Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Sammi79]

I've got to say,

The subsim spelling nazis are clearly losing their touch. 200+ replies and not a single mention of the mistake in the title. It's just not good enough.

In fact it's so poor I've just had to do it for them.

And this used to be such a totalitarian forum. My oh my how things change...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

The subsim spelling nazis are clearly losing their touch. 200+ replies and not a single mention of the mistake in the title. It's just not good enough.

No spelling nazis here. I'm concerned with grammar and usage, not typos. Anybody can make a mistake. It's the ones who actually abuse the language that bother me.

In fact it's so poor I've just had to do it for them.

No, you're actually the only one.

And this used to be such a totalitarian forum. My oh my how things change...

Still is, but only where behavior is concerned.

[MH]

Then the obvious issue, a person that wants to do a mass shooting can't get a gun legally, they'll just find one illegally.

Maybe he will maybe not.
Finding gun illegally may involve risk and getting caught in the processes.
Some may succeed some may not.
There is also the issue which guns are suitable for self defence and which are for mass shooting.
You can say that explosives could be sold in walmart just because if someone wants to blow up empire state building he will anyway.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by MH

Maybe he will maybe not.
Finding gun illegally may involve risk and getting caught in the processes.
Some may succeed some may not.

It ain't hard if you know where to go. I know a lady who's from South Africa, and as far as i know she can't go into a gunstore and buy a firearm. Yet she has a couple, that she says she got off "The black market". I don't know the details, and i don't want to know. All this lady wants, is the ability to defend herself.

There is also the issue which guns are suitable for self defence and which are for mass shooting.

I'm gonna call BS here, for one, your wordsmithing and trying to frame the argument to your liking, and for two this is a blatant attempt to label rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15 (which happen to be one the best self defense rifle you could own) as weapons designed for mass shooting. Weapons designed for mass shooting have been banned and heavily regulated since 1934.

You can say that explosives could be sold in walmart just because if someone wants to blow up empire state building he will anyway.

You may as well be suggesting that we

[MH]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I'm gonna call BS here, for one, your wordsmithing and trying to frame the argument to your liking, and for two this is a blatant attempt to label rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15 as weapons designed for mass shooting. Weapons designed for mass shooting have been banned and heavily regulated since 1934.

It is just a matter of definition that dates back to 1934.
As some one who owns modern assault rifle (with no auto) next to hand gunyou should know the difference in fire power and capability between that one and any other.

[August]

Interesting article:

NRA chief: Why we fight for gun rights

(CNN) -- After President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968, many anti-gun politicians looked forward to the day when they could completely ban the sale and ownership of firearms and perhaps even confiscate those already in private hands.

After the draconian legislation imposed restrictions on "dealing" firearms, Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote to the NRA to demand our support for a national gun licensing and registration system. A few years later, a Nixon administration advisory commission proposed that all side arms be outlawed and confiscated in about a decade.

That didn't happen. Those hostile to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment thought they were on the verge of victory, but had in fact managed to wake up millions of Americans who hadn't previously believed that government would ever threaten their guns or their way of life. They were joined by others who were not necessarily gun owners but believed the Second Amendment and the rights it guaranteed a free people worth preserving.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinio...Most+Recent%29

[Cybermat47]

Bugger

http://www.news.com.au/world/two-sho...-1226566379028

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

It ain't hard if you know where to go. I know a lady who's from South Africa, and as far as i know she can't go into a gunstore and buy a firearm. Yet she has a couple, that she says she got off "The black market". I don't know the details, and i don't want to know. All this lady wants, is the ability to defend herself.

The self defense argument is the most potent, I think. If someone were threatening my life or the life of a friend or family member, and I happened to have a loaded gun to hand, I am absolutely sure any principles I may have on the issue would quickly evaporate. The firearm as a leveler for the weak against the strong (or the innocent against the criminal). Trouble is, rather than being a leveler, in the end it just substitutes 'the strong' with 'the most heavily armed'. Also the counter argument that unless you sleep with it loaded under your bed, in the case of a home invasion you are likely to be surprised and overwhelmed, is not without merit.

