|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 04 2018 10:47 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear. Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all. No, I think the past pages of the thread are far more illuminating than any view rehash will be. There’s hundreds of pages for any curious soul. I don’t put much stake into making the debate about debating personalities in a lull. I’m just going to tell you the feeling is mutual after you single me out for misconduct. And thus we come to the root of the problem, no one is willing to put themselves into a position where they could be proven wrong. To clear it up: I support gun ownership for any type of fire arm. I feel it would be a good idea for hand gun ownership to be gated slightly given the statistics on how often those guns lead to injury and are used for suicide. But that feeling is not a deal breaker for any law. I do not give a shit about assault rifles/long guns or whatever people want to call them. I support a state’s right to regulate those guns as they see fit. I want robust background checks across the US with a well funded and supported database. I want ability for law enforcement and family to seek judicial approval to seize fire arms if they can prove the person is a risk. I would like 6 week training courses for anyone who wants to take them and for that to factor into their ability to obtain a license to carry. So classes and education for anyone that wants to own a fire arm as a requirement, like driving a car? That I can get behind. I might also add insurance for gun owners, so that when someone's gun is used erroneously the victim family will have recourse to collect money to pay for the damages caused by irresponsible gun ownership. I would also say ban on assault rifles, the only logic for owning them is "they're cool." Ban anything that could end up like the vegas shooting, basically any high capacity mag of any sort. In the waffle house shooting, being forced to reload gave the hero an opening to act.
I’m am indifferent about assault rifles. They represent a tiny fraction of over all gun related injuries and they are a huge flash point for voters. The number of people who own guns in the US is dropping, there is no need to ban fire arms to reduce the vast majority of gun violence.
|
On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases.
I also haven't heard of any criminal actions with assault rifles for many years. I'm thinking that's one of the reasons that the more nebulous term "assault weapons" came into the parlance.
|
On July 04 2018 11:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases. I also haven't heard of any criminal actions with assault rifles for many years. I'm thinking that's one of the reasons that the more nebulous term "assault weapons" came into the parlance.
The one most people remember is the North Hollywood shootout, but technically those were modified civilian rifles as opposed to out of the box military models (fully auto).
With that in mind banning the sale of drum mags seems pretty reasonable, and is totally unrelated to me having some and knowing their value will skyrocket.
|
On July 04 2018 11:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 11:34 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases. I also haven't heard of any criminal actions with assault rifles for many years. I'm thinking that's one of the reasons that the more nebulous term "assault weapons" came into the parlance. The one most people remember is the North Hollywood shootout, but technically those were modified civilian rifles as opposed to out of the box military models (fully auto). With that in mind banning the sale of drum mags seems pretty reasonable, and is totally unrelated to me having some and knowing their value will skyrocket.
North Hollywood I remember (though still a little young). Converted semi-autos qualify as assault rifles. That's '97, though I think I recollect one closer to today.
Drum mags of 50-100 I'm generally in favor of tough restrictions on use/sale. Stuff like 30round magazines I'm generally against.
|
On July 04 2018 11:02 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases. which definition of assault rifle are you using? also the answer is assuredly yes anyways given the size of the US and if you're counting many years. so the question would be how many.
Unlike assault weapon, assault rifle has a set definition; lightweight rifle which can be fired fully automatic.
|
On July 04 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 11:02 zlefin wrote:On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases. which definition of assault rifle are you using? also the answer is assuredly yes anyways given the size of the US and if you're counting many years. so the question would be how many. Unlike assault weapon, assault rifle has a set definition; lightweight rifle which can be fired fully automatic.
ah, I see.
I guess submachine guns wouldn't count in such a definition then? and hence would not serve as counterexamples to micro's question?
|
On July 04 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 18:27 Excludos wrote:On July 04 2018 11:02 zlefin wrote:On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases. which definition of assault rifle are you using? also the answer is assuredly yes anyways given the size of the US and if you're counting many years. so the question would be how many. Unlike assault weapon, assault rifle has a set definition; lightweight rifle which can be fired fully automatic. ah, I see. I guess submachine guns wouldn't count in such a definition then? and hence would not serve as counterexamples to micro's question?
