles they're already unable to access. Why do you want to get rid of those?



> I wasn't born yesterday, fellas. Write a letter to CNN, start a blog. Your pro-gun bullshit is just a circle jerk that's meant to bait people out of attamans thread so you can thrash them without having to worry about his territory.
> 
> U mad, bro?



You're the only one here exploding like an early model of a Glock 22 chambered in .40 S&W. I'd say you're just as fucking bad as what you try to describe, where so many anti-gunners are pushing to paint a horrid image over respectable gun owners and make criminals out of them. You people live in a bubble where every assumption you could pull out of your ass about something you've never been in contact with can be passed off as correct while the actual gun-owners are wrong.

If you ever want to preach about guns, try fucking learning about them first before you make yourself look ignorant and stupid. It's always the same people who throw a shitfit about the gun owners, and they happen to be the ones who would piss in their pants if someone pointed a BB replica at them because they're manifestations of pure evil.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Yeah, because I don't see why anybody should have to suffer because the health services don't really give a shit about people's mental health, pro-gun or gun-victim.


Except that they do, and someone can discontinue treatment if they like.

Short of being able to tell what someone is thinking exactly, we'll never be able to stop a criminal ever, because so long as he wants to break the law and has the volition ... surprise, he will. Part of what the assault weapons ban is designed to do is limit the popularity and production of after-market parts that can and do influence the performance of firearms overall. By instituting a ban, not many "assault weapon" parts are manufactured, and you have the sociological climate change such that assault weapons aren't as popular to purchase for gun owners ... it produces tangible and visceral effects both on the market, and the consumer.

It's not "the" deterrent to gun crime, but in effect, by it's design, makes it harder for a gunmen, when he wants to break the law, to be able to do it effectively or in excess. 


Gibby said:


> I don't have a little brother, that was Fernin. And yes, they are purely cosmetic.


No, no they aren't. 

So fuck the rest of your example. Look, here is an entire paragraph of those examples! Now watch me fuck them: 





Gibby said:


> Let me *FUCK*suggest th*KAR-SPLOSH*at you *SPLOOSH*try going *QUEEF QUEEF* to a range. Try out any semi-automatic hunting rifle, then try out an EVIL AR-15 if you can.*FUCK* The only difference would be that the AR-15 looks like a gun from t*SLIP*he movies, and it _may_ be a*BLIP* little more comfortable to*FUCK* hold. Then, when you get the chance, take a hunting rifle or a shotgun that happens to have no stock. Aim it at a targe*SPOSH*t, and then shoot it. You won't get a broken nose or anything, I promise.
> 
> ...


Ah, better!

Do you now understand how little fucks I care for your gun lobby debate club talking points? They change the weight and performance of a firearm. Remember, I'm not the one who makes these laws up, but I imagine the people who want certain things banned aren't also doing it because hey, one time, they saw a movie where a guy had a gun in it.

So, again, we're trying to surmise why these things are the way they are, we're explaining to you the way power understands it ... you complain about it, and than complain to us that we don't know ... so now you get childish behavior because none of you are patient. I think this is hysterical.



Gibby said:


> Scopes are also used all the time for range shooting and hunting, yeah. Suddenly putting one on an AR-15 is such a crime. And are you familiar with guns as a hobby? People love militaria so much, they like to get cosmetic guns as a compromise for rifles they're already unable to access. Why do you want to get rid of those?


I don't want to, government does.





Gibby said:


> You're the only one here exploding like an early model of a Glock 22 chambered in --


Oh _shutup._


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi, If you're going to bitch and moan on a debate thread and spout crap and then claim you don't care for someone's counter-points, maybe you could, like, completely step out of debates on FAF since there's literally no point to your posting other than to act like a shithead? You've already had your arse handed to you a couple times already, and now you're just reduced to this toys-out-of-the-pram act.

Be more like Term, at least.


----------



## Tango (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> So fuck the rest of your example. Look, here is an entire paragraph of those examples! Now watch me fuck them: Ah, better!
> 
> Do you now understand how little fucks I care for your gun lobby debate club talking points? They change the weight and performance of a firearm. Remember, I'm not the one who makes these laws up, but I imagine the people who want certain things banned aren't also doing it because hey, one time, they saw a movie where a guy had a gun in it.
> 
> So, again, we're trying to surmise why these things are the way they are, we're explaining to you the way power understands it ... you complain about it, and than complain to us that we don't know ... so now you get childish behavior because none of you are patient. I think this is hysterical.



God damn I love your open mindedness! <3 <3 <3

As far as your spazzy horseshit about all the aftermarket crap you're spewing about it reducing crime is laughable since most crime is committed by hand guns. Also quit trying to pretend you're playing Devils advocate by saying you don't want to but the government does. Pass that buck.


Wow, you people crack me up. Stay classy, FAF!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> You don't _require_ a barrel shroud to handle the Tec-9, it's just a little extra so you can hold it like a very small rifle if you felt like it, but other than that, it's typically held like any old pistol. All pistols with the exception of revolvers and some sporting semiautomatics have the slide all the way down the barrel so if you were to grab the gun by the slide you wouldn't burn your hand, much like proper barrel shrouds. Besides, if the Tec-9 if of such a bulky, wierd, inefficient design, then why ban it?



"Being able to hold the weapon like a very small rifle" coupled with "20-round or more magazine" sounds like an assault weapon to me.  Keep in mind the shroud Tec-9 was one of the variants of the Tec-9 available to the public.  And given the design of the weapon itself it speaks to it being held as a "very small rifle" or rather the sub-machine gun it was emulating, offering the user a grip option that isn't commonly associated with pistols and feasibly offers better comfort and ability to effectively switch between targets.  The design of the weapon is very much inefficient for civilian use for the very reason that it's designed for military and police use (and I'm not talking about patrol officers, I'm talking SWAT and other raid teams).  The only reason why it came to the civilian market is because no military or police outfit gave Interdynamic a contract to mass produce the weapon and they decided to go commercial by making a civilian semi-automatic model, which inevitably was bought legally by criminals who illegally modified it to fire in full-auto.  They then offered a redesigned version to combat the ease of turning the weapon fully auto, but at it's heart the weapon is clearly a close-quarters assault weapon by its design.



> Sure, you have the magazine capacity issue, but that's more of an aftermarket thing. I'm sure everyone here knows the Glock range of pistols, they're extremely popular in the US for home defense, target shooting, and police use, they're one of the most common handguns there that also features a lot in popular culture. It's still legal and not considered an assault weapon despite the manufacture of magazines that can hold a huge amount of ammunition ranging from about 32 to 100.



Except a pistol holding a 32 to 100 round magazine once again is extremely impractical for something such as conceal carry or even just basic holstering of a weapon.  I mean just look at the C-Mag you're referencing.  It's a novelty, one that serves absolutely zero practical purpose for real-world application.  And before I hear the "BUT THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF WE OWN AND DO THAT DON'T HAVE PRACTICAL, ABSOLUTE NEEDS FOR" I'll bet a good deal of those things don't offer the opportunity for someone to go on a large scale rampage to indiscriminately kill 100 people, one for each bullet before having to pause to reload.



> I don't think such a restriction is bad for home defense purposes only. But you have to consider that guns are a legitimate hobby also. Some countries enable people to have guns that are regulated in such a manner, but you can obtain licenses for collecting purposes. I'm not one of the people who view registration/regulation as "omg nazi gubmint taking my gurns", I think it has some great reasoning behind it. But look at all those history buffs, hobbyists, sport shooters - they are a minority, but should we let them suffer? If a gun ban passes, it makes criminals out of people who just have an interest in guns as objects.



What does the hobby have to do with the definition of an assault weapon?  A sporting shotgun usually is double-barreled, not exactly an effective design if it wanted to be an assault weapon but perfect for Trap/Skeet/even home defense.  Bolt-action rifles don't tend to lend themselves towards the assault weapon category because of their small magazines and the aforementioned bolt-action cycling of rounds.  You'll also notice these typically don't have pistol grips.  Sporting pistols tend to have ammo-capacities around 8 or so rounds.

Again, if someone wants to go out and shoot cool military-style weapons I've no issue if someone wanted to set up something at a shooting range or start their own where they have ex-military/police/or some other trained professionals/experts staff the place to allow the general public to have that experience for a fee.  I personally don't feel though that the public should have the ability to purchase and own those kinds of arms which would meet the definition of an "assault weapon."  As for the "collection" bit I don't see why they can't get decommissioned weapons to satisfy their craving to say "yeah I have an M-16/Thompson Sub-Machine gun in my gun closet".  



