But guns are special

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

I often read from pro-control folks that guns are made (designed, built...) to kill. If that is the case, and since here in the US we own almost 1 gun for every man, woman and child, why are guns killing less than 30,000 people (< 0.01%) per year?

There must be thousands of guns in factory, distributor and retail stocks that can't really kill anyone because everyone knows guns aren't autonomous. However, folks are buying lots of guns. Here in the US private citizens own 1 out every 2 privately held guns in the world. Shouldn't we then have about half of all the world's murders? It's been pointed out that a developing market is women. Does someone have information that modern women are developing some new killer instinct? Are we seeing more and more women shooting and killing people?

What are folks who are buying these guns doing with them? I read a lot that some believe some sexual activity is involved. I find that highly questionable and suggest such behavior would be self limiting. So, what's happening? Is there an explosion of hunters, target shooters, collectors??? If there is, since guns are made to kill why are those guns not killing? Are they defective?

For the individual, the most efficacious means of self-defense is a firearm. Why is this thought of as evil or unreasonable?

I've never shot at anything not made of paper or perhaps the odd tin can ever. Outside of a dojo I haven't thrown a punch in as long as I remember.

If guns server a single and only purpose, to kill, why are there less than 1 in 10,000 deaths recorded for all those guns?

Seriously, I call major bullshit here.

[Human101948]

1. Probably because you are talking out your posterior...

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. And comparing the US with the UK...

...you'll find that our NON-FIREARM murder rate exceeds the UK OVERALL murder rate.

Thanks for playing.

[Human101948]

3. So you are drawing what conclusion?

Your emoticon doesn't provide much explanation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. The US has more murders than the UK

The US has more murders excluding gun-related than the UK has murders of any kind.
- Guns are not the cause of the higher rate.
- Removing a bunch of guns won't lower that rate.
- The great bulk of guns owned by civilians in the US were obtained legally.
- Self-defense is a basic right.

Social engineering isn't a proven science.

[Human101948]

15. Remove guns from the equation and you get...

....So, of course someone’s going to chime in on how we’ve got way more people here in the U.S. ( 320.5 million) than in the U.K. (64.1 million), so of course we have more police killings. Still, a 26:1,110 ratio in the U.S. vs. England and Wales is insane.

A 2014 article from The Economist sheds light on the excessive use of force by police in the U.S. and points out that Americans are “around 100 times more likely” to get shot at by police than folks in the U.K. The author, D.K., even explains why: Hardly anyone has guns in the U.K.


The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them, and criminals rarely have access to them.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/04/police-killings-us-vs-uk-infographic/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. By all means feel free to digress

[pablo_marmol]

44. Huh?

Purposeful distraction, or you have problems staying on topic?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. In more complete, correct and concise wording...

...the US has a higher non-gun murder RATE than the OVERALL UK murder RATE.
The logical conclusion here is that the US is, in general, more murderous than the UK. In specific, any conclusions based on a rate comparison of these countries and attempts to determine some causality relating to weapons used are illogical.

[Human101948]

4. There may be more guns but fewer owners...

Gun Ownership Declining, General Social Survey Shows

The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-ownership-declining-general-social-survey-shows-n320666

Seems the panic over Obama confiscating our guns was only among a few weak-minded individuals.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Maybe or maybe not; IMHO not really relevant

Seems the panic over Obama confiscating our guns...

--> The confiscation didn't happen.

...was only among a few weak-minded individuals.

--> Never miss an opportunity to insult folks with whom you disagree.

[Human101948]

13. Like "I smell bullshit?"

Some gun grabbers might find that provocative. But then again that's why you been posting this stuff for years.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. No like...

Last edited Wed Apr 29, 2015, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)

"If guns served a single and only purpose, to kill, why are there less than 1 in 10,000 deaths recorded for all those guns?"
Why is that question so hard to answer?

(I prefer pro-control. "gun grabbers" seems a bit...harsh.)

[Human101948]

21. A hammer is not a wrench...

Tools have an intended purpose. Most people would not use a gun as a hammer.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. Please continue, this is looking productive n/t

[Eleanors38]

8. I believe future surveys will detect a significant increase in

the percentage of Americans who are gun owners. Gallup in 2012 noted a significant increase in both the number of gun-owners who are women, and in respondents who are self-described Democrats.

Pew found a massive increase in the number of African Americans who had a "favorable" view of gun ownership (as opposed to "unfavorable&quot in just two years. This was dealt with in another thread in this group.

Some states, which require gun owners register themselves (as opposed to registering their firearms) have reported sharp increases in new registrants.

[Human101948]

12. Whoopee!

Manufacturers will be happy to hear that.

Smith & Wesson misfire: Rifle sales drop 50%

by
Tom Huddleston, Jr.
@tjhuddle
December 4, 2014, 6:04 PM EDT

The sales decline comes a year after gun-owners were stocking up on firearms for fear of heightened government restrictions.

People just aren’t stocking up on firearms the way they used to.

Gun maker Smith & Wesson said on Thursday that rifle sales dropped by more than half in the Springfield, Mass. company’s latest quarter. The steep decline is part of a 22% dip in overall sales for Smith & Wesson, according to the company’s second-quarter earnings report

http://fortune.com/2014/12/04/smith-wesson-misfire-rifle-sales-drop-50/

[Eleanors38]

23. it's possible that for now, folks have as many guns as they want...

The biz of gun manufacturing and sales is notoriously cyclical. Ruger (publicly traded) had sales over the last year or so that could have made a wealthy person from a modest investment, but no doubt its sales will decline as well. The writer you cite may be aware that Smith has only recently taken up the serious manufacture/sell of "rifles;" its provence is handguns, and even here, the company has been for some time operating in a deminished capacity. Please note also that in the space of 20 yrs the % of shotgun sales shared by American manufacturers has dropped from 65% to under 30%. Benelli, Beretta, Franchi, and any number of Turkish firms have taken up the slack. Further, there are many boutique manufacturers turning out 100ks of AR and even AK-type semi-auto rifles whose sales wouldn't even blip Fortune's radar (privately-held). To many gun owners, all of this is of little concern as they buy used guns (one of the few manufactured goods which stare down planned obsolescence like the Sphinx). Nohing really new in this story, except the implicit advice: Now is not a good time to buy stock.

Frankly, I wish the sale of .22 ammo would drop off. You seen the price of that stuff? When it is available? If you hear of any good prices, let me know.

[gejohnston]

26. rifles sales are dropping

could be from market saturation when a bunch of people bought ARs at inflated prices. Also, Smith and Wesson isn't really known for their rifles, which they entered fairly recently.

[Human101948]

35. Seems industry wide...

Profits also fell at other big gun manufacturers this year. Colt Manufacturing reported a net loss of over $7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2014, much of it due to declining sales of rifles. Freedom Group, which owns the iconic Remington and Bushmaster brands, is private and doesn't release its figures, but analysts say things there aren't much better. Freedom Group sales for the first quarter of 2014 were down 20.3 percent year over year, said Maksim Soshkin, a defense industry analyst at market research company IBISWorld.

