Gun owners keeping it classy

[DGM]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Are you comparing the accuracy of air rifles with their traditional counterparts? There's no way they're as accurate. I'm sure velocity has a lot to do with accuracy - so the slower the projectile the less accurate.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty off, calling it as accurate as a regular gun

You're not wrong, it's just comparing apples to oranges.

I've been shooting 10 and 50 meter air pistol for years. The guns are extremely accurate they just don't have the range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_metre_air_pistol


Funny thing, two of my five air pistols cost more than most really nice powder models (well over $1000 each).

My favorite one is the one I train the kids with.


(this ones not expensive)

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

My reasoning may indeed be flawed if in fact the guns shown in the OP were originally designed for hunting and/or self-defense, and not as I assumed solely for killing people and/or target practice. I know I got somewhat off-track talking about larger gun control issues, but really the OP has all along been my primary concern for participating in this thread. To my admittedly very untrained eye, those devices do not appear to have any real utility for hunting or self-defense, and my discussions in this thread which others more knowledgeable about guns appeared to confirm that impression.

This is the core of my concern, devices designed solely for killing lots of people quickly, and thus in my view do not have a practical purpose outside military or law enforcement applications. I don't understand why people would want them. I'm not saying they should be outlawed (although were it up to me, I'd probably lean towards doing so, pending on doing more research before making a final decision). I'm just saying I don't understand their attraction. Which is fine, there's lots of things I don't understand. I was just commenting on the OP photo, and wandered off into other gun topics about which I am little qualified to comment. (Although I do stand by my comments about the inapplicability of using our attitudes toward alcohol as a model for how we should approach gun control.)

For the record, I do not want to "take everyone's guns away." As I've noted earlier I endorse ownership of guns designed for self-defense and hunting, both of which I consider legitimate applications that offer societal benefit.

The weapons in the photo are a MK 19 grenade launcher, an M4 with M203 attachment, and a chain gun of some sort. Now, lets assume that the M4 is a class 3 weapon. In your research, how many legally owned class 3 weapons have been used to commit mass murder crimes?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No sir. Same recoil. Neither have a recoil control stock.

Next assumption?

Same recoil but the attachments make it easier to manage. The mount and extra handle. Else what is the purpose of those attachments?

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

The weapons in the photo are a MK 19 grenade launcher, an M4 with M203 attachment, and a chain gun of some sort. Now, lets assume that the M4 is a class 3 weapon. In your research, how many legally owned class 3 weapons have been used to commit mass murder crimes?

I suspect you consider the bolded part above as some kind of "gotcha," but I'm afraid it rather misses my point. What are these devices designed to do, other than allow one person to kill lots of other people quickly? And if that is indeed their sole purpose, I don't understand why anyone would want to own what are literally killing machines with no other practical application. And based on that, I think opposition to those weapons is at a minimum defensible. After all, should I be allowed to own a hydrogen bomb, even though no one has ever been killed by one?

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Well "no clue" is perhaps a little harsh,
but I will readily admit to ignorance about their specific technical characteristics.
And I can see where you'd think that ignorance is the cause of my lack of understanding, but I don't believe it is.
My point -- which I believe remains valid -- is my question about the continued public availability of weapons designed solely to kill human beings,
without offering any practical value in terms of self-defense or hunting.
I just don't think that whatever fun one derives from shooting at targets or "varmints" justifies the existence of devices that can and are being used for mass murder.