> So perhaps bans may not be helpful in this case? So many people support a  ban, and so many people do not, different states are different. A nationwide ban doesn't sound like  it'd go down well at all, but I think the gun-lovers out there would  have to open up to the idea of regulation, gun registration, more  extensive background checks, and so on.



A nationwide ban already happened, and the main reason why it was allowed to expire was because we were still living in a Bush-era United States still living off of the fear generated from a post-9/11 nation who was just a year removed from starting up a second war in Iraq.  The ban didn't expire because we suddenly thought guns were more safe, it's because a good deal of us believed we were about to go to war on our home turf by some secret muslim invasion.  The ban was a victim of the times more than public policy.  And now we're coming full circle when we've realized that the biggest threat to our safety isn't some dude living in a cave on the other side of the world but our fellow Americans.

Background checks and stopping the near lawlessness of private gun sales is a step.  But if for some reason the system fails, I'd rather not allow a legal entity the opportunity to mistakenly hand over an assault weapon to someone who's going to fly off the handle and kill multiple people indiscriminately.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Bambi, If you're going to bitch and moan on a debate thread and spout crap and then claim you don't care for someone's counter-points, maybe you could, like, completely step out of debates on FAF since there's literally no point to your posting other than to act like a shithead? You've already had your arse handed to you a couple times already, and now you're just reduced to this toys-out-of-the-pram act.
> 
> Be more like Term, at least.


You know what your problem is, Gibby? Short term memory.

Well before any of this ever happened, you were already painting your oh-so-beloved Term as an idiot, whether directly or indirectly; this is of course well before you joined your peers in bashing his position. As soon as I explained that after market parts can change the performance of a firearm, and maybe why power does the things it does relative to say, banning bayonet attachments, Tango jumps in supporting you with his nonsensical diatribe.

And so far, all of the pro-gunners in here, all they have effectively done is turn this debate into one giant King of the Hill match in being able to define folding stocks as just cosmetic, and scopes as just ... cosmetic. You want us to get frustrated, you want us to act immature, well, maybe at least *I*, maybe *I* am because of the way I've been treated.

Also, I don't care if someone hands me my ass on a plate, because as I've said, your gun, debate-club talking points ... don't matter to me. It's like debating the difference between .45 and 9mm, .223 and 5.56; at some point, the differences become negligible, when the point is power wants to accomplish something. Now can you ask why they want to ban some things? Can you answer those questions? Can you see maybe why they want to get rid of something?

... yes, maybe?


----------



## kyfox (Jan 15, 2013)

I believe an assault weapon is a gun that is black, or any gun that they use in action movies. It really a subjective term. Guns are guns


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

kyfox said:


> I believe an assault weapon is a gun that is black, or any gun that they use in action movies. It really a subjective term. Guns are guns


Power needs the classification because there's a perverse, cultural worship of these kinds of weapons. Being able to prevent a mass shooting with a fully automatic ... whatever, matters in order to be able to lessen the possibility that such things will occur later on.


----------



## Toshabi (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> I'm up for a civil debate, but if you disagree with me then you're a fucking idiot who is mad and I don't even care about what you think so HAH! THAT'S my counter point! U mad!





Yup.



Bambi said:


> You know what your problem is, Gibby? Short term memory.
> 
> Well before any of this ever happened, you were already painting your oh-so-beloved Term as an idiot, whether directly or indirectly; this is of course well before you joined your peers in bashing his position.




I strongly suggest looking up the word "Debate" in a dictionary. 



The real irony is that the only person who said anything that could've been taken as an insult towards schmuck was Fernin. Whose got short term memory now? BAZINGA!


----------



## Tango (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> You know what your problem is, Gibby? Short term memory.
> 
> Well before any of this ever happened, you were already painting your oh-so-beloved Term as an idiot, whether directly or indirectly; this is of course well before you joined your peers in bashing his position. As soon as I explained that after market parts can change the performance of a firearm, and maybe why power does the things it does relative to say, banning bayonet attachments, Tango jumps in supporting you with his nonsensical diatribe.
> 
> And so far, all of the pro-gunners in here, all they have effectively done is turn this debate into one giant King of the Hill match in being able to define folding stocks as just cosmetic, and scopes as just ... cosmetic. You want us to get frustrated, you want us to act immature, well, maybe at least *I*, maybe *I* am because of the way I've been treated.



That's because Term is citing sources and examples. You just throwing pewp at the thread and seeing what will stick. 



Bambi said:


> Also, I don't care if someone hands me my ass on a plate, because as I've said, your gun, debate-club talking points ... don't matter to me.



Then why caw so much about it if you don't give a shit? As far as you're expamle of debating the difference between .45 and 9mm or .223 or 5.56 is that if you use the wrong one in your weapon it'll fuck it up so yeah, that debate is kinda relevant. 

<3 you too.


Tango


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Toshabi said:


> I strongly suggest looking up the word "Debate" in a dictionary.


Why, something change and I wasn't informed?


Toshabi said:


> *The real irony is that the only person who said anything that could've been taken as an insult towards schmuck was Fenrir.* Whose got short term memory now? BAZINGA!


I'll leave that up to Schmuck.

You just ... Bazinga in the corner.





Tango said:


> That's because Term is citing sources and examples.  You just throwing pewp at the thread and seeing what will stick.


Why lack of "sources" wasn't an issue then ... suppose suddenly  it is now, when equally, you've also been at a deficit of sources.

BTW,  I can cite sources ... about all the gun-club, debate bullshit, but is  that really necessary when you guys intrinsically know this already, but  are trying to defeat that information by pretending by virtue of the  fact that you've used firearms, you know better than say ... everyone else on  the matter? 


Tango said:


> Then why caw so much about it if you don't give a  shit?


Because when it's been brought up that the assault weapon  ban exists to get rid of things that would make it easier for potential shooters to  kill civilians, potential bystanders, and members of law enforcement,  you neglect those points and substitute your sarcasm.

Clever, but  it's not going to keep. 





Tango said:


> As far as you're expamle  of debating the difference between .45 and 9mm or .223 or 5.56 is that  if you use the wrong one in your weapon it'll fuck it up so yeah, that  debate is kinda relevant.


Except that again, my point was: power  wants to accomplish something.

That something is, gee, reduce the  likelihood that a potential shooter has every advantage in a rampage.  Or at least, advantages that allow him to kill more than he should be  able to. And that ... the assault weapons ban is the answer to that  question, and here's what it supposes these upgrades do, and why it  attempts to get rid of them.


----------



## Toshabi (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> I'll leave that up to Schmuck.



So that makes the hissy fit that you threw about Gibby pointless and without base. Glad we got that straightened out. 




Anyways, you can continue on with your tantrum. I'm quite intrigued to see more rage posts from you.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> ...



K I'm gonna keep this short and still try address everything -

I wasn't actually aware of what you're saying about the Tec-9 and what surrounded it, thanks for that tidbit. 

You may have missed the part where I said I don't support high-cap magazines, unless you're speaking to everyone in general and not just me - I think guns should keep their standard capacities, e.g. 15-round old-timey M14s. I think that having access to these high-capacity magazines is the ridiculous part, especially these C-Mags. I wouldn't oppose the gubmint deciding to get completely rid of them.
The hobby doesn't matter about the definition itself, but the hobby matters to the collectors. The collectors are actually a minority and happen to be very wealthy and can afford some very impressive gear that is really hard for the average joe to get their hands on. Then there's the people who like to buy WW2 weapons that are rare, valuable, all that jazz so they can use them for target shooting but then they won't be able to due to the ban. I have little to say about the modern-military "tacticool" guns as I'm biased to way more traditional, vintage guns. And those modern guns are the biggest offenders in gun crime, soooo...



Bambi said:


> You know what your problem is, Gibby? Short term memory.
> 
> Well before any of this ever happened, you were already painting your oh-so-beloved Term as an idiot, whether directly or indirectly; this is of course well before you joined your peers in bashing his position. As soon as I explained that after market parts can change the performance of a firearm, and maybe why power does the things it does relative to say, banning bayonet attachments, Tango jumps in supporting you with his nonsensical diatribe.
> 
> ...



Hold up, you're getting a little personal over here - Term and I didn't agree with most things, but I actually do respect him. I don't recall ever parading around recently painting as some kind of idiot or asshole, either. Disagree with him? Sure. Do I actively dislike him? _Lolno_. I might have done in the past, but...it's called the past for a reason.

