William Gibson is a writer of science fiction that frequently wrestles with the anxieties of the present.
yup, the contemporary civilian-legal AR-15 is about the current plateau in firearms design, in a very big way, even relative to the early ARs of fifty years ago, due to improvements in barrels, magazines, and sights. it's optimized for killing at the speed of thought, even in untrained hands, in a way that definitely beats out the AK or the .308 battle rifles of the early Cold War
it reminds me of how very very tired I am of the cosmetics argument
They don't put pistol grips and fore grips and shit on these things because they look cool. It's because they make shit handle more efficiently.
The argument wasn’t so much that it doesn’t make the weapons more effective. More that the impact is marginal. That matters when you’re fighting an armed force, you need every edge. For murdering unarmed women and children in a Walmart, a Mini14 without a pistol grip is nearly as effective. It’s mostly fire rate and reload time that matters then.
Which is why I’ve always said bans centered around pistol grips are dumb. Just ban semi auto rifles...or guns in general...full stop.
Of course lately as mentioned earlier I think the cosmetics matter, because of the cultural element.
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2019
I would like to enact the cosmetic bans because the tacticool aspect is kind of like the firearms manufacturers Joe the Camel.
William Gibson is a writer of science fiction that frequently wrestles with the anxieties of the present.
yup, the contemporary civilian-legal AR-15 is about the current plateau in firearms design, in a very big way, even relative to the early ARs of fifty years ago, due to improvements in barrels, magazines, and sights. it's optimized for killing at the speed of thought, even in untrained hands, in a way that definitely beats out the AK or the .308 battle rifles of the early Cold War
it reminds me of how very very tired I am of the cosmetics argument
They don't put pistol grips and fore grips and shit on these things because they look cool. It's because they make shit handle more efficiently.
The argument wasn’t so much that it doesn’t make the weapons more effective. More that the impact is marginal. That matters when you’re fighting an armed force, you need every edge. For murdering unarmed women and children in a Walmart, a Mini14 without a pistol grip is nearly as effective. It’s mostly fire rate and reload time that matters then.
Which is why I’ve always said bans centered around pistol grips are dumb. Just ban semi auto rifles...or guns in general...full stop.
Of course lately as mentioned earlier I think the cosmetics matter, because of the cultural element.
There are a handful of mechanical efficiency advantages to the AR platform over the Mini-14 or AK even in the same caliber, plus many ARs are often actually cheaper and easier to find these days than a Mini-14 or AK, but that is definitely splitting hairs in a big way relative to the fundamental and obvious point that mechanically they're all literally overkill outside combat
Though the AR also definitely has the cultural and aesthetic aspect in a huge way, especially with all the customization potential. You can't do much to a Mini-14 or even many AKs, but AR-platform rifles are basically infinitely dressable dolls for gun aficionados. Literally every part from the muzzle to the stock, as well as internal bits of the action, can be tweaked! Not to mention all the stuff you can mount on to them. That's a big draw for the kind of gun nerds who really love the damn things. The sheer availability of parts is also why they've gotten horrifically cheap relative to other semi-automatic rifles
On the topic of bolt action guns and why they're a lot more difficult to use for non-hunting purposes than semi-autos (videos spoiled for having guns in them, and being from a pair of pro-gun competitive shooters who talk pretty frankly about handling firearms):
twenty five minutes of video in one tl;dr - these guys have handled almost any rifle you can think of, many of them on a competitive move-and-shoot type rifle course, and have a lot of knowledge of firearms' use in combat both now and through history. bolt guns' accuracy is overrated and they are hard to handle, especially in large calibers. capacity and smaller, easier-to-handle calibers will be more effective in a combative or criminal or competitive scenario any day of the week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC4Gqvd7T1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Alv5opx76Y
edit: also, the point I'm trying to make here should obviously be seen as kinda the inverse of what they're saying, just in case that's not clear. modern guns and especially those with large capacity detachable magazines are horrifically quick
Rad this got posted, Ian does a lot of great research and history on firearms, and I always felt these videos really show the jump in output you get from a semi automatic firing mechanism vs. bolt action. (Even though these are more about WW1 weapons specifically, and modern bolt actions won't have a lot of the same issues, they're still way slower to fire.)