No, because submachineguns are not defined as "rifles", despite whatever rifling their boring might have.
|
Assault rifles don't actually have a set defintion, just like submachineguns don't actually have a set definition especially when changing technologies and requirements blurs the traditional lines. They can be part of a doctrine that modern militaries use, but the small arm that people normally think of as an assault rifle as is commonly used can be called all sorts of names in their respective militaries or manufacturers, from rifle, to simply "weapon" or even "equipment". Assault rifle is simply a marketing term. Maybe the US military do have a definition for assault rifle, I don't know.
|
On July 05 2018 04:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Assault rifles don't actually have a set defintion, just like submachineguns don't actually have a set definition especially when changing technologies and requirements blurs the traditional lines. They can be part of a doctrine that modern militaries use, but the small arm that people normally think of as an assault rifle as is commonly used can be called all sorts of names in their respective militaries or manufacturers, from rifle, to simply "weapon" or even "equipment". Assault rifle is simply a marketing term. Maybe the US military do have a definition for assault rifle, I don't know.
The wordings can be different between definitions but the meaning is always the same. The us army definition is: "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.", which is completely in line with every other definition you've seen. Assault rifles have not really had any dramatic changes since ww2 (Don't misunderstand me, the internals have changed quite a bit to be more reliable, accurate, faster, etc. But on the surface level it's still a light weight rifle which fires up to 30 bullets of size somewhere around 5.56 when you press the fun button either in semi or auto).
What you're thinking of when you say "what people normally think of" is probably the term "assault weapon", which have no definition (But is often used in laws to restrict weapons which functions similar to ar-15s).
|
On July 04 2018 11:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases. I also haven't heard of any criminal actions with assault rifles for many years. I'm thinking that's one of the reasons that the more nebulous term "assault weapons" came into the parlance.
I honestly don't know how you two could be in this thread saying what you're saying or making comments on peoples' posts when the most relevant mass shootings of the modern day are almost all assault weapons, and you seem to have no clue about what happened.
"And AR-15 style rifles have become a favorite among mass shooters, used in some of the most notorious and deadly mass killings in recent history: Aurora, Vegas, Texas, San Bernardino."
Also France theater shootings which were AK-47's I believe.
The waffle house was an AR.
Orlando pulse night club was an assault rifle.
It's literally harder to think of examples that aren't assault rifles in the context of mass shootings.
"As gun sales kept climbing, so did the body count.
The shooter who killed 58 people and injured more than 500 in the Las Vegas massacre on October 1, 2017, used several AR-15 style rifles equipped with bump stocks to mimic fully-automatic rifles.
On November 5, 2017, a shooter killed 26 people inside a Texas church using a Ruger AR-556, an AR-15-style rifle.
Twelve people were killed and 70 injured in a 2012 shooting inside a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter's weapons included a Smith & Wesson M&P15, an AR-15 style rifle.
In San Bernardino, California, a married couple killed 14 people and wounded 21 in a 2015 shooting. The couple used two AR-15 style guns, among others."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/health/ar15-rifle-history-trnd/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/opinions/americas-cult-of-guns-parini/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/us/orlando-shooting-survivors-account/index.html
|
United States24801 Posts
ShambhalaWar you are using 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' interchangeably even though they are different terms. You were interpreted literally in your previous post.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On July 05 2018 07:48 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 11:34 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases. I also haven't heard of any criminal actions with assault rifles for many years. I'm thinking that's one of the reasons that the more nebulous term "assault weapons" came into the parlance. I honestly don't know how you two could be in this thread saying what you're saying or making comments on peoples' posts when the most relevant mass shootings of the modern day are almost all assault weapons, and you seem to have no clue about what happened. "And AR-15 style rifles have become a favorite among mass shooters, used in some of the most notorious and deadly mass killings in recent history: Aurora, Vegas, Texas, San Bernardino." Also France theater shootings which were AK-47's I believe. The waffle house was an AR. Orlando pulse night club was an assault rifle. It's literally harder to think of examples that aren't assault rifles in the context of mass shootings. "As gun sales kept climbing, so did the body count. The shooter who killed 58 people and injured more than 500 in the Las Vegas massacre on October 1, 2017, used several AR-15 style rifles equipped with bump stocks to mimic fully-automatic rifles. On November 5, 2017, a shooter killed 26 people inside a Texas church using a Ruger AR-556, an AR-15-style rifle. Twelve people were killed and 70 injured in a 2012 shooting inside a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter's weapons included a Smith & Wesson M&P15, an AR-15 style rifle. In San Bernardino, California, a married couple killed 14 people and wounded 21 in a 2015 shooting. The couple used two AR-15 style guns, among others." https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/health/ar15-rifle-history-trnd/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/opinions/americas-cult-of-guns-parini/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/us/orlando-shooting-survivors-account/index.html
the AR in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle btw
|
The constant misuse assault rifle and then the resulting argument and corrections is one of the more annoying things that details this thread. It really is a useless term.