So I actually like Term. We're not buddies or anything, but hey.

Also lol @ you calling out Tango for being nonsensical.

And yes, this is pretty much a pro-gun thread, gun-neutral at the least. And yes, you are acting immature, you are frustrated, and we haven't treated you any differently. You're just acting like a mongoloid for no reason. We didn't _ask _for you to post and we're not asking you to stay either.

I could debate a bit more about the idea of bans and regulations, but holy shit, those have been done to death and frankly I'm sick of repeating it every time some nutcase manages to snap. And okay, you're anti-gun. Okay, how nice for you. You don't want to debate? You don't want to acknowledge counter-points?

_Then get out of the thread_. You're only here to cause trouble.


----------



## Tango (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Why, something change and I wasn't informed?
> I'll leave that up to Schmuck.
> 
> You just ... Bazinga in the corner.Why lack of "sources" wasn't an issue then ... suppose suddenly  it is now, when equally, you've also been at a deficit of sources.
> ...



Then they will just use something else to rampage with. 

Your Current High Scores:

9/11: 2,996 killed with airplanes and box cutters.
Oklahoma City bombing:168 using a Ryder truck and a cow shit bomb.
Bath School Disaster: 45 using dynamite.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Hold up, you're getting a little personal over here - Term and I didn't agree with most things, but I actually do respect him. I don't recall ever parading around recently painting as some kind of idiot or asshole, either. Disagree with him? Sure. Do I actively dislike him? _Lolno_.


Sure, but look at how you used him back on page 2.

What was that quote? "At least be like Term." Why, why's that? Because for a while there, all of the pro-gun people were sandbagging each other and hoping to intellectually corner him. Now you're pretending like you can establish by way of passive agreement that in all actuality, you've all been getting along. I think I saw a few points he wanted you to notice, but you've passed them on, and when other people noticed them, they got a pretty nasty tone with him.



Gibby said:


> Also lol @ you calling out Tango for being nonsensical.


Well, he is. 



Gibby said:


> And yes, this is pretty much a pro-gun thread, gun-neutral at the least.


Yep.

We knew that already. No, please, don't make it anymore obvious. :grin: 





Gibby said:


> And yes, you are acting immature, you are frustrated, and we haven't treated you any differently. You're just acting like a mongoloid for no reason. We didn't _ask _for you to post and we're not asking you to stay either.


Waaagghhh!

Somebody is throwing my edgy, play-at-words bullshit right back at me. You're damn right I am acting like a mongoloid. If nobody is going to give a shit, and try the whole "edgy teenager morality play" fixated on defending gun owners from the assault weapons ban, than I really, really don't give a shit about my behavior so long as you don't listen to common sense.

Gee, you going to listen for a moment? You ready? Can you handle what I am about to say? Please say yes.



Gibby said:


> I could debate a bit more about the idea of bans and regulations, but holy shit, those have been done to death and frankly I'm sick of repeating it every time some nutcase manages to snap. And okay, you're anti-gun.


No, you don't want to debate the idea of bans and regulations because oh fuck, that's exactly what this thread has been about.

Sure, you enjoy that. 





Gibby said:


> Okay, how nice for you. You don't want to debate?


Ruff ruff, master! Ruff! 





Gibby said:


> You don't want to acknowledge counter-points?


Ruff, master! Throw the Frisbee!

I'm not a dog, fucking talk to me.





Tango said:


> Then they will just use something else to rampage with.
> 
> Your Current High Scores:
> 
> ...


Talk this nonsense to power, see how far it gets you.

We  already know the go around of, "they'll just use something else". Hmm,  maybe we're trying to balance ourselves on the cat-walk of  constitutionality versus batshit? 

Sound familiar?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Sure, but look at how you used him back on page 2.
> 
> What was that quote? "At least be like Term." Why, why's that? Because  for a while there, all of the pro-gun people were sandbagging each other  and hoping to intellectually corner him. Now you're pretending like you  can establish by way of passive agreement that in all actuality, you've  all been getting along. I think I saw a few points he wanted you to  notice, but you've passed them on, and when other people noticed them,  they got a pretty nasty tone with him.




You mean, uh

Uses sources? Is generally quite civil? thinks before he posts? actually makes sure he knows what he's talking about before he posts? Doesn't throw insults around and act like a bambi?

I'm a guy who supports seeking an alternative to solving gun crime than banning/restricting guns, Term, not so, as far as I see. Fair enough, but there's no reason we can't be civil, is there?

I don't really view debate threads as a game of intellectually cornering someone, in fact when Term or similar posters provide some good info that is definitely true, well then I'm glad to know something new. Hooray.

I'm gonna ignore the rest of your post because it's ridiculous.


----------



## Tango (Jan 15, 2013)

Oh yes. Please continue, Bambi


But since we're in the Ban-wagon let's not stop at assault weapons!

Let's go for booze, cars, and the prescription meds you might or should be on.


Just saying!


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> You mean, uh
> 
> Uses sources? Is generally quite civil? thinks before he posts? actually makes sure he knows what he's talking about before he posts? Doesn't throw insults around and act like a bambi?


Except the fact that while he's being civil, you're not giving him an inch.

Especially when he's right. And that when I've been civil, because I was being civil before I just said "fuck your bumpkin shit", it's been discounted. So, why the appeal to civility when you don't give a shit anyway as long as your the assholes getting the last pro-gun nutter shot in? Don't even play the victim when you know you've precipitated the environment.

Here's what I'm trying to say:

You don't have to like what the government does, but when the police, the FBI, and their military advisers tell them: "Yes, this is indeed what x does, it is up to you and the american taxpayer whether or not to get rid of it", they're going to err on the side of that information and make a decision that reflects that knowledge.

So, you're facing an assault weapons ban, and you don't like it. Alright, fine -- write your congressman.

We've already told you how the law sees, or might see, a certain ... "cosmetic" upgrade. Now it's up to you to take that information and use it in a that benefits your position. I don't care if I'm your punching bag, I just want to get it through your thick skulls that how you were originally trying to tackle this issue wasn't going to work in the first place.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Except the fact that while he's being civil, you're not giving him an inch.



You're not really following that closely are you? When he's been right, I didn't counter-point, cos... he's right. Good stuff to know. I even acknowledged him being correct about something in one or two places also, and actually agreed with him on a couple of things.



> Especially when he's right. And that when I've been civil, because I was being civil before I just said "fuck your bumpkin shit", it's been discounted. So, why the appeal to civility when you don't give a shit anyway as long as your the assholes getting the last pro-gun nutter shot in?
> 
> Here's what I'm trying to say:
> 
> ...



Yes, you were being "civil", but you were also being woefully wrong, seemingly refusing to read or even process any information. It has to be given back to you, and then you go insane. You're embarassing yourself at this point.

And no, I won't write my congressman because I don't even live in the USA.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> You're not really following that closely are you? When he's been right, I didn't counter-point, cos... he's right. Good stuff to know. I even acknowledged him being correct about something in one or two places also, and actually agreed with him on a couple of things.


In one or two places ... but we're still negotiating the issue of how power sees the assault weapons ban.

He's right in more than just a few places, remember, it's the idea that assault weapons are the trophy in the minds of batshits. That's why they need grenade launcher attachments, collapsible stocks, shrouds, etc., because it's all about paramilitary fantasies of overthrowing the government, or murdering your classmates. And they don't like it when power says "no".


Gibby said:


> Yes, you were being "civil", but you were also being woefully wrong, seemingly refusing to read or even process any information.


That's a load of bullshit.

But you're right, none of this matters, because ...


Gibby said:


> And no, I won't write my congressman because I don't even live in the USA.


Thank you, for being a pointless little shit.

Next time, if you don't want my "insanity switch" flipped, don't flippantly pretend that your shit doesn't stink either.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> In one or two places ... but we're still negotiating the issue of how power sees the assault weapons ban.
> 
> He's right in more than just a few places, remember, it's the idea that assault weapons are the trophy in the minds of batshits. That's why they need grenade launcher attachments, collapsible stocks, shrouds, etc., because it's all about paramilitary fantasies of overthrowing the government, or murdering your classmates. And they don't like it when power says "no".



And I still want an explanation on how mounts for grenade launchers that are completely illegal and inaccessible, adjustable stock for people of different sizes, and a necessary safety feature that is present in literally every gun (it comes in forms other than shrouds) are deadly.



> That's a load of bullshit.
> 
> But you're right, none of this matters, because ...



If you say so.



> Thank you, for being a pointless little shit.



