Sfdebris.net

Anything fully-automatic and anything with a capacity over 15-25 rounds. THAT's whay I consider an 'assult' weapon, street-sweeping typewriters.

But I'm also someone who thinks we should be more lenient on suppressor ownership, so I may just be a weirdo.

ProfessorDetective wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:45 pm Anything fully-automatic and anything with a capacity over 15-25 rounds. THAT's whay I consider an 'assult' weapon, street-sweeping typewriters.

Anything fully automatic has been an NFA item for over half a century now. You CAN still legally own a machine gun, but it's a long, expensive process....which is probably why virtually nobody gets shot by a machine gun these days. Well, that and the fact that full-auto is rarely useful outside of military applications - even taking criminal activity into account.

Several localities have limited magazine capacity without running afoul of the courts...but it's not very effective, because magazines are cheap, easy to transport, and can be made out of plastic. So even if you ban a certain magazine in a certain place, it's pretty easy to get one somewhere else and bring it in. And heck, with the 3D printers we have now, you don't even have to do that. It's still pretty hard to 3D print a gun, because you need some parts that have to be pretty strong, but a magazine is not one of those parts.

But I'm also someone who thinks we should be more lenient on suppressor ownership, so I may just be a weirdo.

Nah. Silencers are "scary" to many people in the same way that black rifles are, but there isn't really a good reason to ban them. They don't actually make guns any more deadly.

Hello, Raven. Been a while.

... but I can stilllll remember just the way you taaaaaaste.

An assault rifle is select-fire, so it can operate as a fully automatic weapon. You can do that legally in the U.S., but it's very expensive ($15,000 to $50,000) and time consuming to do that. I don't think any mass shooter has been that dedicated. An "assault weapon" has been pretty vaguely defined, but isn't, statistically, a big factor in crime.

Mass shootings aren't a leading cause of death in the U.S. Firearms deaths are significant (with more suicides than homicides), but semi-automatic rifles are a small portion of that. More people are killed with knives than rifles.

To ban AR-15s and AK-47s would be to put the emotional (and press) impact ahead of facts. There are about 3 million AR-15-style guns alone in the U.S., and a small fraction of those are used in crimes.

You know, I'm always amused by the strange focus on the NRA, especially considering that the real reason the NRA is in as rough of shape as it is, is because people like me have grown tired of their willingness to compromise our rights away. They never said a peep about the bump stock ban or red flag laws.

ProfessorDetective wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:45 pm Anything fully-automatic and anything with a capacity over 15-25 rounds. THAT's whay I consider an 'assult' weapon, street-sweeping typewriters.

The vast majority of "assault weapons" are just semi-auto rifles that look scary to the people trying to ban them. Incidentally, I'm for the legalization of full-auto weapons anyway.

As for my response to Beto, I'd like to congratulate him on helping to sell a lot of AR-15s over the past few days.

Oh, and came across this awesome meme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0j4b8kh5fM

Shame in-line videos doesn't work anymore.

Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. The right to life is a right. And yeah, to people right of center, I could see how you'd be upset, given how I hear Colt won't sell one of their rifles anymore except to the military, yet left-wingers still push angrily back. I fear this is only escalating the mass shootings, a toxic discourse in our public sphere and left vs. right treating each other like tribes. Very sad.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:40 am Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.

Wrong. Gun ownership is connected to the right to defend one's self, and it in inalienable, no matter how much you wish that wasn't the case.

The right to life is a right.

And the two are not mutually exclusive, in spite of what some ideologues would have you believe. Some bad person, violating the rights of others does not mean you or the government should also try to get in on that action.

And yeah, to people right of center, I could see how you'd be upset, given how I hear Colt won't sell one of their rifles anymore except to the military, yet left-wingers still push angrily back.

I'm actually laughing at Colt. They aren't the only ones to make the AR-15 either, incidentally, they're just one of the most expensive ones.

I fear this is only escalating the mass shootings, a toxic discourse in our public sphere and left vs. right treating each other like tribes. Very sad.

The media is feeding it and all in the name of treading on the rights of others.

If the Founding Fathers had known how powerful weapons would get, they would have chosen more precise language. A gun is a tool. You have no "right" to a tool except from cultural reasons. Life is life, period. I think you're the one who wishes it wasn't really a "privilege," because privileges can be revoked at any time. Then again, some people have literally forfeited the right to life, so I don't see the problem.

You can't create a world of perfect self-defense. It is an illusion. And cowboy culture here is the WORST. It's just another way people don't deal with reality.

Ah yes, the big bad evil government. Without the government, we would not have extradition between states. Over time, they would devolve into petty, bickering fiefdoms and mini-federal governments that would wanna have pissing contests with the other.

Ah, okay.

Not just media. It's an attitude shift since the 1990s. It's also the rise of the Internet.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:34 am If the Founding Fathers had known how powerful weapons would get, they would have chosen more precise language.

Again, wrong. They did use precise language, it's just that you and other ideologues keep trying to say it means something it doesn't. Amazing that there doesn't seem to be this issue with any of the other Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.
This is borne through by other writings they made at the time. If anything, they'd be appalled at what civilians are so graciously allowed to own by the crown in comparison to what the average infantryman carries.

A gun is a tool. You have no "right" to a tool except from cultural reasons.

A gun is the best tool for self-defense.

Life is life, period.

And? I suppose I could get snarky and bring up abortion.

I think you're the one who wishes it wasn't really a "privilege," because privileges can be revoked at any time. Then again, some people have literally forfeited the right to life, so I don't see the problem.

I don't have to "wish," it's simply the case, and I'll continue to fight for my rights in any way I can for as long as I can.

You can't create a world of perfect self-defense. It is an illusion. And cowboy culture here is the WORST. It's just another way people don't deal with reality.

The people who think the police and military can somehow protect everyone or are even under any obligation to are the ones living in fantasy land. It kind of says it all that you seem to think there needs to be any kind of "perfect self-defense" in order to validate it. I advocate people having the means to defend themselves, so they have a much better chance to successfully do so than they would otherwise.

Ah yes, the big bad evil government. Without the government, we would not have extradition between states. Over time, they would devolve into petty, bickering fiefdoms and mini-federal governments that would wanna have pissing contests with the other.

It's always funny how some people seem to think limiting government means doing away with it entirely.

Not just media. It's an attitude shift since the 1990s. It's also the rise of the Internet.

Internet was around in the '90s, and it was very much the wild west. I'll again remind people that this is the period that saw so many school shootings, including Columbine, yet it was also when "assault weapons" were banned. And the "attitude shift" has been to the left, significantly. Even the majority of Democrats were against marriage equality in the '90s. Ironically, we find ourselves having some of the same arguments again, what with video games being blamed for violence again.