Quarterly profits plummeted 31 percent year over year at Sturm, Ruger & Co., the largest publicly traded gun company in the U.S. In a press release late last month, Sturm, Ruger & Co. cited a “reduction in overall industry demand” as the top factor for declining sales.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/29/gun-sales_n_5730272.html

[gejohnston]

37. market saturation

Colt has been going down hill for years. Colt's biggest sales have mostly police and military for years. Cops have been switching to European made semi autos like Glock and SIG for the past 30 years. Now the military uses pistols by the Italian company Beretta, and looks like DoD is dumping Colt for the German company Heckler and Koch for the M-4. That would now make all of our military small arms made by US subsidiaries of European companies, the other being Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal.
Of course, many cops also carried Smith and Wesson back in the day, and still do. They also have a wider civilian market in the US and Europe. Oh, then there is the RCMP contract. They also have a good reputation for CCW pistols and sell them. Colt, outside of their .38 revolvers (which IMNSHO is under rated for most people and situations, but that is another discussion) simply don't compete. Unfortunately, handcrafted wood and steel loses out to CNC machined plastic shit.

Guns are durable goods. Durable goods follow a cycle. The ban scare saturated the market. Granted, there are a few people who are to guns what Imelda Marcos is to shoes, but they are few. Most gun owners, including NRA members, and all of the ones I know buy only what they have a specific use for. I don't much red meat, so I don't hunt. That means I won't be shopping for a .270.

As for the Gawker article, which sucks as much as Daily Caller, a gang member is still a gang member.

[GGJohn]

32. There may be more guns but fewer owners...

You don't know that and neither do the pollsters.
It's a safe bet that most firearm owners won't tell a stranger on the phone, internet poll, or a solicitor that they have a firearm in the home.

I know that is some stranger asked me if I have a firearm, I would answer in the negative.

[Lizzie Poppet]

92. Likewise.

I can't imagine a circumstance in which I'd tell some stranger who called me on the phone that I had firearms in my house.

[beevul]

50. No sir.

"The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt."

Here, let me fix that for you:

The number of Americans who answered when asked, in a way that indicated that they live in a household with at least one gun, is lower than it's ever been according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in self reported gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.


Tell you what, post a poll and ask how many would admit to owning a gun to a nameless faceless voice on the other end of the phone in todays environment.


Many wouldn't.

[Lizzie Poppet]

91. Those polls are far from trustworthy.

Not that the people conducting them are pulling shenanigans...but there's a huge problem with non-verified survey polling on a sensitive matter like gun ownership. That problem, simply put, is that in an atmosphere of suspicion* about possible attempts to curtail civilian gun ownership, a very significant portion of survey respondents who do indeed own guns will be motivated to deny that ownership to a stranger. Since these surveys have no way to verify the accuracy of responses, the reliability of the data is low.


*it doesn't matter in the least if that suspicion is justified or not; the fact that it exists and is widespread is sufficient motivation to lie to a researcher.

[spin]

94. Several years ago I asked a number of gun owners at the range this question. ...

Assume someone were to knock on your door or called you and asked you to be part of a survey and you agreed. One of the questions is, "Do you or another member of your family living with you own a firearm?" What would you say?

I didn't find one person who was willing to tell a stranger taking a survey that they owned firearms. NOT ONE!!!

Of course this is just a snap survey of a few actual gun owners in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida.

You might ask how I would reply. I might admit that I own firearms. The simple fact is the the government already knows I most likely own such weapons as I have a concealed weapons permit in Florida. The government could also use its data mining ability to find out that I own firearms as I occasionally buy ammo and subscribe to gun publications. They might also monitor my posts like the one you are reading.

I actually did participate in a General Social Survey recently but no questions involved gun ownership.

I would suggest you take such surveys on gun ownership with a LARGE grain of salt.

[ileus]

5. guns kill way less than 30k...somewhere in the 0-none range.

And of course as we all know most firearms sold today are designed to save lives.


Some for collecting.

Some for competition.

Some for hunting.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Your post ignores how owning a gun corrupts the mind of the owner and makes him homicidal n/t

[Shamash]

10. It's the Pat Robertson principle

Sweaters from Goodwill can be infested with demons, I guess the rest go to gun stores and look for people to possess.

Except for the demons that cause Tourette's Syndrome. They hang out over at GCRA...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. ~~~

[Human101948]

16. Not having a gun certainly lessens the chance that you will shoot someone...

or yourself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. Thank you

Let me write that down.

[beevul]

51. Or have one if you need one. N/T

[Eleanors38]

24. Pat's waiting out that asteroid heading for Orlando.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

69. But what about Disney?

[Eleanors38]

77. I think that's why Pat wanted it to hit there. Some "homosexual" event at Rat World.

[Puha Ekapi]

40. Ziiiing!

Hahahaha!

[Human101948]

19. P.S.--I am a gun owner...

I just find the preoccupation with guns and the constant propaganda from the NRA annoying.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Cool by me

[Eleanors38]

25. Don't think I've seen/heard anything from the NRA in months. Droll.

[Human101948]

36. They were at it again today...

Like all toxic brands, the National Rifle Association isn’t above exploiting a tragedy to spread its agenda via social media. But unlike, say, Oreos, the NRA is eager to promote gun ownership, even if it means telling a big lie about civil unrest in Baltimore.

http://gawker.com/the-nra-is-already-lying-about-whats-happening-in-balti-1700745070

[Eleanors38]

46. Some extreme anti-gunners openly advocate exploiting mass shootings for their ends.

I would cite my example, but I can't remember what jackass columnist did this. Of course, no one at DU is so low as to do this kind of thing.

Extremists are extremists.

[Human101948]

49. Yes but they don't have the money and political clout that the NRA does...

so they are just shouting into the wind.

It's like Scalia telling us that the billionaires are just exercising their free speech like any other citizen when they pump $100 million into the election. It's a false equivalency.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. The foremost advocate of gun control is worth in excess of $35 billion dollars

Does your dislike of big money's influence on politics extend to *his* money as well?

[Human101948]

53. Absolutely...

I worked in my state to pass a resolution for an amendment convention against Citizens United.

We must reverse Citizens United, Restore our Democracy, and Save the Republic. Join the Fight for Free and Fair Elections in America!

Become a Member • Sign our Petition [/b

]http://www.wolf-pac.com/

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. I applaud your principled stand, but you will find yourself a very lonely person...

...in most gun control circles- for the most part, Bloomie is the "man on horseback" these days.

Along those lines, gun control advocates might do better to NOT take after Citizens United;
Say what you will about the NRA, they are past masters at bundling small contributions
and motivating their base

[Human101948]

58. I can support that because there is something bigger at stake...

Representative democracy...which we do not have now.

I will gladly sacrifice George Soros for the heads of the Koch brothers.