Wah-wah, someone who doesn't live in my country has an opinion on it. I guess reading the "Location: Eng-a-land" was too much to ask.



> Next time, if you don't want my "insanity switch" flipped...



edgy

Anyway, since you're in such a bad mood I'm going to go to bed soon and when I come back from work tommorow I'll carry on, unless e.g. you got suspended for doing something else stupid in that timeframe.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> And I still want an explanation on how mounts for grenade launchers that are completely illegal and inaccessible, adjustable stock for people of different sizes, and a necessary safety feature that is present in literally every gun (it comes in forms other than shrouds) are deadly.


You mean to tell me you were entirely ignorant of the fact that grenade launchers are deadly? You also mean to tell me, oh-so-prideful-nutter, that you didn't know that an adjustable stock allows a shooter to make his firearm "tighter", so he can use it in close quarters, turning a rifle, without changing the caliber, into a carbine-esque weapon that he can move with more effectively, or that an adjustable stock also allows him to correct how the original weapon balances in his hand, therefore giving him an edge over someone using stock parts?

Seriously, you just don't know these things? ... and "grenade launcher" isn't obvious?


----------



## Aetius (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Thank you, for being a pointless little shit.



I guess it must be cool again to be really edgy.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> You don't honestly know that grenade launchers are deadly? You don't honestly know that an adjustable stock allows a shooter to make his firearm "tighter", so he can use it in close quarters, or that an adjustable stock allows him to correct how the original weapon balances in his hand?
> 
> Seriously, you just don't know these things? ... and "grenade launcher" isn't obvious?



And I guess it was a little too fucking difficult to read the part where grenade launchers are ILLEGAL and INACCESSIBLE to civilians, and they're acting against the FACILITY for attaching the grenade launcher which is useless otherwise.

And yeah, collapsible stocks are still so evil.

You know what, lets ban them!

We should also ban the Crickett rifles and every civilian pistol, especially the small ones. They are small and compact, _thus much more deadly_.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> And I guess it was a little too fucking difficult to read the part where grenade launchers are ILLEGAL and INACCESSIBLE to civilians, and they're acting against the FACILITY for attaching the grenade launcher which is useless otherwise.


Also like it was a little too fucking difficult to remember writing ...





Gibby said:


> *And I still want an explanation on how mounts for  grenade launchers that are completely illegal and inaccessible*,  adjustable stock for people of different sizes, and a necessary safety  feature that is present in literally every gun (it comes in forms other  than shrouds) *are deadly*.


... this?

I answered this question. They don't need attachments for grenade launchers because if they get one ... they'll want a grenade launcher. Hate that logic, that's what power believes.


Gibby said:


> And yeah, collapsible stocks are still so evil.


Nobody is saying they're evil; that's superstition. We're saying that a shooter has a very big advantage when using them, hence why power questions it's necessity in the hands of civilian ownership.



Gibby said:


> You know what, lets ban them!
> 
> We should also ban the Crickett rifles and every civilian pistol, especially the small ones. They are small and compact, _thus much more deadly_.


Flipped your insanity switch too, huh?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Also like it was a little too fucking difficult to remember writing ...
> ... this?



What?

"MOUNTS for grenade launchers"? _

Oh my god, Bambi._



> Nobody is saying their evil; that's superstition. We're saying that a shooter has a very big advantage when using them, hence why power questions it's necessity.



Sarcasm, sonny. 

I'm gonna repeat myself again.

Go to a local range, find someone who has an AR-15 with a collapsible stock, or go to a gun shop.

Ask if you could try out the collapsible stock for yourself.

You will notice that the stock doesn't even collapse anywhere near as far as you think it does, and at it's minimal point it would be nearly impossible to shoot comfortably unless you're a five-year-old girl.



> Flipped your insanity switch too, huh?



Does anyone else here find it a little bit odd to see the pro-gun posters here as the ones _not_ talking like nutcases for once?


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> What?
> 
> "MOUNTS for grenade launchers"? _
> 
> Oh my god, Bambi._


Yes, mounts for grenade launchers.

Oh my god, Gibby, do you get it yet? Why does a civilian need a mount for a grenade launcher? Explain to me the necessity if these are purely cosmetic items that do nothing for the firearm, or the shooter?



Gibby said:


> You will notice that the stock doesn't even collapse anywhere near as far as you think it does, and at it's minimal point it would be nearly impossible to shoot comfortably unless you're a five-year-old girl.


I love how "collapsible" in "collapsible stock" is minimal as soon as he admits that it ... collapses. Meaning it shortens, meaning that the weapon, instead of extending it's profile, becomes smaller and more compact.

Thank you, that's exactly why power is against them.


Gibby said:


> Does anyone else here find it a little bit odd to see the pro-gun posters here as the ones _not_ talking like nutcases for once?


You know, sometimes it pays for someone to hold up a mirror. Don't try this stupid bullshit with me, you could've acknowledged what people were saying early on instead of playing faux debate club with your stupid AR15 worship.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> You may have missed the part where I said I don't support high-cap magazines, unless you're speaking to everyone in general and not just me - I think guns should keep their standard capacities, e.g. 15-round old-timey M14s. I think that having access to these high-capacity magazines is the ridiculous part, especially these C-Mags. I wouldn't oppose the gubmint deciding to get completely rid of them.



I didn't miss it.  I was making a general point about the ridiculousness of high-capacity magazines and the pro-gun lobby that cries for "home/personal defense" and holds something like the C-Mag as something worth saving.  It's possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen, especially when we've seen in the past on these very forums members who've posted as "pro-gun" make such a big deal about how "guns are a scare tactic against criminals/responsible owners go for one-shot, one-kill" both of these statements not lending themselves to the ability to "spray and pray" thanks to a 30-100 round magazine.



> The hobby doesn't matter about the definition itself, but the hobby matters to the collectors. The collectors are actually a minority and happen to be very wealthy and can afford some very impressive gear that is really hard for the average joe to get their hands on. Then there's the people who like to buy WW2 weapons that are rare, valuable, all that jazz so they can use them for target shooting but then they won't be able to due to the ban.



So?  I'm sorry but "those poor wealthy gun collectors" isn't a very compelling argument when I stack them up with 30-people killed in mass shootings in December ALONE.  Here's where the emotion will come into this debate: you seriously expect me to sympathize more with a guy who has a hard-on for shooting a Sturmgewher 44, then say the over 100 people who've died in 2012 alone mostly due to weapons that were bought legally and were either used by the person who purchased the weapon or someone they knew in a mass shooting scenario?

By the way, the ban would only really have to do with light machine guns and sub-machine guns from WWII.  Weapons such as the American M1 Garand, German Geweher 41, British Lee Enfield, Soviet SKS and others would be unaffected because of a combination of lack of pistol grips/detachable magazines/magazine size/etc. which do not meet the specifications as were outlined in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 which is used as a base-standard for most on the anti-gun side.  I'm sorry if I'm not moved by the plight of the old rich gun collector who won't be able to get a functioning MG-42.



> And those modern guns are the biggest offenders in gun crime, soooo...



Which is primarily what I'm concerned about and what I've been talking about for the past three pages now.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Yes, mounts for grenade launchers.
> 
> Oh my god, Gibby, do you get it yet? Why does a civilian need a mount for a grenade launcher? Explain to me the necessity if these are purely cosmetic items that do nothing for the firearm, or the shooter?



They don't. They don't need it. But because of those grenade launchers being completely unavailable to civilians, they're never going to put a grenade launcher on it.

Do you know what a grenade launcher mount actually looks like?

It's usually a bumpy row of ridges made of plastic that you can find on the gun. Just that. Bumpy ridges. It's either that or a spigot on the end of the barrel that can be used to attach a grenade to it, a particular model of grenade that is rarely used _anywhere_ today and has not been used by the Americans since they stopped using the M1 Garand. If you could SOMEHOW find one of those grenades, the people who would buy it would use it as an ornament. They'd usually be fake, or deactivated.



> I love how "collapsible" in "collapsible stock" is minimal as soon as he admits that it ... collapses. Meaning it shortens, meaning that the weapon, instead of extending it's profile, becomes smaller and more compact.



When did I deny that it collapses? An AR-15 is a full size rifle. This is one with the stock completely removed. That bit on the back? Can't remove that, it's necessary for the internals. It's not really that much shorter at all. It's still a full-size rifle. If you could conceal that or use it in a way that's any more effective than a pistol in close quarters, I'm gonna wonder how the fuck you did it.