But fair.
actually on everything
faith is not a valid argument
Not it isn't, because they weren't, and they do
What you believe is mildly interesting but it is no basis for decision making

Semi-auyomatic rifles were introduced c.1900 for civilian use, ie huntting. They were not adopted by the military until the mid 40s at the earliest - for most natiuons it was the mid-50s
The grandfather of the "massive" Bushmaster assault rifle bullet, the .222Remington, was introduced in 1950 for civilian purposes, for light to medium game at medium ranges also targets, the same use its descendent, the .223Remington, has today. It wasn't until the mid 60s that the US Military adopted a variant of the round, the 5.56mmNATO, for its own reasons.
It should be noted that .223 Rem/5.56NATO, is no more lethal when fired from a military looking semi-auto than from a tradtional looking hunting rifle. Circa the 70s it was realized that the military look design, being not tradition bound, had advatages in durability, ease of maintanence, and ergonomics over the traditional look rifle. That is the reason for its popularity, not lethality, It remains a small to medium game at medium ranges cartridge, about the smallest practical round at distances greater than 80 yards.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

But fair.
actually on everything
faith is not a valid argument
Not it isn't, because they weren't, and they do
What you believe is mildly interesting but it is no basis for decision making

Semi-auyomatic rifles were introduced c.1900 for civilian use, ie huntting. They were not adopted by the military until the mid 40s at the earliest - for most natiuons it was the mid-50s
The grandfather of the "massive" Bushmaster assault rifle bullet, the .222Remington, was introduced in 1950 for civilian purposes, for light to medium game at medium ranges also targets, the same use its descendent, the .223Remington, has today. It wasn't until the mid 60s that the US Military adopted a variant of the round, the 5.56mmNATO, for its own reasons.
It should be noted that .223 Rem/5.56NATO, is no more lethal when fired from a military looking semi-auto than from a tradtional looking hunting rifle. Circa the 70s it was realized that the military look design, being not tradition bound, had advatages in durability, ease of maintanence, and ergonomics over the traditional look rifle. That is the reason for its popularity, not lethality, It remains a small to medium game at medium ranges cartridge, about the smallest practical round at distances greater than 80 yards.

Ah, so I have "no clue" on "everything," and am basing my opinions on "faith." I doubt you'll be very surprised to learn that I don't agree with that assessment. Nor should you be particularly surprised when I state that, based on the tone and content of the quote above, I see little point in either reading or responding to anything else you might post in this thread.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

I suspect you consider the bolded part above as some kind of "gotcha," but I'm afraid it rather misses my point. What are these devices designed to do, other than allow one person to kill lots of other people quickly? And if that is indeed their sole purpose, I don't understand why anyone would want to own what are literally killing machines with no other practical application. And based on that, I think opposition to those weapons is at a minimum defensible. After all, should I be allowed to own a hydrogen bomb, even though no one has ever been killed by one?

Actually, I think it is you that misses the point. You, and others who are not knowledgeable about firearms, cry for the immediate ban of these weapons, but fail to realize that they are not the problem. That is why I asked you that question. Why are you so focused on weapons that are already heavily regulated and have not been used to commit mass murders due to their high regulation? The people that own these weapons are generally collectors and owners of gun clubs and gun ranges. They are used strictly for pleasure, and are indeed very fun to fire (I recommend you fire one some time and see how you like it). Do you honestly think these weapons are what should be focused on? The weapons that have been VERY rarely used to commit crimes? Or should the focus be on keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals, which are what causes the majority of deaths in the United States?

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Actually, I think it is you that misses the point. You, and others who are not knowledgeable about firearms, cry for the immediate ban of these weapons, but fail to realize that they are not the problem.

You take me to task for missing the point, but also state that I "cry out for the immediate ban of these weapons." In fact, I don't think I have -- I certainly never intended to. I have said I don't understand why people would want them. Surely you can see the difference?

Quote:

That is why I asked you that question. Why are you so focused on weapons that are already heavily regulated and have not been used to commit mass murders due to their high regulation?

Because they are designed solely to kill lots of people quickly, and as far as I can see have no other practical application. It troubles me that such weapons exist, and that people want them.

Quote:

The people that own these weapons are generally collectors and owners of gun clubs and gun ranges. They are used strictly for pleasure, and are indeed very fun to fire (I recommend you fire one some time and see how you like it).

I have never used these devices, and frankly am unlikely to, given the function for which they have been designed. I have hunted when I was younger, and enjoyed it!