P.S. -- bundling will not necessarily pass muster if we have that amendment constitution.

[spin]

95. So what. All the money he spends to try to get me to vote for unreasonable gun control ...

is wasted and most likely will do little to change the opinion of the 80,000,000 gun owners and voting age members of their families in our nation. It will however help to convince them to show up at the polls to vote against any and all politicians who push for laws like another Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Perhaps that is one of the main reasons the Democrats suffered a historic loss in the last midterm election.

[Human101948]

64. Oh-oh! NRA gets caught with pants down!

Yahoo News reported that the NRA misled prospective donors by telling them that money was being raised to support the tax-exempt operations of the organization when the money was, in fact, deposited to the account of its political action committee. Federal law — as well as multiple state laws — requires that fundraisers explicitly inform donors who the beneficiary of a contribution will be.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/guns-and-money-calls-mount-to-probe-nra-finances-117704361976.html

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. Another dead horse

Feel free to continue flogging

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026542354

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172165753

[Human101948]

67. not dead at all, my NRA friend...

Definitely an active issue and investigation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. Okay we'll wait to hear your findings

FYI: I have no NRA, NRA-ILA, etc affiliations.

[Human101948]

70. so why do you feel compelled to criticize a post bout the NRA?

That is especially relevant to the preceding discussion.

[DonP]

71. Cupidity, like stupidity, deserves it's own reward

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. I don't/didn't

I was just pointing out it's been discussed and added links of interest should you care to review other opinions.

This thread is about "Guns being designed to kill". I don't find the NRA's opinion listed in OP.
Feel free to discuss the NRA. Skinner and company own the site not me. What I think, I've already written.

I'm quite happy you're here in the group and participating. Discussion is the essence of democracy.

[Human101948]

73. If you are intent on being helpful and informative...

perhaps you should refrain from using phrases like "beat a dead horse." That in itself was a pejorative phrase that did not come across as encouraging comity.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. Excuse my pejorativity, I found little correlation between...

...NRA fundjacking (or lack thereof) and the topic of the OP. My tone reflected disapproval I suppose.

For me a discussion of the NRA, while related to the GC&RKBA topic, is completely uninteresting. Perhaps my reply pervaded with less comity and more comatosity.

[Starboard Tack]

29. "And of course as we all know most firearms sold today are designed to save lives."

That takes the prize as the silliest post I've ever seen, including all of yours. Congrats!

[ileus]

31. You say potatoe...I say potato.

I really don't know the ratio of SD firearms to Hunting/fun guns, but I'm willing to estimate a 5:1 ratio. I may be off a little bit, but that still leaves a vast majority being designed to protect/save lives.

Where we get in trouble is with a dual purpose firearm like the AR. Many folks use them for competition, some for hunting, still others for fun time plinking at the range with the family, and bunches, and bunches for home defense.

How do you classify such a versatile fun to own firearm??? One of mine is set up for hunting purposes with a 4x12 scope, one for the kids to shoot at the range (open sights and also a CMMG 22 conversion kit for affordable shooting fun. Finally one for home defense and general plinking.

[Starboard Tack]

33. What you use them for is irrelevant

All firearms, except those designed specifically for competition shooting, are designed to kill, be the target human or otherwise. Hunting is killing, which you may well find fun.
Home/self defense firearms are designed to kill and for good reason. I have no interest in your tales of you and your family's "fun with guns". If you teach them that they are fun, that's your problem, but does not change their designed purpose, which is to kill.

I used to hunt frequently with an air rifle as a kid. A very efficient tool for killing birds, and less messy than using the 12 gauge. We would put the birds in pies and stews and eat them. They were tasty, but it was never fun. I stay well away from those who find killing fun.

[gejohnston]

34. my airgun is only for paper targets

my family "fun with guns" was shooting soda cans with the family as a kid and now. I hunted small game with a .22 to add supplement my mom's food stamps. Being out in the snow covered desert, fresh air, exercise, etc. was fun. The killing part itself, not so much. Same with deer. Being part of nature with family in the Wyoming fall, was fun. Killing the deer itself, not so much.
It isn't the act of killing per se. It would have been just as fun if we didn't see a legal deer or any deer at all. I believe that is what ileus meant.

[Starboard Tack]

38. It would be good if he meant that, but I very much doubt it.

My take on Ileus is either he is a complete gun nut and disrespectful inhabitant of this planet, or he is a poe, which is the most likely, imo. IOW, I take nothing he says seriously.

I doubt he has either children or guns, let alone a wife. But he does have a vivid imagination and has probably read a lot of issues of Guns & Ammo and Field and Stream. Seriously, who would think of selling a firearm to someone who presents himself as such a whacko? Not to mention his SN, which is a dead giveaway. I do give him kudos for getting away with it for as long as he has. At this point, maybe he believes it all himself.

He is probably a very nice guy, or gal, who has created this fanciful alter ego to entertain us. If not, OTOH, and he is as he claims, then I am glad to be living far away. I would much rather be in a country where guns are recognized for what they are, which would be tools for killing, not toys.

[gejohnston]

39. my impression is totally different

I have no reason to assume he is anything other than what he claims.
Some guns were designed to be "toys" until appropriated by others. The .50 BMG rifle comes to mind. It was designed for and marketed for long range target shooting, until various militaries saw value in it for their purposes. Like these guys for example
http://www.fcsa.co.uk/
Mall ninja range toys (not a complement nor a sales endorsement. Actually quite the opposite.) like the AK and AR "pistols" and TEC-9 would be another.

As for the planet On thing I have to correct about the link. The tax actually started in 1919, but just went into the general fund until 1937. Unfortunately, such a law would not be possible today. The extremists on one side would want an NFA style tax for general fund, the the other extreme would oppose it because the prohibitionists would push for said NFA style tax. I see the benifts of that tax around me. Pronghorn were extinction in the 1920s. In my lifetime, the bald eagle, wolves, American alligator, all benefited. I see the wildlife refuge system. The last panic AR and ammo buys gave Wyoming shit loads of PR funds to build over and under passes at migration routes for elk, deer, pronghorn, etc. Oh, and maintaining game fences. That lowered the deer crashs 80 percent. I'm sure you have heard of damage a car gets when hitting a Florida white tail. Imagine what a 300 pound mule deer and a car going 80 MPH on I-80.
Now if we can get rid of the frackers, who are destroying sage grouse breeding grounds and doubled our murder rate overnight. At the risk of pissing off a couple of cousins, I would rather see Tesla pick up trucks and letting us go back to ranching and tourism.

[ileus]

43. I just traded a ninja range toy for a CZ75 a few weeks ago.

I'd had a Kel-Tec Sub2000 for several years. I'd taken it to the range 3 times, and my son used it as a deer rifle (which he harvested a nice doe) one youth day (before I picked up a 7mm-08 for him the next year) He took his first deer at age 6. I'd stopped hunting many years before (2004) and since he's got me back into hunting a little. I try and get him on a deer and turkey or two every year now. There aren't many rabbits to chase these days and few grouse so we don't small game hunt.