> Thank you, that's exactly why power is against them.
> You know, sometimes it pays for someone to hold up a mirror. Don't try this stupid bullshit with me, you could've acknowledged what people were saying early on instead of playing faux debate club with your stupid AR15 worship.



Yeah, but people = you, which isn't saying much.

Anyway, I'm more of a vintage rifle kind of guy. AR-15s look ugly to me, and they're also extremely expensive.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Yes, you were being "civil", but you were also being woefully wrong, seemingly refusing to read or even process any information. It has to be given back to you, and then you go insane. You're embarassing yourself at this point.



I'm going to make this abundantly clear to you all: Bambi made a point-by-point post addressing how certain attachments and features on a weapon aren't simply "cosmetic" options, which is a shitty phrase that tries to put the gun's paint job in the same category as being able to switch between Semi-auto and Full-auto.

After the 14-year-old responses of Tango giggling and your "lol lrn2gun" comment which offered absolutely zilch in defending your point or countering his, you then decide to get on his case about not being civil when you couldn't offer him the same courtesy you showed me.

Everyone, unfuck yourselves this instant or the thread will be locked.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 15, 2013)

Bambi, calm the hell down. You don't need to go around insulting people for having different opinions than you. 

Same goes for everyone else too, Bambi has just been the loudest offender. 

Infraction party for anyone who continues to ad hominem and flame other users over a silly little meaningless debate over how to define assault weapons and whether that definition is meaningful. 



On topic, my definition: Combination of high fire rate (not necessarily automatic) and large magazine size. That's it. Anything without both of those isn't an assault weapon in my eyes, with exception to semi-auto shotguns which I consider assault weapons.

EDIT: Also what Term said since he posted while I was typing. Same gist.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 15, 2013)

You know what, I have nothing else to say to this point.

I am backing out of this now.

EDIT: from original post


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 15, 2013)

deep thought

would you consider the penetrator a sexual assault weapon?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> When did I deny that it collapses? An AR-15 is a full size rifle. This is one with the stock completely removed. That bit on the back? Can't remove that, it's necessary for the internals. It's not really that much shorter at all. It's still a full-size rifle. If you could conceal that or use it in a way that's any more effective than a pistol in close quarters, I'm gonna wonder how the fuck you did it.



Here's a weapon that was used in a mass shooting by me: The WASR-10.  It's a Romanian knock-off of the AK-47 that can only be fired in semi-auto.  Unlike the AR-15, the WASR can have a collapsible or folding stock which reduces its size to be more maneuverable for close quarters and likely something which assholes like this will think it's their right to scare the shit out of everyday people at a supermarket because "IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE THIS.  LOOK HOW SAFE EVERYONE IS BECAUSE OF ME."  So when considering assault weapons with collapsible or folding stocks, we're not just talking about the AR-15 here.  There are plenty of other weapons which meet the definition.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 15, 2013)

I never would've pinned you as the type to commit a mass shooting, Term.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 15, 2013)

Jashwa said:


> I never would've pinned you as the type to commit a mass shooting, Term.



:V  "Near me".


----------



## Fernin (Jan 16, 2013)

Wow, I go to bed and by the time I get up this threads a burning blaze. Then again, I did honestly expect this, so eh, whatever. Replies time! And since Bambi and Schmuck both replied I'll address each as necessary. Also, at @Schmuck, I was tired and bitchy, so I will apologize for being rude; I will not however apologize for believing you're an idiot.


EDIT: Since some of the people here seem to not understand, I thought I'd post what the defined FUNCTION of sportsman rifle, and an assault rifle are. An assault weapon MUST, irregardless of the source of legislation/politics MUST be capable of automatic or burst fire. A sportsman rifle like the AR-15 does NOT have that capacity, it fires ONE round per pull of the trigger, and thus can NOT FUNCTION as an assault weapon, irregardless of how it may LOOK.

-1-
Bambi: You are incorrect, if somebody is set out to shoot people they're going to be able to do the job just as well with or without a grip, a forward grip has NO practical effect when it comes to weapon control in a semi-auto application. I don't care if you're mil or ex-mil, that doesn't make you a messiah of gun knowledge and handling, further more if so you SHOULD know just as many soldiers are just as effective as forgrips as without, and if a soldier who prefers a fore-grip is given a rifle without one there is NO EFFECTIVE CHANGE in his performance.

Schmuck: You've provided me nothing but an opinionated non-answer, tell me HOW the function is changed, not how you THINK it effects shooter performance. What about one pull of the trigger discharging ONE round at a time (because this is th FUNCTION of these rifles) is changed by the addition of ANY attachment.

-2-
Bambi: The effect of a flash suppressor on recoil and performance of a gun is so minuscule so as to be virtually nonexistent, you sound alot like you're taking your weapon handling knowledge from the BF3 attachment stats here. As for the advanage it gives a shooter, it hardly matters unless you seem to believe the police or the people being shot at will only identify a shooter by the already tiny, fast, and already difficult to see muzzle flash. Like if there's a flash hider they'll somehow miss the dude carrying the big ass rifle.

Schmuck: Addressed in "1".

-3-
Bambi: You didn't say anything I didn't, I already said in my post you can adjust the length of the rifle to suit the shooter, so all you've given me is same kind of non-reply I always get about stocks. There is still no reason they should classify anything as an 'assault' weapon as they have no effect on the FUNCTION of the rifle.

Schmuck: Addressed in "1".

-4-
Babmi: You provide another non answer, everything you listed can be done just as well with a stock rifle, as nothing about the FUNCTION of the rifle has changed; though you do touch on a couple important things here. The idea that adding a big grip sticking off the front of the gun makes it easier to hide is stupid as hell, however I do agree things such as the Slide Fire stocks SHOULD be banned as they DO change the effective function of the rifle by making it functionally automatic. However a plain fore-grip does NOT change the function or make bump firing any easier than if you'd held the rifle without a grip. It's also worth noting that trying to associate bumpfire stocks with the foregrips is dishonest and disgusting tactic in this kind of debate, you're trying to add validity to an argument by associating one thing with something else entirely unrelated. -- Your arguments against a shroud are weak and not a single one of them would genuinely effect a confrontation between a shooter and police, you're making a mountain out of molehill traits. Then again that is pretty standard for the people trying to justify these crap excuses. -- I never advocated bayonet lugs, however the effect is pretty insignificant as if the shooter runs out of ammo he could have a knife to use anyway, nothing changes with or without the lug. -- Where exactly did I advocate grenade launchers? Really? Come on dude, further more since when was the last time a civilian could GET a grenade launcher anyways. In this argument it's a non issue. -- Your folding stock arguments are weak as well, if the shooter was moving into a house full of other people with guns then sure, I could see a performance gain, but in the feared shooting that these things would supposedly take part in they'd have no practical impact on the outcome.

Schmuck: What you offer me is an opinion, not an objective FACT. The weapon's FUNCTION has not changed.

-5-
Schmuck: Refer to my opening of this post. Further more you DID make an incredibly stupid comment...

-6-
Schmuck: What you're asking for are biased, political definitions. The mechanical definition of an assault weapon from anyone you could ask is always the same, automatic fire. One you peel through all the crap and opinions and get down to the base FUNCTION that something MUST have to be an assault weapon, the only constant answer, and often times the ONLY answer is automatic fire.



-7-
Bambi: And yet their effect on performance is so inconsiderable that they don't really change the effectiveness of the weapon. Hmmmmm....

Schmuck: "Answer in such a way as it pleases me and my viewpoints or shut up." - I got a good laugh out of this, as it's exactly what YOU do; I do believe trying to call that on me about amounts to the pot calling the kettle black. You also missed the point of my examples with the car, in that the changes to performance are so minuscule they don't change anything at all, nor alter the fundamental function of the gun/car. You missed the point entirely, whether from natural or willful stupidity though I'm not sure. And on the note of stupidity, that is the reason so many gun people get so pissed is because the arguments being levered against them and their guns are so illogical and are often outright fallacies. It's largely in line with why people who debate religion get so pissed about the "prove to me god DOESN'T exist" argument because one side of the debate is forced to defend itself against an unfactual an illogical negative. Further more the nonstop strawmen used by the antigun people also tend to piss folks off quite a bit.


