Gun control debate (merged)

[LouderVol]

lol.....defense by assault will still be classified as assault.

when they were invented they were 100% a defensive weapon. they were far too large to move easily, which would make their use in an assault quiet difficult. yet alone all the corresponding ammo, replacement barrels, stand and so on.

 

[VOLS INC.]

no we have given you the definition of what "assault weapon" means. you just didn't like it.

The definition of "assault weapon" would be: a made up term used to lie to the general public and overstate the political opinions of people with no working knowledge of guns. a completely amorphous term that is changed constantly at the behest of those who actively want to condemn guns and their owners.

I like it!

 

[VOLS INC.]

 

[hndog609]

This definition will always evolve for you. Take away the AR15s and someone commits a shooting with a semi pistol and then they have to go. Then someone uses a pump shotgun, then those go. Before you are done, will have muskets.

Stay down. You've been beat to a pulp. You embarrassing yourself even more than usual.

Let's move beyond Looth and his pseudo-intellectual musings and expand on the base you've set here. Civilian semi-auto rifle design just in this country goes back to the 1890's (at least, but I know this much) when Winchester started working on the idea. By 1906 they had a centerfire rifle up and running to be named the Model 1907. Here it is:





So there you have it...a detachable magazine fed semi-auto from 118 years ago built and sold to the American population. Apart from getting into the hard tech of differentiating how the action cycles the function is indistinguishable from an AR. This makes the Winchester Model 1907 and the AR the same damn thing along with literally anything with that also functions in a similar manner. Interestingly that's a HUGE swath firearms in ubiquitous use for sport/recreation/hunting/defense. They (and anything else analogous) are not one...jot...more...than modern* firearm designs. (unless you're a moron that thinks pistol grips, adjustable stocks and "shoulder things that go up" actually mean a damn thing)

*Modern of course even being contextual. Hell, even the AR design originated in the mid 50's.

 

[jp1]

Let's move beyond Looth and his pseudo-intellectual musings and expand on the base you've set here. Civilian semi-auto rifle design just in this country goes back to the 1890's (at least, but I know this much) when Winchester started working on the idea. By 1906 they had a centerfire rifle up and running to be named the Model 1907. Here it is:

View attachment 626915

View attachment 626918

So there you have it...a detachable magazine fed semi-auto from 118 years ago built and sold to the American population. Apart from getting into the hard tech of differentiating how the action cycles the function is indistinguishable from an AR. This makes the Winchester Model 1907 and the AR the same damn thing along with literally anything with that base design. Interestingly that's a HUGE swath firearms in ubiquitous use sport/recreation/hunting/defense. They (and anything else analogous) are not one...jot...more...than modern* firearm designs. (unless you're a moron that things pistol grips, adjustable stocks and "shoulder things that go up" actually mean a damn thing.

*Modern of course even being contextual. Hell, even the AR design originated in the mid 50's.

You just said a bunch of stuff that Luther won't understand, or even try to understand.

 

[hndog609]

You just said a bunch of stuff that Luther won't understand, or even try to understand.

The boldened is the key. The funny part is he'll try to sell you he completely understands but everybody else is too simpleminded to not understand how he understands it. At least with firearms there's more than a little D4H with that guy's approach.

 

[85SugarVol]

There are plenty of reasons for embarrassment in this thread; that's for sure, and you've just provided another one.

I’ve tried repeatedly to engage you in a good faith conversation - you have appeared to be more interested in the more colorful conversation unfolding.

 

[hog88]

I’ve tried repeatedly to engage you in a good faith conversation - you have appeared to be more interested in the more colorful conversation unfolding.

There is no "good faith" conversation with Luther.

 

[luthervol]

I’ve tried repeatedly to engage you in a good faith conversation - you have appeared to be more interested in the more colorful conversation unfolding.

If so, then I apologize, maybe I didn't recognize as being in good faith....
If you have something specific, run it by me again and I'll do better.

 

[85SugarVol]

If so, then I apologize, maybe I didn't recognize as being in good faith....
If you have something specific, run it by me again and I'll do better.

Well let me see if I can sum up.

You’ve been clear you don’t want to ban all guns.
You want to remove a subset of guns, ostensibly assault weapons.

Is that correct?

And the outcome of these restrictions will be a “safer and more sensible” society, which will positively impact underlying safety metrics.

Is that also correct?

 

[NurseGoodVol]

You’re wrong.
Some are for sports like target shooting

You never know what that clay pigeon did.

 

[InVOLuntary]

There are plenty of reasons for embarrassment in this thread; that's for sure, and you've just provided another one.

The clown as always.

 

[McDad]

no we have given you the definition of what "assault weapon" means. you just didn't like it.

The definition of "assault weapon" would be: a made up term used to lie to the general public and overstate the political opinions of people with no working knowledge of guns. a completely amorphous term that is changed constantly at the behest of those who actively want to condemn guns and their owners.