The real question is how do you tell a criminal from an innocent before a crime is committed? Considering that the subjective judgement of criminality will differ depending on the observing individual, and that we may or may not personally agree with some already extant laws. The lady you mention is a case in point.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I'm gonna call BS here, for one, your wordsmithing and trying to frame the argument to your liking, and for two this is a blatant attempt to label rifles based on Armalite Rifle No 15 (which happen to be one the best self defense rifle you could own) as weapons designed for mass shooting. Weapons designed for mass shooting have been banned and heavily regulated since 1934.

The definition of terms is important though. Arms in the sense of your right to bear arms means weapons in common usage not designed for military use, which is ambiguous in that the only difference between weapons designed for military use and those designed for civilian use is one of marketing. Military design requirements tend to be focused around reliability, ease and cost of manufacture and light weight, some of which will be of a lesser concern to civilian design requirements. I'd go as far to say weapons designed purely for civilians may even occasionally end up being better quality and more destructive than their contemporary military counterparts.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

You may as well be suggesting that we

A nuclear suitcase does not fit the current common usage and non military definition whereas explosives might.

Currently, my thoughts are along the lines of you should retain your right, but that the majority of people would choose not to exercise it for the lack of need. Unfortunately that's an idea that probably has about as much potential as a bovine bicycle.

P.S. your link to the video about the M14 was brilliant, thanks for sharing. It consigned me to yet another evening of watching utube videos by gun enthusiasts.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by MH

It is just a matter of definition that dates back to 1934.

Since your talking about assault rifles, which i'm sure everyone can agree is an Firearm found in the military, then we should probably use the military definition of an Assault rifle. The military definition of an assault rifle is:

1. Fire's an intermediate cartridge
2. Uses a detachable box magazine.
3. Is selective fire. Which, in case your unaware, means it can fire fully automatic. Like a machine gun.

The AR-15 does indeed fire an intermediate cartridge, and have a box magazine, however it cannot fire fully automatic. So by definition of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is NOT an assault rifle.

By the way, in case you didn't catch it, the AR in AR-15 does not mean "Assault Rifle", it means, "Armalite Rifle". That's just how the Armalite corporation named their designs. Did you know that there is an AR-7?

As some one who owns modern assault rifle (with no auto) next to hand gunyou should know the difference in fire power and capability between that one and any other.

I WISH i owned a modern assault rifle. Really i do. That would be freaking cool. Actually though, id be happy with an older model like M-16A1. Those have full auto. The A2's only have a 3 round burst, and I think the modern M4's do as well. Though i can say for sure, I never held one in my hands. However, I've trained with M-16A1's and my go to war rifle was the M-16A2, so I know them very well.

Firepower and capability, well yeah, a rifle will always bring more firepower to a fight then a handgun. That's a no brainer. In fact, ill go as far as to say, if your in a fight with a handgun and the other guy has a rifle, odds are, YOU WILL LOSE.

Now truthfully, I never really seriously considered getting an AR-15 before, outside of reasons of nostalgia. It handles just like my old service rifle without the "fun switch". To me, it's old hat, and I could care less. So what changed my mind about owning one? My wife. She can't handle my rifle. For her, it's too long, it's too heavy, and it has too much recoil. She can't use it very well. Two shots and she's done.

So on a whim one day, we rented an AR-15 at our local gun range for grins and giggles. We found out that for my wife, everything that my rifle is, the AR-15 is not. It can be made to be just the right length (aka "length of pull"), its light , and it has very low recoil. She could shoot that rifle all day. She also really enjoyed shooting it, cause it's a lot of fun.

At the end of the day, the best firearm to use, be it for defense, or sporting purposes (though i don't advocate going bird hunting with a rifle or something silly like that), is the firearm you can hit with. I don't care what firearm a person could be using, it's no good to you if you can't hit what your aiming at. So as rifles go, for my wife, the AR-15, IS the best rifle. For me it's not, and I could care less, id rather have my M1A.

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Bugger

http://www.news.com.au/world/two-sho...-1226566379028

yeah I saw that. To me it sounds like one indvidual had some serious issues with another. I think there was another shooting a week or two ago. Very similar, and ill bet dollars to donuts, it was gang related. Two guys shooting at each other after a yelling match if i remember correctly.