Also, before I forget, I think everyone participating in this thread should watch this video, it's got some interesting information in it relevant to both sides of this debate. http://www.popmodal.com/video/15800/Amidst-the-noise


----------



## Osiris the jackal (Jan 16, 2013)

All weapons that fire a round of .22 caliber and up that holds a mag of 7 rounds or more can be classified as an assault weapon, the reason for this is because a ten round mag in a 9 mm colt or other pistol can discharge all ten rounds in about 5 to 10 seconds depending on the persons trigger finger.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 16, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Also, before I forget, I think everyone participating in this thread should watch this video, it's got some interesting information in it relevant to both sides of this debate. http://www.popmodal.com/video/15800/Amidst-the-noise


Yes, we get the gun-club, point-by-point analysis of why you think your knowledge is superior. 

Muzzle breaks are designed to reduce recoil. Popular mechanics even covered the issue in 1932, and the muzzle break has been the staple of recoil compensation technology since. So, nice try with your insults, but the information is right there available for you to google.

Remember however Fernin, that the issue is, again, that government wants these things banned because it understands what *you* don't: that having them on a weapon can deliver to any potential, spree shooter, a big advantage in an attack. I could quote mine data, I could sit here and drop link after link, it wouldn't help because you've failed to understand that the problem started the moment you refused to sit down, and think: "Hmm, maybe this muzzle flash and extended magazine I've wanted to not be banned by the government is on their shit list because it does more than make my replica assault rifle look cool."


----------



## Ames (Jan 16, 2013)

These parameters are generally conjured by people who don't know shit about guns.  There's no use trying to make sense of them.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 16, 2013)

@Bambi: Congrats with your reply, it's stripped you of every ounce of credibility you've held. You've been presented with facts, and now that you have no leg to stand on you try to strawman me. Guess what, it doesn't work, as the evidence and facts not only don't support your conclusion, they distinctly DISPROVE it. Also, to indulge the stupidity of your post a moment longer (if only because your statement is so stupid it hurts), a flash hider (this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eRPHqoaA9...Q/CvMOzkyfH14/s1600/Vortex_G6A2-Retail.lg.jpg ) and a muzzle brake (this: http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/primary/910/910504.jpg ) are NOT the same thing, and do not even DO the same thing. I'm now quite certain you're pulling your knowledge from a video game because that's the only place I've ever seen this error presented as a fact. Further more, neither flash hider, nor a muzzle brake, would have any effect on over all performance from a small caliber (5.56x45, IE the AR-15) in semi auto fire. Hell the article you reference even makes it clear the application effected is full auto or large caliber guns. Magazine capacity further more means nothing when I can carry all the mags I want and it takes only a couple seconds to swap mags, even WITH a bullet button.

My knowledge on this subject IS superior because I present FACTS. You present nothing but opinions, and uninformed ones at that.

@JamesB: The problem is if no one DOES talk sense into them, then they screw everybody. Amusingly most of these gun laws have less to do with gun crime than they do furthering political careers. After all when less than 4% of all the gun crime in the US is attributed to so called "assault" weapons they're sure spending a lot of time, energy, and money attacking them. Something they sadly get away with and look like damned heroes for because anything that looks even vaugly like an assault rifle terrifies the ignorant and makes it easy for the politician to use them to further their own career.

Gun laws have less to do with guns and actual gun safety than they do furthering these politicians own ends.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 16, 2013)

Fernin said:


> @Bambi: Congrats with your reply, it's stripped you of every ounce of credibility you've held. You've been presented with facts, and now that you have no leg to stand on you try to strawman me.
> 
> My knowledge on this subject IS superior because I present FACTS. You present nothing but opinions, and uninformed ones at that.


You know what's terrible about all of this?

You want me to prove to you what you already know about guns -- that's stupid. Either you learn how to stop talking nonsense to power, or you can keep floating around FA declaring "victory!" while at the same time, losing your oh-so precious right to have a "cosmetic" upgrade. I can't change this now. The ball is in your court.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 16, 2013)

Bambi said:


> You know what's terrible about all of this?
> 
> You want me to prove to you what you already know about guns -- that's stupid. Either you learn how to stop talking nonsense to power, or you can keep floating around FA declaring "victory!" while at the same time, losing your oh-so precious right to have a "cosmetic" upgrade. I can't change this now. The ball is in your court.



Another strawman, but I'll indulge it. You are incorrect, my goal is to show YOU why you're incorrect. But as they say you can lead a horse to water...

Also, what the hell is "Either you learn how to stop talking nonsense to power" supposed to mean? Because you sure as heck aren't any kind of 'power' in this world.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jan 16, 2013)

Holy crap, just.... Holy crap.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 16, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Holy crap, just.... Holy crap.



?????


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jan 16, 2013)

Just saying what was supposed to be a somewhat simple debate turned into such a childish shitfest. 
This whole thread has become so cluttered with nonsense.  

Im not against you at all Fernin.  You seem like a mellow guy.  But sometimes your threads are either your way or the highway and turn into madness.  This particular one being a fine example.


----------



## Fernin (Jan 16, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Just saying what was supposed to be a somewhat simple debate turned into such a childish shitfest.
> This whole thread has become so cluttered with nonsense.
> 
> Im not against you at all Fernin.  You seem like a mellow guy.  But sometimes your threads are either your way or the highway and turn into madness.  This particular one being a fine example.



I simply don't like being told I'm wrong when I present a fact, which someone tries to counter with an opinion. 

Fact > Opinion. 

Also, what other threads are you talking about? The only other one I can remember where I got particularly harsh was the Manual Transmission thread.


----------



## Tango (Jan 16, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Just saying what was supposed to be a somewhat simple debate turned into such a childish shitfest.




Welcome to FAF, D.batty. Enjoy your stay! :grin:


----------



## Fernin (Jan 16, 2013)

It'll be a couple days before I can reply to anything, FC tiem. =0


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 16, 2013)

Tango said:


> Welcome to FAF the internet, D.batty. Enjoy your stay! :grin:




Fixed for ya.
I've seen a couple of Firearms debates on Facebook and other places that go from civil (With the majority agreeing) to going so far south it hit Australia after a couple of people announced their opinions against it. Gun control is just one of those sensitive things to discuss that's right up there with Religion and the Political Spectrum.


----------



## Tango (Jan 16, 2013)

Fernin said:


> It'll be a couple days before I can reply to anything, FC tiem. =0




Have fun. Don't do anything that you can't plea bargain down to a misdemeanor! Assault cases are your best shot at this.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 16, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Wow, I go to bed and by the time I get up this threads a burning blaze. Then again, I did honestly expect this, so eh, whatever. Replies time! And since Bambi and Schmuck both replied I'll address each as necessary. Also, at @Schmuck, I was tired and bitchy, so I will apologize for being rude; I will not however apologize for believing you're an idiot.



Ahh, the backhanded apology that's not an apology.  So pretty much you're going to continue down the road of "I WANT EVERYONE TO BE CIVIL WHICH MEANS AGREE WITH ME OR YOU'RE NOT BEING CIVIL GRR."



> EDIT: Since some of the people here seem to not understand, I thought I'd post what the defined FUNCTION of sportsman rifle, and an assault rifle are. An assault weapon MUST, irregardless of the source of legislation/politics MUST be capable of automatic or burst fire. A sportsman rifle like the AR-15 does NOT have that capacity, it fires ONE round per pull of the trigger, and thus can NOT FUNCTION as an assault weapon, irregardless of how it may LOOK.



Again, you're 100% wrong because of one little mistake in your terminology, namely that you use the term "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" interchangeably.  All assault rifles are assault weapons, but not all assault weapons are assault rifles.  Squares and rectangles.  And until you can provide me with some sort of credible source on the subject which differs from the definitions I've provided which have been commonly used in legislation, you're arguing with a distinct lack of "facts" on your side and are arguing more "opinion."

Nothing wrong with that of course because your thread specifically asks for what we think assault weapons are.  But the melodramatic way you go about defending your points certainly doesn't help to lend any credence towards your side.



> Schmuck: You've provided me nothing but an opinionated non-answer, tell me HOW the function is changed, not how you THINK it effects shooter performance. What about one pull of the trigger discharging ONE round at a time (because this is th FUNCTION of these rifles) is changed by the addition of ANY attachment.



Bambi pretty much took care of a majority of what I would say in his point-by-point breakdown of certain attachments and features.

You yourself have even admitted to a specific attachment, the collapsible stock, as being something used by your little brother for him to more effectively use the weapon to increase his ability to shoot the weapon accurately.  Weapon sights are specifically designed for military use for quick, multiple target acquisition, including those produced by EOTech, Aimpoint, and Elcan among others.  These sights are marketed for that specific purpose, as being tactical additions to military weapons for a variety of medium range to close-quarters operations and skirmishes.  This does not translate to any purpose that the civilian market could have.  Magnifying scopes on hunting and sporting rifles serve their purpose for that specific job, and are ultimately for tests of marksmanship, not for something such as protecting your family or your person from the boogie man.  The only reasonable applications for those kinds of sights involve police and military procedures.