Oh dear look I've been yakking again about life here in rural Virginia.

[ileus]

42. power over ethernet?

[Eleanors38]

47. Not to be smart-assed, but is Ileus a Poe or a "poet?" Poe was a poet, of course.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Possibly both, possibly neither

"ileus" is a condition associated with bowel obstruction, inducing constipation and more serious complications which may well be a clue.

Poe, of course, was a writer and poet. But that was a different Poe.

Our friend ileus, I think, is a different kind of Poe, as in "Poe's Law" after Nathan Poe.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law

In other words, his posts are a parody of who he really is. Check some of his posts in GD, for example. Our so-called "rights activist" wants to ban prayer, supports abortion rights only because abortion is an effective form of birth control, praises muscle cars and giving kids ATV's as toys, while claiming to care about CO2 emissions. He doesn't kill animals, he "harvests" them and shooting them is fun.

Think the Colbert Report.

Of course, there is Morgan's Maxim, in which case the word "troll" comes to mind.

Following the well-known schema of Arthur C. Clarke's third law, Alan Morgan wrote:
"Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."

[Eleanors38]

57. His stuff is too sideways to be that offensive. I, on the other hand, can stir up a sloth!

[Starboard Tack]

60. LOL

I guess things can go sideways when dealing with severe intestinal blockage.
But whatever he is, he's still managing to fly under the radar, mainly, I think, because he rarely posts more than a one liner.
I've seen many use the Gungeon, over the years, to sneak in and build a post count to gain legitimacy. Earl G. usually sorts them out eventually.

ileus is smart, though. He is posting lots of pro-Hilary one liners. Good CYA move.

[Eleanors38]

61. I match his Hillary one-liner with mine for Bernie.

[Starboard Tack]

62. I hope Bernie runs and think he will.

I like Hillary, but she should not have a coronation. If only Bernie were electable.

[ileus]

41. My use for them is the only one that matters.

That would make it the most relevant of all.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Or not...

[upaloopa]

27. Gee only 30,000 a year isn't that special nothing to do about it

People own multiple guns. Not one gun for every person.
That was easy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Oh thanks

That clears it all up.

[ileus]

30. My firearms are special.... because they're mine.

Some I've picked out for personal/family safety.

Some for family fun time at the range.

Some for hunting.

Some have been in the family since the 40's.

So yes they are pretty special...



but they come in second to my 2A rights.

[benEzra]

45. And the guns which gun control advocates claim are most "designed only for killing"

Last edited Wed Apr 29, 2015, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

are among the *least* likely to be used to murder, despite being some of the most popular guns in U.S. homes.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

[jimmy the one]

59. what good are they?

ezra: And the guns which gun control advocates claim are most "designed only for killing" are among the *least* likely to be used to murder, despite being some of the most popular guns in U.S. homes.

Our premiss is correct, presuming you're referring to what is termed assault rifles (which are not specifically noted in your link - just rifles & sgs, which we gun control advocates generally have no problem with, indeed the most endorsed).
.. the term assault rifle was indeed designed for killing on the battlefield, or better said designed for incapacitating, whether by killing or massive trauma & injury (ie m16 & ergo ar15, as much designed for incap). These rifles do have the capacity to kill inordinately high, compared to most other more conventional rifles & shotguns.
.. the concurrent concern you need to address is, what good are these 'assault rifles' in American communities? what good do they accomplish which couldn't be accomplished by using more conventional rifles & shotguns? even handguns?

Those termed 'assault rifles' are amongst the 'least likely to be used to murder', but they are also amongst the least likely to be used to thwart violent crime or be in a bona fide defensive gun use.
I suspect those termed assault rifles are amongst the least likely, to be used at all.

[benEzra]

75. What good are they? Well, let's see...

They are by far the most used centerfire target rifles in the nation. Go to a typical rifle range on a typical Saturday, and half the centerfire rifles on the firing line will be AR-15 variants or other modern-looking rifles. .223 Remington/5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm easily outsell all other centerfire rifle calibers combined.

Go to any practical carbine competition (USPSA sanctioned, IDPA sanctioned, 3-gun) and the overwhelming majority of rifles you see will be AR-15 variants.

The only domains where AR-15's don't dominate are those that favor higher-powered rifles shooting heavier bullets, such as F-class benchrest or big-game hunting.

AR's dominate smaller game hunting (varmint hunting, predator hunting) down to the level at which .22 rimfires take over.

They are an excellent choice of defensive long gun for the home, offering almost as much effectiveness as a shotgun with less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or handgun rounds.

So, name a rifle that is *more* versatile than that. A Ruger No. 1 or a .300 Win. Mag are niche tools, whereas a 16-20" AR is a generalist. And that's not even getting into the fact that you can swap calibers by pulling two pins.

FWIW, a friend is trying to talk me into trying deer hunting, so one of these (.308 family) is on my short list.

[jimmy the one]

85. I hear heroin is fun & helpful, too

ezra: Go to a typical rifle range on a typical Saturday, and half the centerfire rifles on the firing line will be AR-15 variants or other modern-looking rifles.

That's not a valid use to justify the army's semi auto virtual version of their assault rifle, in peaceful communities. Like justifying heroin for it's pleasureable qualities.
What good are assault rifles in deterring crime, safeguarding homes, or providing some positive benefit from usage which couldn't be accomplished with a more conventional & 'safer' rifle? The ar15/m16 have such little recoil they perforce become more accurate when shooting quickfire, than rifles with higher weight bullets.
There. is. no. beneficial. cogent. usage. for. ar15s. in. communities. To outweigh real & potential hazards. Personal Pleasure is not a consideration to justify them.
Plinking varmints with an ar15 at distance is ridic too, problematic in that the bullet can carry far more than a 22 short of long. Carry to where?

ezra: They are an excellent choice of defensive long gun for the home, offering almost as much effectiveness as a shotgun with less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or handgun rounds.

Already had this discussion, switch to birdshot in the shotgun, as advised in a last year's gun magazine (something like AR15 magazine is it?). You're just enhancing your argument here, like I enhanced the piledriving affect with .223 handguns.
It's an 'excellent choice' is it? If you have enough money (~$1,000?) to waste for home defense & you target shoot competitively & if you live really really rural & get annoyed with varmints a quarter mile away, yeah I guess so. But if you're a normal ar15 owner, I'll bet most of them wish they hadn't bought the damn thing. That's actually a good thing they cost so much, inhibits propagation.
And I'm sure you meant to write " .. less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or SOME handgun rounds." Didn't you?

By default I assume you agree that ar15s rank very low regarding defensive gun uses. That is actual usage. You just cant' get a 'verbal dgu' if you bluff & say to burglar 'go away or I'll get my assault rifle'. Nah, no cigar.