Quote:

...Do you honestly think these weapons are what should be focused on? The weapons that have been VERY rarely used to commit crimes? Or should the focus be on keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals, which are what causes the majority of deaths in the United States?

I don't consider this an either/or proposition. I would like to make it more difficult for criminals to get handguns, although we might disagree on what measures might be the most efficacious to make that happen (a discussion decidedly OT for this particular thread). I would also like it if people didn't want to own guns that are specifically designed to allow a person to kill others efficiently and quickly. That's been my sole point all along, and it really isn't a very complex one.

[thaiboxerken]

Apparently, they are not well-regulated.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Are you comparing the accuracy of air rifles with their traditional counterparts? There's no way they're as accurate. I'm sure velocity has a lot to do with accuracy - so the slower the projectile the less accurate.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty off, calling it as accurate as a regular gun

Within 25 yds, top quality air pistols are very accurate, but fall sort against a similar top quality centerfire or rimfire pistol - from a machine rest, a top quality smith built .45 goverment model pistol should group all shots from an eight round magazine into 1.5" or less at 50 yds - quite a feat considering the diameter of the projectile is .451 m/l.

Oylmpic quality air pistols can fire amazing groups at standard competition distances, but they carry an olympic pricetag as well.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Apparently, they are not well-regulated.

Why do you say that?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Why do you say that?

"After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm."

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/gla...entfirearm.cfm

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

I suspect you consider the bolded part above as some kind of "gotcha," but I'm afraid it rather misses my point. What are these devices designed to do, other than allow one person to kill lots of other people quickly? And if that is indeed their sole purpose, I don't understand why anyone would want to own what are literally killing machines with no other practical application. And based on that, I think opposition to those weapons is at a minimum defensible. After all, should I be allowed to own a hydrogen bomb, even though no one has ever been killed by one?

Lets leave the straw out of the equation, but please allow me to stick my nose in here.

At this time, under current law, NFA weapons and devices reside in safes and vaults owned by the same type of collectors that drop a few million on an exotic car - or guys like me that acquired them pre-86 when prices were within reach of well employed individuals or from their family that amnesty registered the pieces in 1968 - joe blow doesn't have the financial horsepower to drop mid five figure or up cash on a transferable MG - the Mk19 in that photo? I know of exactly one transferable example in the NFTR and the last time I heard about it it was for sale...at 250K US. Not something you buy on a whim.

Transferable M16's and AK's, even in today's depressed market, go for five figure prices - check the graphs at this link:

http://www.machinegunpriceguide.com/...ce_guides.html

To answer Quads question - exactly one crime has been commited with a registered MG- a law enforcement officer used his legally owned M11/9 with suppressor to murder a drug dealer/informant. He was prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated.

Registered NFA weapons, the cost to purchase and the process that one goes through to legally possess these weapons and devices makes it extremely unlikely they'd ever be used in any sort of crime.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Same recoil but the attachments make it easier to manage. The mount and extra handle. Else what is the purpose of those attachments?

So, Tri, what is the purpose of the bipod and the front hand grip?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Registered NFA weapons, the cost to purchase and the process that one goes through to legally possess these weapons and devices makes it extremely unlikely they'd ever be used in any sort of crime.

I think you've figured out how to reduce the firearm crime rate here.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I think you've figured out how to reduce the firearm crime rate here.

FWIW, in another thread, I proposed a modified version of NFA registration for semi-auto versions of selective or full auto military firearms.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by BStrong

FWIW, in another thread, I proposed a modified version of NFA registration for semi-auto versions of selective or full auto military firearms.

It should be universal to all firearms.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It should be universal to all firearms.

There's two problems with that, Heller v DC and Mcdonald v Chicago

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by BStrong

There's two problems with that, Heller v DC and Mcdonald v Chicago

I said it should be. The opinion of a right-wing supreme court doesn't really change my opinion.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Lets leave the straw out of the equation, but please allow me to stick my nose in here.