Assault weapon can only have two defining characteristics, weapons either designed for use in an assault or weapons used in an assault. Any weapon not meeting those two attributes is either a weapon or has an adjective describing it by its design or current state of use.

 

[0nelilreb]

Then there may be another definition that would be better. That was intended to be the point of the discussion.
Some nut asked "what's the definition of an assault rifle" - I think he was attempting to be funny.

Simply to advance the conversation, I googled, copied, and pasted the first definition of "assault weapon" listed.
A few gun nuts went ballistic.
I responded, "feel free to post your own definition."

I believe only one poster was willing to do that. The one poster who asked the initial question was absolutely terrified to go on record with his own definition.
Why? I haven't a clue, nor do I care very much.

I just find it pretty funny, and telling, that this group of gun experts (nuts) can't even come up with an agreed upon definition of assault weapon.

There’s no such thing . It’s only a platform ( rifle for you , the uneducated ) a firearm , all firearms like rocks , sticks , knives , hammers have multiple uses . You say you shot a Skeet shotgun , that same one you shot can also be used to hunt , defense or assault .

 

[0nelilreb]

So let’s just make this simple. To Luther an assault weapon is any gun.

Eventually this is where he and the grabbers want to be . They just can’t figure away around having to amend the constitution yet .

 

[luthervol]

Eventually this is where he and the grabbers want to be . They just can’t figure away around having to amend the constitution yet .

That's simply not true, no matter how many times you say it.
But I know it's really the only way to make an irrational stance seem justifiable.

 

[volfanhill]

Assault weapon can only have two defining characteristics, weapons either designed for use in an assault or weapons used in an assault. Any weapon not meeting those two attributes is either a weapon or has an adjective describing it by its design or current state of use.

We need to worry more about sexual assault wepaons
...especially the big black scary ones

 

[luthervol]

Well let me see if I can sum up.

You’ve been clear you don’t want to ban all guns.
You want to remove a subset of guns, ostensibly assault weapons.

Is that correct?

And the outcome of these restrictions will be a “safer and more sensible” society, which will positively impact underlying safety metrics.

Is that also correct?

I do not want to ban all guns. 100% correct
I want to remove a subset of guns plus reduce the rate of increase in number of guns sold. correct
The outcome will hopefully be a safer and more sensible GUN culture. correct
The safety metrics will be the difficult.

 

[85SugarVol]

I do not want to ban all guns. 100% correct
I want to remove a subset of guns plus reduce the rate of increase in number of guns sold. correct
The outcome will hopefully be a safer and more sensible GUN culture. correct
The safety metrics will be the difficult.

Yes, I realize you have been hesitant to identify which safety metrics this will have a positive impact on. That’s fine, we don’t have to nail those down - we can speak directionally.

I see 2 scenarios on the heels of this subset of guns being removed.

1. Gun related safety metrics improve.
2. Gun related safety metrics remain unchanged.

Is that fair?

 

[VOLS INC.]

I do not want to ban all guns. 100% correct
I want to remove a subset of guns plus reduce the rate of increase in number of guns sold. correct
The outcome will hopefully be a safer and more sensible GUN culture. correct
The safety metrics will be the difficult.

Can we play banned or not banned?
Semi-automatic

Standard magazine holds 15 rounds

Average shooter can fire roughly 2 rounds per second

Should we ban it Luther?

 

[kiddiedoc]

Can we play banned or not banned?
Semi-automatic

Standard magazine holds 15 rounds

Average shooter can fire roughly 2 rounds per second

Should we ban it Luther?

15 round mags are for sissies.

(Unless it's a 12 gauge)

 

[VOLS INC.]

15 round mags are for sissies.

Pipe down. I said standard

@kiddiedoc How long does it take you to reload a musket? I’ve got a feeling by time we finish this game, that’s where we will be.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Pipe down. I said standard

@kiddiedoc How long does it take you to reload a musket? I’ve got a feeling by time we finish this game, that’s where we will be.

My dad actually has one, but I've never shot it.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I know I have posted this before, but it illustrates the extent of the lack of knowledge of the gun control advocates.

The "Mad Minute." Pre-WW1 regular British Army soldiers had to hit a 300 yard target 15 times within a minute over open sights. This included reloading the gun, the bolt-action SMLE (Short Magazine Lee Enfield) in caliber .303, a round delivering well over twice the energy of the .223/5.56 the gun grabbers want to ban.

The British Empire fielded six divisions of such men in 1914.

The problem is not the instrument. It is the monsters wishing to do harm. Do away with the guns and the monsters will find or devise other methods. Great Britain is dealing with that now in the case of knives.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Do away with semi-autos and the lever actions, pumps and revolvers will make a big comeback. Revolvers with speed loaders and with a little practice can achieve significant increases in firing rates.

It is the monsters. Not the guns.