[blueridge3210]

86. Here's the thing, James.

Given the extremely low frequency that long guns in general, and AR variants in particular, are used to commit crimes the government has no compelling interest in restricting their ownership. None. It is not the responsibility of the citizen to justify ownership of an item in a free society. It makes as much sense to restrict ownership of AR variant rifles as it does to restrict horsepower and mag wheels on motor vehicles.

[benEzra]

87. Good point.

And using that analogy, restricting AR's would be a lot like restricting 4-cylinder sport compacts or maybe V6 sports sedans, not high-horsepower V8s and V12s or powerful trucks. I think a Civic Si with the factory aero package is a pretty decent car analogue of an AR, personally.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. Remember, we *are* dealing with an authoritarian mindset

There a always some group of people just itching to ban some Bad Thing (because
they KNOW it's bad, and only us libertine degenerates would ask for empirical evidence
that said Bad Thing is harmful, when every right-thinking person already agrees with them)

It's happened with:

alcohol
cannabis
interracial marriages
comic books
various sorts of music
same-sex marriages
video games
encryption

and so on and so on...

[blueridge3210]

90. Well, I might have to agree on the comics and video games;

I've wasted too much time and money on both.

Any word on Bethesda coming out with a new Fallout or Elder Scrolls product?

[benEzra]

88. It'd be cabernet, not heroin.

"I hear heroin is fun & helpful, too"

The simple fact is that the most popular civilian rifle in the United States is also among the least misused guns in the United States. Period. Even shotguns are used to commit more homicides than rifles are. So are knives, blunt objects, and bare hands.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

"What good are assault rifles (sic) in deterring crime, safeguarding homes, or providing some positive benefit from usage which couldn't be accomplished with a more conventional & 'safer' rifle?"

Just how, perchance, does a rifle become "safer" by fitting it with an old fashioned stock, while retaining the same recoil, rate of fire, and magazine capacity?



By almost any measure, the AR is among the safest of all rifles on the market. Relatively low powered, hard to conceal on the person, a better safety than most long guns, highly accurate, less penetration than most guns, and ergonomics that encourage safer handling. Not to mention that they are less prone to misuse than either handguns or shotguns, based on FBI weapon-use statistics.

"The ar15/m16 have such little recoil they perforce become more accurate when shooting quickfire"

Ummm, what? My AR will shoot about 1" groups at 100 yards, slowfire. Are you saying that if you pull the trigger frenetically like an idiot in a Youtube video, the groups will shrink?

If it's the light-ish recoil of .223 that bothers you, then you're out to ban all box-fed .22 centerfires, then? And you'd be OK with me owning an an AR in harder-kicking .243 Winchester or .308, I take it?

There's also the pesky fact that a more powerful rifle can do more damage with one hit (such as penetrating a Level III AR500 plate) than an AR can do with multiple hits...

"There. is. no. beneficial. cogent. usage. for. ar15s. in. communities. To outweigh real & potential hazards."

Given that the AR is demonstrably *less* dangerous than almost any other class of centerfire firearm, I'd say that is baloney. If AR's---rarely-misused centerfire .22's, after all---are too "dangerous" for civilians to own, then *most* repeating firearms are too dangerous for civilians to own, which is why the gun control lobby popularized the "assault weapon" fraud in the first place (Sugarmann, 1988).

"Already had this discussion, switch to birdshot in the shotgun"

If you switch to 40gr JHP in the AR, you can probably penetrate less than birdshot at close range. Neither is recommended for defensive use, though, due to that same utter lack of penetration.

"It's an 'excellent choice' is it? If you have enough money (~$1,000?) to waste for home defense & you target shoot competitively & if you live really really rural & get annoyed with varmints a quarter mile away, yeah I guess so....That's actually a good thing they cost so much, inhibits propagation."

A basic Smith & Wesson or Ruger AR will set you back about $550 if you shop around, $600 if you don't, which is comparable to a bolt-action of similar quality (say a Savage Trophy Hunter). Obviously optics and features will add to that.

"But if you're a normal ar15 owner, I'll bet most of them wish they hadn't bought the damn thing. "

Actually, looking at NSSF surveys, it looks like AR owners are among the gun owners *most* likely to enjoy shooting their purchase at the range. There are good reasons for that, as I've certainly spelled out upthread.

"And I'm sure you meant to write " .. less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or SOME handgun rounds." Didn't you? "

No, I mean *all* handgun rounds. .223 JHP penetrates less in building materials than any effective centerfire handgun JHP or SP I am aware of. Any of them. Meaning a 9mm/.40/.45 is more likely to exit a lightly constructed exterior wall than a 52-55gr JHP/SP from an AR is. The only handgun round that *might* penetrate as little as a 55gr .223 is something like a Glaser.

"By default I assume you agree that ar15s rank very low regarding defensive gun uses. That is actual usage. You just cant' get a 'verbal dgu' if you bluff & say to burglar 'go away or I'll get my assault rifle'. Nah, no cigar."

Not sure what you're arguing here. They are probably more intimidating than handguns are, which is one reason the media like to sensationalize and ban them, but I'm not sure if that equates to them being actually fired in HD less often (it may, but AFAIK there is little to no data on DGU by gun make/model). And the typical scenario with a long gun would be sheltering in place, not some sort of Clint-Eastwood-esque standing on your porch and threatening thing.

[jimmy the one]

96. the wall challenge, 22rf vs .223 fmj

ezra:The simple fact is that the most popular civilian rifle in the United States is also among the least misused guns in the United States.

You know why of course, an upper class white man's toy, overpriced for most all others; & other than the joy of target shooting which is about as popular overall as reruns of general hospital soaps, lesser cost firearms would suffice for the average gun owner, far moreso for under classes, & criminal elements.

ezra: No, I mean *all* handgun rounds. .223 JHP penetrates less in building materials than any effective centerfire handgun JHP or SP I am aware of.

Changing the goalposts? here is what you originally wrote: They {ar15's} are an excellent choice of defensive long gun for the home, offering almost as much effectiveness as a shotgun with less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or handgun rounds.

Gun owners don't use 22 rimfires for home defense?
... Ruger® Mark III™ and 22/45™ Semiauto Rimfire Pistols Select items on sale!
$329.99 - $690.12 $329.99 - $649.99
...Walther Arms P22 Series Semiauto Rimfire Pistols Sale! $399.99 $319.99
http://www.cabelas.com/category/Rimfire-Handguns/105528780.uts

The .223 has about 10 times more kinetic energy than a 22 short or long (by plurality used most to commit suicide). Not possible the .223 is less hazard.
.. An ar15 - 0.223 fmj carries 3 times more kinetic energy at close range than a 357 magnum, 4 times more than a 9mm. You are contending the .223 is somehow 'less hazard' to bystanders & neighbors, than those?
Dare: I will stand behind a drywall & paneling & be shot at by a 22 rimfire, you stand behind it & get shot at by an ar15. Deal?