At this time, under current law, NFA weapons and devices reside in safes and vaults owned by the same type of collectors that drop a few million on an exotic car - or guys like me that acquired them pre-86 when prices were within reach of well employed individuals or from their family that amnesty registered the pieces in 1968 - joe blow doesn't have the financial horsepower to drop mid five figure or up cash on a transferable MG - the Mk19 in that photo? I know of exactly one transferable example in the NFTR and the last time I heard about it it was for sale...at 250K US. Not something you buy on a whim.

Transferable M16's and AK's, even in today's depressed market, go for five figure prices - check the graphs at this link:

http://www.machinegunpriceguide.com/...ce_guides.html

To answer Quads question - exactly one crime has been commited with a registered MG- a law enforcement officer used his legally owned M11/9 with suppressor to murder a drug dealer/informant. He was prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated.

Registered NFA weapons, the cost to purchase and the process that one goes through to legally possess these weapons and devices makes it extremely unlikely they'd ever be used in any sort of crime.

Thank you for answering my question, and also explaining the NFA weapons purchasing process so eloquently. Now hopefully some of the other forum members will understand why crying for the ban of assault weapons and machine guns is way off the mark for what actually needs to be addressed.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I said it should be. The opinion of a right-wing supreme court doesn't really change my opinion.

And your opinion has no effect on reality.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Thank you for answering my question, and also explaining the NFA weapons purchasing process so eloquently. Now hopefully some of the other forum members will understand why crying for the ban of assault weapons and machine guns is way off the mark for what actually needs to be addressed.

Then what, in your opinion, actually needs to be addressed?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, you're correct. Air rifles are incredibly inaccurate, especially at a distance, or when there's any kind of breeze.

And they're spheres, which typically are very bad for accuracy and stability during flight. Hence, why bullets are not shaped like that, and haven't been for many years.

How 'incredibly inaccurate' are they? What fires a sphere?

You don't know much about air weapons do you?

IN the UK an Air Rifle is the weapon of choice for gamekeepers and exterminators when they are after rabbits, pigeons or crows. They are virtualy silent so don't scare the whole lot away when you shoot the first one, they are accurate and in the case of Rabbit and Pigeon they do little damage to the animal so it sells to the game dealer for more.

For example the Air Arms range. Designed for field shooting.

[Brian-M]

Wow, this thread sure grew quickly.

Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe

I'll give you that, but intent hasn't been proven.

I doubt it was intentional, there are numerous cases where people have passed-out or lost control and ploughed their car into a schoolyard, killed or injuring students. That's just the only one I could find where the car made it into a classroom.

But for the sake of playing devil's advocate, compare that with the number of gunmen who have accidentally walked into a nearby school and started shooting kids without intending to.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Are you suggesting that everyone should learn about guns, then? Do you favor learning about guns at school, or is it something that should be done at home by the parents?

(I know the question isn't directed at me, but I feel like giving my own opinion on it.)

I'm not keen of the idea of teaching kids how to use guns. But teaching kids the basics of firearm safety from a young age might be a good idea even if you hope they never have need to apply the knowledge. Basics such as never point a gun at anything you're not prepared to destroy or kill, always treat a gun as if it were loaded even when you know it isn't, always consider what lies behind your target before you pull the trigger.

(That last one doesn't really apply if you're just shooting targets at an established firing range. But if you're hunting, defending yourself or shooting beer cans in the backyard it's something that needs to be considered.)

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty off, calling it as accurate as a regular gun

There's a 10 metre air rifle event in the Olympic games. If air rifles are accurate enough for Olympic competition, shouldn't they be okay for recreational target practice?

But I'm pretty sure that the kind of air rifle used in the Olympics is a lot more accurate than the kind most people use. A competition-quality precision air-rifle sells for around $2000 to $3500. Hardly a BB gun.

From the pictures I've seen, the competitions are indoors so that wind isn't a factor.