The AR15 is designed to look like the M-4 for marketing g reasons, which is a rifle designed for the urban combat that was predicted to crop up during the Cold War. The AR15 is designed to look like a combat rifle. It doesn’t mean that people should have it. But no one should act like it was built with hunting in mind.
|
Exact terminology is incredibly important to gun people. If you ever at some point don't use the exact terminology of their choice with regards to guns, that automatically makes anything you have ever said or will ever say incorrect and safely ignored.
|
United States24801 Posts
On July 05 2018 08:11 Simberto wrote:
Exact terminology is incredibly important to gun people. If you ever at some point don't use the exact terminology of their choice with regards to guns, that automatically makes anything you have ever said or will ever say incorrect and safely ignored.
Whether what you say is true or not, this really was not a good example:
On July 04 2018 10:47 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I would also say ban on assault rifles, the only logic for owning them is "they're cool."
If someone wants to call for a big ban in this thread despite how politically charged it is, they should be clear what they mean, at least. This wasn't a case where someone wrote up a big fully researched essay, and one time accidentally said rifle instead of weapon, and then their entire post was immediately discredited and ignored by a gun nut who doesn't want to discuss the issue in good faith.
|
On July 05 2018 07:54 micronesia wrote:
ShambhalaWar you are using 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' interchangeably even though they are different terms. You were interpreted literally in your previous post.
I'm going by the army definition excludious generously quoted earlier. Please excludious if you have a link to that definition include it in the thread as I think it will put to rest most of the pointless semantic arguments in this thread.
The us army definition is: "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."
I'm going by that definition.
On July 05 2018 07:58 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 07:48 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 04 2018 11:34 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases. I also haven't heard of any criminal actions with assault rifles for many years. I'm thinking that's one of the reasons that the more nebulous term "assault weapons" came into the parlance. I honestly don't know how you two could be in this thread saying what you're saying or making comments on peoples' posts when the most relevant mass shootings of the modern day are almost all assault weapons, and you seem to have no clue about what happened. "And AR-15 style rifles have become a favorite among mass shooters, used in some of the most notorious and deadly mass killings in recent history: Aurora, Vegas, Texas, San Bernardino." Also France theater shootings which were AK-47's I believe. The waffle house was an AR. Orlando pulse night club was an assault rifle. It's literally harder to think of examples that aren't assault rifles in the context of mass shootings. "As gun sales kept climbing, so did the body count. The shooter who killed 58 people and injured more than 500 in the Las Vegas massacre on October 1, 2017, used several AR-15 style rifles equipped with bump stocks to mimic fully-automatic rifles. On November 5, 2017, a shooter killed 26 people inside a Texas church using a Ruger AR-556, an AR-15-style rifle. Twelve people were killed and 70 injured in a 2012 shooting inside a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter's weapons included a Smith & Wesson M&P15, an AR-15 style rifle. In San Bernardino, California, a married couple killed 14 people and wounded 21 in a 2015 shooting. The couple used two AR-15 style guns, among others." https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/health/ar15-rifle-history-trnd/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/opinions/americas-cult-of-guns-parini/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/us/orlando-shooting-survivors-account/index.html the AR in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle btw
Unlike you, I took the time to read the article.
"Enter the AR-15, developed for military use by Armalite, an arms company from which the gun takes its name ("AR" stands for "Armalite Rifle")."
"Armalite didn't manage to sell the gun to the military. Faced with money woes, it instead sold the rights to Colt Industries in 1959.
Colt was more successful in its efforts, and in 1962, Congress authorized an initial purchase of 8,500 AR-15s for testing. The fully automatic version--capable of being set to semi-automatic--was given a new name for military use: the M-16.
It became the standard-issue rifle during the Vietnam War."
With small changes by Colt the AR switched fully auto was rebranded as the M-16 and made THE standard issue weapon of the Vietnam War.
You learned another thing today, YW.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/health/ar15-rifle-history-trnd/index.html
|
United States24801 Posts
I don't think anyone learned anything from this conversation.
|
On July 05 2018 10:28 micronesia wrote:
I don't think anyone learned anything from this conversation.
You're the one that always brings up the semantics... Idk what to tell you.
I've provided far more detail than you have on what makes an assault rifle. The gun was design specifically for killing people... Idk what could possibly make it more of an "assault" rifle or weapon.
You called me out, again... over semantics. I gave you a real answer with substance behind it. Now I'm taking your answer above as your best response, which wasn't really a response at all.
|
I don't think you read the parts that you quoted. They don't follow what you said at all. You were trying to say that the AR-15 was an assault rifle but both things you quote clearly describe how the AR isn't an assault rifle and that the gun was changed for military use and given a different name to distinguish between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