Pistol grips on shotguns and rifles offer a level of comfort which, depending on who you ask, offers minimal to moderate improvement in accuracy and weapon performance, namely being able to quickly follow up on shots fired from say a semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 or WASR-10.  Maybe you personally don't feel it does from your experience, but if you want I can scour the net for various weapon owners or enthusiasts giving their opinions on pistol grips as an improvement which makes the weapon system more effective.

Collapsible and folding stocks we've been over already: Easier maneuverability, specifically in urban, close-quarters environments where making the weapon as small as possible while not sacrificing firepower to get the job done and remaining as accurate as possible thanks to the fact that, unlike say a pistol, the rifle offers three points of contact when shouldered while a pistol doesn't have that advantage.  A butt-stock rifle in a close-quarters scenario is much more clumsy to maneuver that makes it tactically obsolete when compared to their adjustable counter-parts for that specific job.  Oh, by the way, why was this all brought up?  Because of mass shooters going into schools and shopping malls (URBAN ENVIRONMENTS) with the purpose of indiscriminately killing multiple people. 

You severely downplay all of these attachments and what their designed purposes are to the point where you're trying to categorize them as "cosmetic" for the purpose of putting them in the same category as choosing the weapon's paint job.  Many of these attachments serve no purpose for the everyday weapon needs of the average person wanting to "protect their family" or go out hunting.  Perhaps if you were throwing them on a decommissioned weapon that can't be fired, then yes, I'd agree it's a cosmetic addition because it's being placed on a non-functioning weapon.  But if you plan on firing the weapon with those number of attachments, then it would qualify as an assault weapon under some commonly accepted legal definitions.



> Schmuck: What you offer me is an opinion, not an objective FACT. The weapon's FUNCTION has not changed.



Bambi and I have been giving you the purpose of why certain attachments are used on weapons and what their functions are while also explaining how they aren't exactly ideal for civilian use.  You continue to harp on us stating "opinions" instead of "facts" when after I press you to give me some sort of authoritative body with an exact statement which defines "assault weapons" as you've defined them, you've continually refused.  But more on that later.



> Schmuck: Refer to my opening of this post. Further more you DID make an incredibly stupid comment...



More "I'm sorry, but I'm not sorry," bullshit.  Not only are you a gun nut, but you're also a fraud, putting up a front of wanting to have civil discourse and who can't even abide by the rules he establishes in his own thread before 25 posts have gone by.



> Schmuck: What you're asking for are biased, political definitions. The mechanical definition of an assault weapon from anyone you could ask is always the same, automatic fire. One you peel through all the crap and opinions and get down to the base FUNCTION that something MUST have to be an assault weapon, the only constant answer, and often times the ONLY answer is automatic fire.



I'm asking for some recognized authority on firearms and weapons that agrees with your definition to the point where "assault weapon" can objectively be defined as your opinion says it should.  Instead you vaguely mention NATO with no links to any sort of statement or official guidelines outlined by that multinational organization, and then decide to invent your own authoritative body in the form of "anyone" who would agree with your opinion.  Just because you and a couple of buddies think an apple is an orange doesn't objectively mean that's the case.  Your issue is that you are incapable of separating the terms of "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" because they both have the word "assault" in the term.  Do me a favor, next time you get the oppertunity, try Sydney Rock Oysters and then Rocky Mountain Oysters and tell me there's the same thing.



> Schmuck: "Answer in such a way as it pleases me and my viewpoints or shut up." - I got a good laugh out of this, as it's exactly what YOU do; I do believe trying to call that on me about amounts to the pot calling the kettle black.



How so?  Unlike you I don't issue behavioral guidelines in my threads and then decide to break those guidelines before Page 2.  I've been VERY civil with you up to this point as you had requested, and yet you can't seem to follow your own rules.  I recommended immediate seppuku to atone for dishonoring yourself.



> You also missed the point of my examples with the car, in that the changes to performance are so minuscule they don't change anything at all, nor alter the fundamental function of the gun/car. You missed the point entirely, whether from natural or willful stupidity though I'm not sure. And on the note of stupidity, that is the reason so many gun people get so pissed is because the arguments being levered against them and their guns are so illogical and are often outright fallacies. It's largely in line with why people who debate religion get so pissed about the "prove to me god DOESN'T exist" argument because one side of the debate is forced to defend itself against an unfactual an illogical negative. Further more the nonstop strawmen used by the antigun people also tend to piss folks off quite a bit.



Why are you getting pissed then?  Your reaction to my and Bambi's posts have been beyond unnecessary to maintain the "civil" mandate you placed in the OP.  If we're so ignorant, then enlighten us without also attempting to insult our intelligence.  You love to bring up the "strawman" fallacy when you yourself are consistently guilty of ad hominems, something the gun crowd loves to use by labeling anyone who offers any sort of gun control legislation as a socialist/Nazi/commie/idiot/etc. in order to dismiss their counterpoints without thinking too hard.  I've only been forced to use the "gun nut" label on you because of your over-the-top reaction to the calm and level discourse I was attempting to have with you on the subject and your consistent use of the "non-apology apology."

Your point I don't see helping your side.  Those additions you brought up will in fact make the car lighter and aerodynamic.  Removing weight and changing the design of the car to be more efficient puts less pressure on the engine meaning you can get more out of it.  Other things you can do to make your car go faster are replacing the exhaust system, putting in a new air induction, or converting your fans from mechanical to electric among other options.  Each helps to improve the overall performance of the vehicle in question.  Typical military attachments do the same to make your rifle/shotgun/pistol a more effective weapon system to perform a certain task.  In the terms of the car, making it go faster.  In terms of the weapon, with the multitude of certain aftermarket attachments and features, making it a more effective weapon for urban combat, and by extension an assault weapon.



> Also, before I forget, I think everyone participating in this thread should watch this video, it's got some interesting information in it relevant to both sides of this debate. http://www.popmodal.com/video/15800/Amidst-the-noise



You bitch and moan about people giving you opinion and bias when you yourself are presenting us with video from a site with an obvious bias where the subject of the video is attempting to express his opinion on the subject of what is and isn't an assault weapon.  Fantastic.  So the only "facts" that exist are ones that agree with your stance.  Okay, glad we got that cleared up.



Fernin said:


> I simply don't like being told I'm wrong when I present a fact, which someone tries to counter with an opinion.



Still waiting on that definition of an assault weapon that doesn't come from your own opinion on the matter.  Or how Bambi linking to an actual article in Popular Mechanics, a respected magazine, as the basis of his point is nothing but his opinion.


----------



## Namba (Jan 16, 2013)

These kinds of debates always change my mind!


----------



## Tango (Jan 16, 2013)

News Flash! Obama's executive order didn't ban a damn thing. Neener-neener!


That is all.


----------



## Azure (Jan 16, 2013)

No balls, no balls at all.


----------



## powderhound (Jan 16, 2013)

To me an assault weapon means fully automatic. Funny thing is to the general public that's what it seems to mean as well. Most people that I talk to believe that the civilian AR15 is a fully automatic because the media refers to it as an"assault weapon." The lawmakers love to throw the term around because it conjures up perceptions which are different from the reality.

Gibby seems to be on point with most of his posts. I'm surprised that he understands the nuances of our gun regulations so well being from England.

I believe the Supreme Court ruled they couldn't ban a class of firearms. Therefore the lawmakers had to resort to banning certain characteristics. It seems as though the people that wrote the regulation had virtually no understanding of firearms which is how we ended up with the odd list of "Evil cosmetic features." In California people learned how to get around the regulation by changing one or two small aspects of the firearm. An example would be the bullet button. After its inception I believe 800,000 A.R. 15's were sold in California. To this day I am not aware of any Crimes having been committed with one in spite of their popularity here. I am also not aware of any claims that the previous "assault weapons ban" had any impact on gun crime in United States. It is been said before that pistols account for the 95% of gun crime in United States. The most recent proposal included banning the M1 carbine by name, a favorite among ww2 collectors. Again no one has explained or provided any evidence that these new assault weapons regulations will have any meaningful impact on gun crime in United States. It didn't work before, why are we doing it again?