ETA: I know other people have pretty much covered the air-rifle info in their replies already, but I wrote this before I finished reading all the replies.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Lets leave the straw out of the equation...

I totally agree -- I'll stop talking about hydrogen bombs and anthrax, as soon as others stop talking about alcohol, cars, and swimming pools!

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

There's a 10 metre air rifle event in the Olympic games. If air rifles are accurate enough for Olympic competition, shouldn't they be okay for recreational target practice?

But I'm pretty sure that the kind of air rifle used in the Olympics is a lot more accurate than the kind most people use. A competition-quality precision air-rifle sells for around $2000 to $3500. Hardly a BB gun.

From the pictures I've seen, the competitions are indoors so that wind isn't a factor.

ETA: I know other people have pretty much covered the air-rifle info in their replies already, but I wrote this before I finished reading all the replies.

Very accurate air rifles can be had for a lot less than $2000 http://www.airrifleshop.co.uk/Airrifles.htm

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

I totally agree -- I'll stop talking about hydrogen bombs and anthrax, as soon as others stop talking about alcohol, cars, and swimming pools!

Absolutely! No-one's denying that there are problems with alcohol and cars. But they're totally irrelevant to the current conversation.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

How 'incredibly inaccurate' are they? What fires a sphere?

You don't know much about air weapons do you?

IN the UK an Air Rifle is the weapon of choice for gamekeepers and exterminators when they are after rabbits, pigeons or crows. They are virtualy silent so don't scare the whole lot away when you shoot the first one, they are accurate and in the case of Rabbit and Pigeon they do little damage to the animal so it sells to the game dealer for more.

For example the Air Arms range. Designed for field shooting.

Well, to be totally fair I can imagine that air rifles might not pack the same "oomph" as regular bullets and thus might not be quite as accurate long-range in the wind. And although the likes of me might never notice the difference, someone highly skilled at target shooting might have extremely high standards and consider any lesser technology as substandard. (Of course, as others have reminded me -- and not without justification -- my technical expertise with guns is sorely lacking.)

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by StankApe

you apparently don't anything about the classifications of crime. ....If a guy walks into a McDonalds with a belt full of guns and starts shooting like mad, missing often and is either subdued or killed before he kill anyone. It would not be considered a "homicide" ....

It would be considered a homicide if he were killed.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It would be considered a homicide if he were killed.

Justifiable homicide is still homicide.

I think what Stankape was trying to say was the guy who was killed would still be considered a mass shooter, even if he never actually killed anybody, due to intent. Same as a foiled suicide bomber is still a suicide bomber.

[Sabretooth]

While there are no specific numbers on the number of deaths caused by gunman using an AR-15 (aka: People Killer Assault Weapon), I did come across these details:

Quote:

Though it is one of the most popular rifles sold to civilians, the AR-15 is rarely used in crimes, presumably because it’s not readily concealed. The most recent FBI figures show just 358 of the 8,775 murders by firearm in 2010 involved rifles of any type. By comparison, 745 people were beaten to death with only hands that year, but no one has called for outlawing fists.

Source

Quote:

As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States. The rifles are favored for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection.

Source

So...for arguments sake, let's assume that all 358 murders were committed with the dreaded AR-15 People Killer. 358 guns...out of the low side ownership of 2.5 million.

358 / 2,500,000 = 0.0143%

So, 99.98% of AR-15 owners are responsible enough to not kill people with their People Killer...and that's under estimating.

How does the public get into this frenzied hissy fit and want to ban a certain type of gun (or all guns) as if this is some kind of epidemic?

By and large, this shows significantly that the super-vast majority of gun-owner are responsible and law-abiding. How do you justify taking away something from those people with facts such as this?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

I obviously cannot agree with this. For instance, I doubt my neighbors would be thrilled if I were cultivating anthrax in my basement laboratory.

The second amendment isn't limited to firearms. I have a constitutional right to keep and bear biological weapons.