Gun ......... kinetic energy joules
12 ga shotgun ........4453
30-06 hunting rifle ..4050
.308 hunting rifle ...3217
AK47 7.62/39 .... 2045 (123 grain)
AR15 .223 ........ 1854 (55-62 grain)
357 magnum........ 672
9 mm ...................467
.38 pistol ...............245
22 rifle 168 http://wredlich.com/ny/2013/01/projectiles-muzzle-energy-stopping-power/

[blueridge3210]

97. "Upper class white man's toy"

So, why then, all the energy expended to ban ownership of a weapon that is so seldom used for criminal activity or misused?

That would be like trying to regulate ownership of muscle cars in an attempt to address the issue of DUI; the issue is the bad actor behind the wheel; not the horsepower of the vehicle.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

98. I for one...

...would feel much better being run down by a Civic than a Crown Vic but then at least police cruisers are never involved in DUIs.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ariz-woman-police-car-siren-drive-dui-article-1.2235419
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Philadelphia-Officer-Driving-Police-Cruiser-Charged-With-DUI-297887491.html

Wait...
Maybe the cops should drive smart cars. Maybe we should all drive smart cars.

[blueridge3210]

99. Um, yeah.

Morrow, GA. My hometown. Police chief DUI behind the wheel of his cruiser; stopped at a green light; subordinate went up to check on the boss. "oh, crap". New police chief. Can't make this up. I heard about it on the radio and just shook my head.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

100. Looked like a nice town

I met an ebay dealer there to pickup a tablet on my way to the airport.

JTO was just making a meager attempt at connecting the hated gun with the hated upper class white man. I'll get back to you on that after I check with Hemenway. He probably called both my doctor and my lawyer.

[Duckhunter935]

106. I like my smart car

[benEzra]

109. I thought we were discussing centerfires, but since you mention it...

"Gun owners don't use 22 rimfires for home defense? "

I thought it was a given that we are discussing centerfires, but rimfires are a good topic to bring up. And yes, 40gr and 55gr .223 JHP penetrate less than or equal to typical .22LR in both drywall and gelatin.

The reason is that .22LR are going way too slowly, and spinning way too slowly, to disintegrate on impact with a soft barrier, whereas lightweight .223 JHP traveling nearly 3000 ft/sec and spinning at 240,000+ rpm tends to disintegrate in gelatin or after getting whacked by a couple sheets of drywall. As a result, .22LR gelatin penetration is typically 9" to 18" in gelatin depending on load, whereas 40gr .223 JHP may penetrate 7" or less, and a 55gr .223 JHP typically penetrates 10" to 12".

There are plenty of good reasons to prefer a centerfire over a rimfire (reliability being #1, and effectiveness #2), but a rimfire is nothing to sneeze at, especially in terms of penetration.

"The .223 has about 10 times more kinetic energy than a 22 short or long (by plurality used most to commit suicide). Not possible the .223 is less hazard. "

Your error is in assuming that kinetic energy correlates with drywall and gelatin penetration. It does not; in fact, all else being equal, it tends to be inversely correlated once you reach the fragmentation threshold. What matters more is fragmentation, and lightweight .223 readily fragments whereas .22LR does not.

For example, here's three gel tests of a 50gr .223, one out of an 11.5" barrel, one a 14.5", and one a 19.5". The longer the barrel and the higher the kinetic energy, the less the round penetrated.

For an even clearer example, compare a 40gr at 1250 ft/sec (.22LR) to a 40gr at 2750 ft/sec (.22 Hornet). More-than-double the velocity and quintuple the energy, and penetration goes down, but temporary cavity *diameter* goes up.

Double the energy *again* (to twice that of a .223, by shooting a 55gr load out of a .30-06 deer rifle), and you still get less penetration than a 40gr .22LR...but horrific "tissue" damage:

FWIW, I spent a couple hours looking, and the only .22LR load I found that penetrates less than a 40gr .223 JHP are some prefragmented .22LR made for squirrel hunting (Quik-Shok, and CCI Segmented HP), and those would likely penetrate drywall like any other .22LR HP. Typical .22LR hollowpoints will penetrate as much as or slightly more than 55gr .223 JHP.

Now, in terms of damage to the target, there is no question; .223 and .357 (and buckshot, and .30-06...) create a *wider* wound than .22LR, by a large margin, and .223 *FMJ* will penetrate more than most .22LR. But comparing .22LR defensive HP (CCI Velocitor is widely regarded as the best) to good .223 defensive JHP, penetration is comparable across the board.

"An ar15 - 0.223 fmj carries 3 times more kinetic energy at close range than a 357 magnum, 4 times more than a 9mm. You are contending the .223 is somehow 'less hazard' to bystanders & neighbors, than those?"

.223 JHP penetrates less than 9mm and .357 JHP. .223 FMJ penetrates less than 9mm and .357 FMJ. Comparing apples to apples, then yes, .223 is a safer choice than either, which is a primary reason why law enforcement SWAT teams have replaced 9mm submachineguns with non-automatic .223 carbines.

"Dare: I will stand behind a drywall & paneling & be shot at by a 22 rimfire, you stand behind it & get shot at by an ar15. "

If you were standing behind the third "wall" in this test, which would you rather be shot at with? The .223 loads that didn't penetrate the third wall, or the 9mm/.380/00 buckshot loads that did?

.223 with appropriate load choice is less likely to overpenetrate than any other effective load. The few loads that manage to penetrate less than good .223 JHP are those specialized for shooting squirrels and birds, and none of those are particularly effective at incapacitation even if they ultimately prove lethal.

[jimmy the one]

110. balked on the wall challenge

ezra: I thought it was a given that we are discussing centerfires, but rimfires are a good topic to bring up. And yes, 40gr and 55gr .223 JHP penetrate less than or equal to typical .22LR in both drywall and gelatin.

Appears to be so, but other considerations are, which would cause more damage if they hit someone - the most severe damage would occur of course after the first wall. And if the .223 were to fragment, tho doesn't as much, if only rarely, as at greater distance, there would be effectively two bullets to contend with.
As you stated: Now, in terms of damage to the target, there is no question; .223 and .357 create a *wider* wound than .22LR, by a large margin, and .223 *FMJ* will penetrate more than most .22LR.

again here is what you originally wrote: They {ar15's} are an excellent choice of defensive long gun for the home, offering almost as much effectiveness as a shotgun with less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or handgun rounds.

Define bystanders. If you meant they were in an adjoining room, not sure they'd be classified as bystanders, but house occupants.
Of course the ar15 is more wieldly than a handgun, which can be better controlled nearer the body, & less susceptible to bumping into things or getting bumped by things (like opponents parrying arms).
I guess a front metal door isn't as safe as a wooden one anymore (the .223 would penetrate it readily, not so much handgun bullets) if you have ar15's in the neighborhood.