Shootings like this are nothing new, and in fact, ill say that when i was growing up, the problems of shooting were WORSE THEN THEY ARE NOW. Or to put it another way, kids growing up now, aren't dealing with HALF the crap i had to put up with. Igraduated high school in 1992. In my four years in high school we had a lot of gang problems, which resulted in at least 7 drive by shootings that I know of.

One of which, i was witness too. On that day, I was driving to work after getting out of class and for some stupid reason, I decided to go down the most congested street that day. Suddenly, I heard a "Pop pop pop pop pop pop pop" from somewhere behind me, I looked around i saw people diving to the ground, or into bush's, and then the realization hit me that it was a shooting. I ducked down in my car and got as close to the floor as i could. A min after the shooting stopped, i looked up, and saw a bullet hole in the left rail of the rollup door of a UPS truck that was in front of me. I'd say it missed the left side of my car by two feet. Once the traffic cleared, breathed a sigh of releif , continued my way to work, and never drove down that street again.

As it turns out, it was gang related. Hell, when i went to school I had to worry about being knifed, beaten with baseball bats, fist bats, and being shot at. The best thing to do, was don't get involved with or piss off the wrong people, don't go walking around where you shouldn't be, and mind your own damn business. Kids nowadays don't deal with that on the level that i did, at least not where i grew up, and in my area I went to the good high school. The other was WORSE. You know what ended the violence? The local PD opened an office in my old high school. Resource officers i think they're called. Yup, just like the NRA was saying, armed security, and it worked. I know because ive seen it happen.

EDIT:

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Since your talking about assault rifles, which i'm sure everyone can agree is an Firearm found in the military, then we should probably use the military definition of an Assault rifle. The military definition of an assault rifle is:

1. Fire's an intermediate cartridge
2. Uses a detachable box magazine.
3. Is selective fire. Which, in case your unaware, means it can fire fully automatic. Like a machine gun.

The AR-15 does indeed fire an intermediate cartridge, and have a box magazine, however it cannot fire fully automatic. So by definition of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is NOT an assault rifle.

By the way, in case you didn't catch it, the AR in AR-15 does not mean "Assault Rifle", it means, "Armalite Rifle". That's just how the Armalite corporation named their designs. Did you know that there is an AR-7?



EDIT:

When Colt bough the rights to the AR-15 from Armalite they also copyrighted the name AR-15.Later when Eugene Stoner left Armalite (Armalite was owned by Fairchild an aircraft manufacturer) he gave his designs the prefix S for Stoner(SR-25 Stoner 63).

Also to those who look around and claim that suddenly pro gun people are saying that AR-15 does not mean Assault Rifle the exact meaning of AR has been a topic of debate for some time.People not knowing what they are talking about will claim that it means "assault rifle" (including misinformed gun users) The true meaning is Armalite Rifle during Vietnam with the early troubles the M-16 had some troops said that AR meant ARmalite rifle (a reference to the original company) or "Always Reliable"(a pun alluding to its unreliability).

[MH]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Since your talking about assault rifles, which i'm sure everyone can agree is an Firearm found in the military, then we should probably use the military definition of an Assault rifle. The military definition of an assault rifle is:

1. Fire's an intermediate cartridge
2. Uses a detachable box magazine.
3. Is selective fire. Which, in case your unaware, means it can fire fully automatic. Like a machine gun.

ok..

From my perspective as someone who spend 3 years in military since age at 18 and then doing reserve service every year i must say i never used full auto unless for fun or while shooting types of MGs.
I was never trained to use full auto but the opposite , Military here exercises a lot mostly with real ammo unless doing OPFOR off course.
Im not gun expert just a sort of user yet this definition that somehow turns military rifles into innocent civilian guns i find ridiculous.
From my perspective they are both the same.

I really admire the amount of personal freedom you got there and understand the reasons why it needs to be defended but again , the ease with which anyone can put his hands on all sort of weapons really baffles me.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No spelling nazis here. I'm concerned with grammar and usage, not typos. Anybody can make a mistake. It's the ones who actually abuse the language that bother me.

And a very fine job you do, if I may say so Mr Steve.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No, you're actually the only one.

Such flattery is sadly wasted on me. Having only noticed myself after several days, then self deprecating by pointing it out, hardly qualifies me for such an esteemed position I fear.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Still is, but only where behavior is concerned.

Really? That is encouraging, I never would have guessed. Thank you for assuaging my doubts and concerns.