They can have my anthrax when they pry it from my cold, dead, hands.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

I totally agree -- I'll stop talking about hydrogen bombs and anthrax, as soon as others stop talking about alcohol, cars, and swimming pools!

So, I shouldn't offer to drive my car into a swimming pool filled with alcohol?

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Very accurate air rifles can be had for a lot less than $2000 http://www.airrifleshop.co.uk/Airrifles.htm

Converting to USD, those range from $1000 to $1600. Still not a stocking stuffer.

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that those models are intended for the keen amateur rather than serious competition. Still, probably more than accurate enough for most people.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

To be honest, I am still working on getting the anti gun crowd to stop labeling semi automatic rifles as assault weapons. It's a process, but someone must counter the ignorance.

Why? OK, so there's this classification called "assault weapon" and maybe it has some sort of specific meaning among some sort of circle.

Who cares?

Meanwhile, a lot of people use the phrase "assault weapon" to mean "anything capable of killing lots of people quickly". Would you prefer they used a different term? What gives here? Why does it matter?

Some people seem to think that knowledge of firearms, their use, and the ability to distinguish important characteristics of those weapons makes them more qualified to have an opinion on gun regulation. It's silly. I don't know an AK from an AR, and I don't care. I don't know what a Sig Sauer is, despite the fact that there have been a lot of news stories lately that mentioned it. Does that make my opinion irrelevant?

What I do know is that some weapons are really good at filling the air with bullets quickly, and while I would not outlaw the ownership of such weapons completely, I would put some pretty significant restrictions on their ownership, storage, distribution, and use. I'll let some committee of bureaucrats decide exactly what weapons fall into that classification, and if they end up calling them "assault weapons" that's fine with me.

I'm appalled every time I see a gun rights advocate act as if his knowledge of firearms makes him superior to the average dude who never intends to bother with learning the exact definition of semi automatic.

[rikzilla]

In 1787 all rounds were spherical. and interestingly this is when the 2nd amendment was ratified...as well as the 3rd. There is no controversy about the 3rd, we all know how laughably obsolete it is...but somehow folks seem to think the 2nd is somehow less obsolete? I don't see how anyone can seriously argue such a thing. Both were written in a time in which state militias were the defacto army...and were necessary to security. Both alluded to the needs of the soldier, weapons...shelter...and the limits the state must observe in provision of those needs. The modern idea of what the 2nd means is simply the fruit of the NRA's public relations efforts (propaganda) and then codified into law by a stacked SCOTUS in '08.

The 2nd and 3rd amendments are simply archaic law dictating the rights and obligations of the then existing military forces. There was no individual right stipulated by either amendment. The NRA and conservative pols simply rewrote history, then had it rubber stamped by a SCOTUS that also brought us "Constitutional" indefinite detention, wire tapping, unlimited money to buy elections, and the entire GW Bush administration (not in that order)

That SCOTUS is capable of such infamous misdeeds clothed in the mantle of law is not even debatable.

-z

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

In 1787 all rounds were spherical. and interestingly this is when the 2nd amendment was ratified...as well as the 3rd. There is no controversy about the 3rd, we all know how laughably obsolete it is...but somehow folks seem to think the 2nd is somehow less obsolete? I don't see how anyone can seriously argue such a thing. Both were written in a time in which state militias were the defacto army...and were necessary to security. Both alluded to the needs of the soldier, weapons...shelter...and the limits the state must observe in provision of those needs. The modern idea of what the 2nd means is simply the fruit of the NRA's public relations efforts (propaganda) and then codified into law by a stacked SCOTUS in '08.

The 2nd and 3rd amendments are simply archaic law dictating the rights and obligations of the then existing military forces. There was no individual right stipulated by either amendment. The NRA and conservative pols simply rewrote history, then had it rubber stamped by a SCOTUS that also brought us "Constitutional" indefinite detention, wire tapping, unlimited money to buy elections, and the entire GW Bush administration (not in that order)

That SCOTUS is capable of such infamous misdeeds clothed in the mantle of law is not even debatable.