I wrote: "By default I assume you agree that ar15s rank very low regarding defensive gun uses. That is actual usage..'
ezra wrote: Not sure what you're arguing here

That is, as low as the ar15 ranks in committing homicide & violent crime, it also ranks low in being used in a defensive gun use (dgu), by rate as well as total index compared to other 'popular' firearms, as you call it.

I wrote: I will stand behind a drywall & paneling & be shot at by a 22 rimfire, you stand behind it & get shot at by an ar15. "
ezra wrote: If you were standing behind the third "wall" in this test, which would you rather be shot at with? The .223 loads that didn't penetrate the third wall, or the 9mm/.380/00 buckshot loads that did?

That wasn't the question; you answered a question with a question. Try again.
What about 9mm & .38, & dirty harry's., or a 25 caliber cf acp, or 25 cal rf (if they make them).

ezra: A basic Smith & Wesson or Ruger AR will set you back about $550 if you shop around, $600 if you don't

You're either low balling or know people in the black market, or it's bottomed out again: june 2013 It appears that the market for the popular rifle has bottomed out. The average price of an AR-15 has in recent weeks returned to the $800-$1,050 range, down from its all-time high of $2,500 (averaged), according to the gun blog The Truth About Guns

ezra: I thought it was a given that we are discussing centerfires, but rimfires are a good topic to bring up

Actually you brought up rimfires first, in the very post 75, so I dunno about what you say:

post 75: AR's dominate smaller game hunting (varmint hunting, predator hunting) down to the level at which .22 rimfires take over. They are an excellent choice of defensive long gun for the home, offering almost as much effectiveness as a shotgun with less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or handgun rounds.

[benEzra]

111. Ummm, no.

"balked on the wall challenge"

*Any* firearm will shoot through a sheet of drywall at in-home distances, including a .22LR or a shotgun loaded with birdshot. .223 Remington with light civilian JHP penetrates less than most.

"And if the .223 were to fragment, tho doesn't as much, if only rarely, as at greater distance, there would be effectively two bullets to contend with. "

You are confusing robust bonded-core rounds, some types of which are known to break in two at the cannelure after a deep yaw in a fluid medium, with fragile civilian JHP that disintegrates after upset. If you wish to limit penetration to less than that of a handgun, buckshot, or .22LR, you want the latter.

"What about 9mm & .38, & dirty harry's., or a 25 caliber cf acp, or 25 cal rf (if they make them)."

9mm, .38 Special, .44 Magnum (the fictional Dirty Harry's gun) will penetrate more drywall than light .223 Remington JHP will. The anemic .25 ACP JHP (centerfire, not rimfire) will probably penetrate about like .223 JHP, but with even less energy than a .22LR. AFAIK there have been no .25 rimfires in production since the late 19th century, if then.

"ezra: A basic Smith & Wesson or Ruger AR will set you back about $550 if you shop around, $600 if you don't

You're either low balling or know people in the black market, or it's bottomed out again: june 2013 It appears that the market for the popular rifle has bottomed out. The average price of an AR-15 has in recent weeks returned to the $800-$1,050 range, down from its all-time high of $2,500 (averaged), according to the gun blog The Truth About Guns "

I see both the Ruger AR-556 and the Smith & Wesson M&P Sport right at $600 right now, and if you wait for a sale then you can indeed snag one for $550. That's about where the S&W has been for the last couple of years; the Ruger AR-556 is new to the entry-level market (their other AR, the SR-556, is aimed at the high end).

Smith & Wesson M&P Sport, $603.00

Ruger AR-556, $599.00

You can certainly pay more and get more features (cold hammer forged barrel, midlength gas system, magnetic-particle-inspected bolt and carrier, somewhat better fit and finish, free-float forend instead of standard handguards, upgraded trigger, better stock, etc.) but a basic, no-frills AR is cheaper than a Ruger Mini-14, and squarely in the working-class bracket.

"post 75: AR's dominate smaller game hunting (varmint hunting, predator hunting) down to the level at which .22 rimfires take over. They are an excellent choice of defensive long gun for the home, offering almost as much effectiveness as a shotgun with less hazard to neighbors/bystanders than buckshot or handgun rounds. "

Where did I mention using .22 rimfires for defensive purposes? I just said AR's cover small game hunting down to where rimfires take over, which is true. AR's are suitable for groundhogs and prairie dogs, and smaller than that (squirrels) you'd use a .22 instead.

[blueridge3210]

76. Here's the thing, James.

In a free society it is incumbent upon the government to demonstrate a compelling interest to restrict the rights of the people. Given the extremely low frequency of criminal use of these rifles, there is no compelling interest in restricting ownership.

[ManiacJoe]

78. If you honestly believe the misinformation about "assault weapons" being special

and having characteristics beyond those of "normal" rifles that should lead to specialized laws laws regulating these "assault weapons", please list these special characteristics. (Please be specific.)

[benEzra]

79. Yup. This gun is identical to an AR-15 in every functional way...

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

...just less accurate and somewhat less durable, but same ammunition, same rate of fire, same range of magazine capacities. I used to own one; Ram-Line used to make magazines that would fit and function in both an AR and a mini-14. I sold it because I wanted something more suitable for target shooting, but the mini-14 made an excellent HD carbine and was fun to shoot.

[Straw Man]

80. Except the most important one.

Yup. This gun is identical to an AR-15 in every functional way...

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

The Mini-14 in standard configuration doesn't have a pistol grip, which means that in the eyes of the general public it's not a "machine gun."

[benEzra]

81. Yup. And the factory stock is brown walnut, not black nylon.

That can be changed in 30 seconds, of course...yank the trigger guard, yank the trigger group, yank the action/barrel out of the stock, drop it in the other stock, pop in the trigger group, close the trigger guard. Of course, that assumes both stocks are fitted with the liners. I actually had three stocks for my mini-14; the standard wooden stock, a Choate fixed stock with a pistol grip, and a Butler Creek folder that I bought after the expiration of the Feinstein non-ban in 2004.

Interestingly, the gun-control lobby calls the wooden-stocked mini-14 both an evil "assault weapon" that should be banned, and a benign "sporting" rifle, depending on how much they think they can get away with at whatever given moment they are talking about it. Feinstein's original non-ban exempted all nonfolding mini-14's, but some of her later Senate bills (such as S.1431, 2003) would have banned all mini-14's by name, even the wooden-stocked ones.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

(snip)

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. So to be exempt from said 2003 version of the ban...

...a name change would be required? Like maybe Ruger R-14mini???

[benEzra]

83. Presumably a name change would do it...

since wouldn't be banned by the features list. Heck, you could alter the magwell so it takes AR magazines and call it the Mini 223, or upgrade the barrel profile, and then it couldn't be said to be a "copy or duplicate" either. Note that the 2003 Feinstein ban wouldn't have banned the exact same gun in 7.62x39mm (the Mini Thirty).

AR's would have needed a grip shape change to comply with the 2003 proposal, unlike the 1994 non-ban which allowed protruding handgrips as long as the rifle met the Evil Features Count rule. Ironically, the 1994 law didn't even require a name change for most AR's, since "Colt AR-15®" was and is a registered trademark of Colt, so all the other AR manufacturers weren't using that name anyway.