----------



## Bambi (Jan 16, 2013)

You know, while this thread is still up, I'd like to take a moment to apologize to everyone in this thread for being a mongoloid, and perhaps a ruthless dick-bag in the way I argued my opinions. Tango, Gibby, Term, and Fernin, I mean it, I should've done better. I've done much, much better in the past. It's worth saying that I am not here to do this in order to save my positions, or my opinions. I could careless about that now. I was wrong in the way I treated your skepticism of my positions.

I am sorry to you all. Thank you for a fevered debate.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 17, 2013)

Bambi said:
			
		

> Remember however Fernin, that the issue is, again, that government wants these things banned because it understands what you don't: that having them on a weapon can deliver to any potential, spree shooter, a big advantage in an attack. I could quote mine data, I could sit here and drop link after link, it wouldn't help because you've failed to understand that the problem started the moment you refused to sit down, and think: "Hmm, maybe this muzzle flash and extended magazine I've wanted to not be banned by the government is on their shit list because it does more than make my replica assault rifle look cool."



bambi, i would like to politely discuss the full picture of what you have discussed above. Yes, a muzzle break can deliver a big advantage. it eliminates the recoil caused by gasses expanding at the muzzle just as the bullet leaves the muzzle. 

I am a former marine armorer and current practicing gunsmith. there is no such thing as a "master gunsmith", each of us has our specialties. my specialty is design, mechanics and function. 

Muzzle breaks as mentioned before can reduce a great deal of recoil by eliminating reward momentum caused by expanding gasses when the bullet exits the muzzle. They are also very, VERY noisy. it is interesting to note that most safari hunt camps wont allow you to have one on your weapon due to the noise, and the concern about your actual ability to manage the weapon. see, a muzzle break is a cheap way of doing what a good rifle stock should do. in fact a good pistol grip performs the same function. combined they allow the mass production of rifles that do not hurt the shooter and are reasonably controllable. 

ever shoot an OLD military bolt action rifle? ever notice how the rifle beats the crap out of some people and others are fine with it? this is a mechanic called "stock fit". the people hurt by the weapon are actually not weak, its just that the rifle does not fit them. 

the reason why people will pay a good gunsmith $25,000 as a floor price for a good shotgun is this mechanic called stock fit. a high quality shotgun is literally crafted for the shooter. Even the trigger itself may be changed out for one that loops another 1/8th of an inch back. the result is a weapon so finely suited for the shooter that the recoil is incredibly controllable, the weapon feels like an extension of his arm and the gun literally points where he looks. 

so, the point of all this is that muzzle breaks are an easy thing to hate, however banning them does not eliminate an advantage. the very same shooter can simply get the same advantage by being intelligent enough by going to the store and trying rifle after rifle in his shoulder until he finds one that fits his body fairly well. 

also, on the magazines. modern firearms are recharged so quickly a magazine size limit is useless. the columbine massacre was carried out with 10 round magazines. they just changed magazines more thats all.

added: also i note that a ban on muzzle brakes is not as easy as it sounds. anyone with a drill, acess to you tube and steady hands can quite reasonably drill ports at the end of his rifle barrel creating an effective gas compensation system without the need to purchase a screw on attachment.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 17, 2013)

anyway my ideas on the term "assault weapon" 

any weapon used in assault. 

I have several terms for firearms however;

1: manual firearm, any firearm that requires attention to load the next shot. ie bolt action rifles or single action revolvers. 
2: self loading firearm. any firearm that automatically ejects the spent case and loads the next shot but requires the finger to release the trigger and pull it again to shoot again.
3: fully automatic weapon. any firearm that fires more than one shot per trigger pull.
4: machinegun. a firearm that fires more than one shot per trigger pull with a magazine and mechanical design that facilitates continuous fire.


----------



## kyfox (Jan 18, 2013)

Somehow people think that an assault weapon is an AR-15, it shoots a .223 round. While a hunting rifle shooting a 7mm mag is fine. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be shot by the AR-15


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jan 18, 2013)

A power point presentation.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/?fb_a...10152430652420545":"og.likes"}&action_ref_map


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2013)

kyfox said:


> Somehow people think that an assault weapon is an AR-15, it shoots a .223 round. While a hunting rifle shooting a 7mm mag is fine. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be shot by the AR-15



I wonder why nobody has attempted to make a self loading 7mm mag rifle.... i can see how the recoil could easily kick your ass(self loading mechanisms can actually increase perceived recoil) but i bet if done right it'd be ok.... nvm browning did it. 
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/28525#

i like browning products but not that thing that they pass off as a "b.a.r.", inside its too similar to a shotgun for me.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 19, 2013)

ceacar99 said:


> bambi, i would like to politely discuss the full picture of what you have discussed above. Yes, a muzzle break can deliver a big advantage. it eliminates the recoil caused by gasses expanding at the muzzle just as the bullet leaves the muzzle.


Thank you, thank you for all of this.

Remember that my original position was that power saw things a certain way, and it was so needed, like a breath of fresh air, to see someone offer the position that you did without using snark to engage relative ignorance. Thanks.


----------



## Kazooie (Jan 19, 2013)

Legal firearms should have a clip size of two bullets, and a hilariously lengthy ~30 second reload time. This should keep the "guns are a detterent for gun violence" supporters happy, as you can still point guns at people who are pointing guns at people, while also making mass shootings with legal firearms rather impossible.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 19, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Thank you, thank you for all of this.
> 
> Remember that my original position was that power saw things a certain way, and it was so needed, like a breath of fresh air, to see someone offer the position that you did without using snark to engage relative ignorance. Thanks.



well one of the things i feel is that the powers are proposing legislation based on partial information and that can be dangerous. as i stated in the other gun thread one of the concerns with gunsmiths i know these days is the sheer lack of knowledge of firearms amongst even the shooters. the "tactical" equipment fad is borne from that actually.  a perfect example of this is the guy i'm gonna quote below....



			
				Term_the_Schmuck said:
			
		

> Those are attachments commonly used for military-tactics and military practicality. They serve no added support for the purposes of "hunting" or "home protection" other than making it easier for you to put multiple rounds down-range at a singular target, most of the time one that's not actively moving in the instance of say a deer if you're hunting properly and no more than an arm's reach away in terms of home defense. Attachments such as that would only serve to help the weapon do it's job more effectively if you planned on raiding a building or attempting to effectively eliminate multiple targets, neither of which is what constitutes what the NRA and other gun-advocates claim they own their weapons for, aside from those few who foolishly believe that they're going to overthrow the US government with their gun club buddies and a couple of AR-15s.



these features you are discussing are merely features of a well made rifle. stocks that transmit recoil well, with good grip qualities are FUNDAMENTAL to shotgun shooting, and are an absolute necessity when firing a high powered rifle, such a safari rifle. 

a very common cartridge for safari hunting is the outright powerful .505 gibbs cartridge. its a massively powerful cartridge with TWICE the power of a .30-06(the most popular american hunting cartridge, which is FAR more powerful than the common cartridges for the ar-15). the projectile actually can weigh more than a .50 browning machine gun bullet at a general ceiling of a wopping 600 grain projectile. .30-06 bullet weight generally tops out at 220 grains and is more commonly around the 170 range. 

however in a well made rifle that is properly handled by the shooter, shooting this cartridge does not hurt at all. this .50 caliber rifle certainly expresses itself to the shooter of just how powerful it is but it is also surprisingly easy to control and keep on target. that last part is important for safari rifles. the weapon not only needs to be able to hit like a freight train but it needs to be controllable enough that the shooter can get another emergency shot in to save his life. 

concern about follow up shot accuracy is so high on safari hunts that scopes are usually not allowed anymore. they provide too poor ability to sight in again and hit that target that is now angry and barreling down on you. because of this red dot sights are becoming increasingly popular for these rifles. these sights are advanced holographic sights that allow massive situational awareness and quick aiming and they were originally exclusively associated with "military style assault weapons".  

so lets see here... a EXTREMELY high powered rifle that is designed to be highly controllable and be able to provide rapid follow up shots on moving targets. sounds like what most people call an "assault weapon" right? wrong, it was designed for hunting from the ground up. here is a picture of one i built for myself from the ground up(only my rifle is not chambered in .505 gibbs. no way i'm spending $5 a shot and up)

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/3660/13295354.jpg

just turns out that good sporting features are also good features for killing men.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 19, 2013)

fully adjustable stocks an assault feature? nope, pioneered for sporting. here is a berretta shotgun with one. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESzS7V-rfQA

cheek piece adjustment and length of pull adjustment(a collapseable stock) are common demands for shotgun sporting when the shooter cannot afford a gunsmith to custom fit a stock to him.


----------