-z

I believe the "big picture" with the 2nd Amendment is that, if it's changed and/or eliminated, then what's stopping elected officials from changing/eliminating other Amendments?

[000063]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Why? OK, so there's this classification called "assault weapon" and maybe it has some sort of specific meaning among some sort of circle.

Who cares?

Meanwhile, a lot of people use the phrase "assault weapon" to mean "anything capable of killing lots of people quickly". Would you prefer they used a different term? What gives here? Why does it matter?

Because accuracy, in both guns and terminology, is actually rather important, especially if there are going to be laws based on it. Think about all the people who twitch when they hear people conflate Darwinism and Abiogenesis.

Quote:

Some people seem to think that knowledge of firearms, their use, and the ability to distinguish important characteristics of those weapons makes them more qualified to have an opinion on gun regulation. It's silly.

I don't see why. I don't advise a heart surgeon on how to do a suture. I wouldn't even presume to know more about it than a med student or nurse.

Quote:

I don't know an AK from an AR, and I don't care. I don't know what a Sig Sauer is, despite the fact that there have been a lot of news stories lately that mentioned it. Does that make my opinion irrelevant?

I think it makes it less credible. Do you have any examples of someone saying that lack of knowledge makes an opinion entirely irrelevant? Or just uninformed?

Quote:

What I do know is that some weapons are really good at filling the air with bullets quickly, and while I would not outlaw the ownership of such weapons completely, I would put some pretty significant restrictions on their ownership, storage, distribution, and use. I'll let some committee of bureaucrats decide exactly what weapons fall into that classification, and if they end up calling them "assault weapons" that's fine with me.

I'm appalled every time I see a gun rights advocate act as if his knowledge of firearms makes him superior to the average dude who never intends to bother with learning the exact definition of semi automatic.

So your saying someone with little knowledge of a subject should be considered just as credible as someone with a lot of knowledge, and their opinions should be given the same weight?

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Why? OK, so there's this classification called "assault weapon" and maybe it has some sort of specific meaning among some sort of circle.

Who cares?

Meanwhile, a lot of people use the phrase "assault weapon" to mean "anything capable of killing lots of people quickly". Would you prefer they used a different term? What gives here? Why does it matter?

Some people seem to think that knowledge of firearms, their use, and the ability to distinguish important characteristics of those weapons makes them more qualified to have an opinion on gun regulation. It's silly. I don't know an AK from an AR, and I don't care. I don't know what a Sig Sauer is, despite the fact that there have been a lot of news stories lately that mentioned it. Does that make my opinion irrelevant?

What I do know is that some weapons are really good at filling the air with bullets quickly, and while I would not outlaw the ownership of such weapons completely, I would put some pretty significant restrictions on their ownership, storage, distribution, and use. I'll let some committee of bureaucrats decide exactly what weapons fall into that classification, and if they end up calling them "assault weapons" that's fine with me.

I'm appalled every time I see a gun rights advocate act as if his knowledge of firearms makes him superior to the average dude who never intends to bother with learning the exact definition of semi automatic.

It's a technical term that had a perfectly good definition before the 1994 AWB muddied the waters. When we're talking about actual bans it makes a hell of a lot of difference.

Are you actually arguing that people have no need to educate themselves on the topic being discussed, or even that ignorance is preferable? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

To rehash an analogy I made earlier in the thread, if some referred to a Messerschmidt Me-109 as a "fighter jet", wouldn't you correct them? That's what someone is doing when they refer to a semi-auto AR-15 as an "assault weapon".

[Elypsis44]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

I believe the "big picture" with the 2nd Amendment is that, if it's changed and/or eliminated, then what's stopping elected officials from changing/eliminating other Amendments?

Ah yes, the dreaded slippery slope.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

I believe the "big picture" with the 2nd Amendment is that, if it's changed and/or eliminated, then what's stopping elected officials from changing/eliminating other Amendments?

Hasn't that already happened, a bunch of times?