[DonP]

84. I love people that know nothing about firearms making laws and writing bans

Then, when it's pointed out that they screwed up, they call it a loophole, blame the evil NRA and demand "closing" the mess they made.

Like microstamping, it's only a matter of time before that "brain trust" realizes there is a "Revolver Loophole" on marking casings that don't eject.

[Matrosov]

102. Let's stop focusing on assault rifles

One of the problems with control/ban advocates is that they get too easily side tracked by subjects like assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Most of the tens of thousands of firearm deaths our society suffers every year involve handguns, and it only takes one bullet to kill a person.

Don't get me wrong, this still doesn't legitimize private ownership of semi-automatic rifles (the problem is limited to semi-automatics that look scary and are thus named assault-rifles) and high-capacity magazines, it simply means the control/ban movement would be far more effective if the focus were on getting rid of firearms in general.

The conservative cancer is also excellent at spreading the 'If we ban guns, the criminals win' (huh, reminds me of 'If we don't vote Republican, the terrorists win') propaganda. That must be the other focus.

[petronius]

63. It's a pretty transparent bit of sophistry, really

If one starts from the unexamined and unsupported assumption that 'guns are only for killing,' and then considers that most gun owners don't hunt then the obvious implication is that guns are for killing humans, and that's what gun owners want to do with them. All the other shooting sports therefore must just be training for and simulation of killing humans, and if gun owners haven't killed anyone yet it's just because they haven't gotten the chance to live out the fantasy.

It's an oblique way of framing gun ownership as anti-social, violent, pro-murder - and it all hangs on the bogus claim that guns* are only for killing. Your major bullshit call is right on target...


* I suppose one could fairly claim that many bullets are designed specifically for killing, or the infliction of maximum injury, but that doesn't extend to the gun that propels the projectile.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. Well everyone who studies martial arts...

...just wants go all Kwai Chang Caine on someone someday, right?

[pablo_marmol]

93. The Controllers are so filled with hate they don't realize how they expose their hand.

If they truly gave a damn about the victims of gun violence, what a gun is designed to do would mean nothing to them. Rather, what guns actually do would mean a great deal -- and your first paragraph would be an attention-grabber to them. But the facts never matter to the ideologue. Instead, they become cause for irritation, and a doubling-down on their dishonorable "arguments". Pathetic in the extreme, they are.

[Matrosov]

101. They still kill

About the only thing guns don't kill are objects like paper targets. They kill, whether it is the animals being hunted, the innocent person being murdered, the suffering person committing suicide, or once in a while, the criminal being stopped.

Hunting isn't really part of the discussion. Other than giving people access to weapons that can be used to commit suicide or murder other people, letting people hunt with firearms is neither detrimental nor beneficial to our society.

Facilitating suicides and murders is detrimental to our society.

The only positive thing guns do is stop a crime every once in a while, when that elusive "good guy with a gun" is actually to be found. But to let that good guy with a gun have his gun, by making gun ownership legal, we also let the criminals and the mentally ill have guns.

Yes, in theory they aren't supposed to have guns, but like the NRA points out, gun control doesn't work. A complete ban would, however.

We let tens of thousand die each year so a few good guys with guns can shoot a criminal once in a while. But both the NRA and our resident right-wing trolls - ah, sorry, I meant our tactical Tier 1 operators on DU - argue that the right of those few good guys with guns to use a gun for self-defense trumps the right of the other thousands not to lose their lives.

[gejohnston]

103. A complete ban would, however.

Ask Mexico, Brazil and Jamaica how their complete bans are working out. BTW, how is that complete ban on pot since 1937 working out? Heroin? Not really working that well in the UK either since the murder rate is about the same as when they had no gun control laws at all.
These are all home made machine guns
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/
While the single shot zip gun is the easiest one to make, the open bolt machine gun is the next easiest to make. All you need are basic hand tools.

[Shamash]

104. Run that by me again

Yes, in theory they aren't supposed to have guns, but like the NRA points out, gun control doesn't work. A complete ban would, however.

That would be like how the complete ban on alcohol "worked" during Prohibition, right? Took care of that nasty booze problem and we've never been troubled by it since. /snark

Setting aside the futility of such a ban, how exactly is your proposal a liberal one? Alcohol is a good comparison. It serves no purpose other than to get you intoxicated, lowering your inhibitions, impeding your thought processes, being the obvious problem in drunk driving incidents, being a major factor in date rape and so on. Facilitating this by (gasp!) allowing people to buy alcoholic beverages would be, as you say, detrimental to society.

The fact that millions of people use alcohol responsibly and never have an alcohol-related run-in with the law is by your reasoning irrelevant. So why not ban it entirely?

Facilitating suicides and murders is detrimental to our society.

Funny you should mention that. Booze and pills are the leading method of suicide for women, so that's another strike against alcohol, again by your logic.

[beevul]

105. You lot are so cute when you attribute your own positions to others.

We let tens of thousand die each year so a few good guys with guns can shoot a criminal once in a while."

"We"? Whos this "we" you speak of? I didn't let anyone do anything.

And who the presumptuous fuck are you to be claiming to be in a position to "let" or not "let" anyone do anything?

But both the NRA and our resident right-wing trolls - ah, sorry, I meant our tactical Tier 1 operators on DU - argue that the right of those few good guys with guns to use a gun for self-defense trumps the right of the other thousands not to lose their lives.

Ahh yes, ascribe your dirty little position to others, how cute. You see it as a choice between "the right of those few good guys with guns to use a gun for self-defense" versus "the right of the other thousands not to lose their lives". You just said so, so don't bother trying to deny it.

You sir, are an anti-gun extremist.

[pablo_marmol]

107. "We let tens of thousand die each year so a few good guys with guns can shoot a criminal....."

Last edited Fri May 29, 2015, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Your lies won't gain any traction, now that a survey by a pro-restriction "scholar" has demonstrated that defensive gun uses are at least as common as offensive uses. And this is only one of roughly sixteen studies to find for this conclusion. Google 'Philip Cook Jens Ludwig NSPOF pdf'.

"Yes, in theory they aren't supposed to have guns, but like the NRA points out, gun control doesn't work. A complete ban would, however."

Given the utter failure of Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" you'd have to be out of your mind to think that banning guns would actually be possible.

So much failure in this post!

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. "So much failure in this post!" Would that other controllers had such economy of style...

That reminded me of four similarities between gun controllers and religious fundies.


1. An intense desire to 'purge' society

2. Best described by the late, great Willie Dixon:

3. A tendency towards chronic motormouth and emotional guilt-tripping

4. A creepy obsession with other people's genitalia...

[pablo_marmol]

112. Oh my dog!

That Willie Dixon piece is a BEAUT!

Gotta save that youtube address for sure!!! Nice summation!