On the topic of bolt action guns and why they're a lot more difficult to use for non-hunting purposes than semi-autos (videos spoiled for having guns in them, and being from a pair of pro-gun competitive shooters who talk pretty frankly about handling firearms):
twenty five minutes of video in one tl;dr - these guys have handled almost any rifle you can think of, many of them on a competitive move-and-shoot type rifle course, and have a lot of knowledge of firearms' use in combat both now and through history. bolt guns' accuracy is overrated and they are hard to handle, especially in large calibers. capacity and smaller, easier-to-handle calibers will be more effective in a combative or criminal or competitive scenario any day of the week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC4Gqvd7T1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Alv5opx76Y
edit: also, the point I'm trying to make here should obviously be seen as kinda the inverse of what they're saying, just in case that's not clear. modern guns and especially those with large capacity detachable magazines are horrifically quick
Rad this got posted, Ian does a lot of great research and history on firearms, and I always felt these videos really show the jump in output you get from a semi automatic firing mechanism vs. bolt action.
Yeah, his other channel Forgotten Weapons is pretty great politically neutral history/engineering stuff that has an international scope, and that's one that is actually pretty objectively neat
About the best exercise in this otherwise if you don't want to go to a historical run-and-gun match in Arizona (I get the feeling most of the thread really wouldn't), is to go play PUBG and find a Kar98 or SKS and face off against someone with an M16 or HK416. That game does not fuck around with trying to handhold you on an outmoded weapon (unlike something like Counter-Strike or CoD which makes bolt-action guns more balanced)
Anyone continuing the snippy bullshit from the previous couple of pages will be infracted and escorted from the thread. This is not a place to wave your dicks around.
In the interest of gender inclusiveness, it is also not a place to wave your vaginas around.
Just.
Don't wave around any genitalia.
Or be assholes.
Thank you.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
John Brown gave using guns to fight tyranny the old college try and failed.
John Brown arguably raised tensions to the point where the Civil War was inevitable, so
Kinda failed?
You're saying that like the there was any other alternative other than ramming the Federal army down the South's throat to end slavery. John Brown made a stand for humanity at any rate, or tried to. The man has statues for a reason.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The idea that a country with a population of about 320 million people, many heavily armed, and a military of about 1/320 that size could have a civil war where the population decisively defeated the military is not farfetched in the slightest. Insurgency warfare exists and is successful.
But it is also not going to happen. You might as well say "we need guns for when the Martians invade." It is a talking point of the political philosophy and not an actual basis for policy (and besides the above point is true regardless of whether the population is limited to AR-15s or 10 round bolt actions).
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
It's the "absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity" that could be used against him, actually. Because anyone reasonable would know that what he did would expect another attack occurring.
"His intent was not to cause peace or comfort to anybody that was in the business," [ Police Lt. Mike] Lucas said. "In fact, he's lucky to be alive still to be honest."
A prosecutor said it's incumbent that an individual carry a weapon in a responsible manner.
"Missouri protects the right of people to open carry a firearm, but that right does not allow an individual to act in a reckless and criminal manner endangering other citizens," Greene County Prosecuting Attorney said in a statement Friday. "As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously explained, 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre causing a panic.'"
I'm most curious about his motive for doing it and if any 2A rights lawyers or groups, like the NRA are going to step in to defend him on this.
Edit: He was indeed testing his 2A rights!
Andreychenko told the police that he had bought a rifle and body armor because of the recent shootings and the fatal stabbings of four people in Orange County, California, on Wednesday, according to the arrest report.
He shared his plans beforehand with his wife and sister, both of whom were questioned by the authorities and said they had warned Andreychenko that he would cause alarm, the police said.
"He said he wanted to see if the Walmart manager would respect his Second Amendment rights," the arrest report said.
"We need guns to protect ourselves and make us feel safe so I'm going to aggressively use my guns as a form of public intimidation to make sure everybody knows that if they don't like me using my guns to protect myself and make myself feel safe or dare to try and disarm me in anyway I can kill them in a fraction of a second wherever they are."
"We need guns to protect ourselves and make us feel safe so I'm going to aggressively use my guns as a form of public intimidation to make sure everybody knows that if they don't like me using my guns to protect myself and make myself feel safe or dare to try and disarm me in anyway I can kill them in a fraction of a second wherever they are."
Yeah sounds about right.
You want to know what is fucked up? According to Missouri Law he was right. According to Missouri law he committed no crime. According to Missouri Law he was just exercising his rights. He has a great case for walking off scot free.
Want to kick the fuck up a notch (to AMERICA levels of fucked up)? You know the urban legend stories about criminals who get hurt while trying to break into a home and then use the courts to sue the homeowner for damages? (The guy who falls through a second story sky light is a favorite). They can't actually happen. You can't sue for damages if you are committing a crime while the injuries occur. If the injuries happen after you have been captured, sure. Homeowners don't have the right to beat you up after they capture you, but even then the odds of you making a case is slim given the US skepticism of criminal testimony.
This guy though... He has an excellent case against both Walmart and the PD. He can probably sue them for a decent amount of money. Like I said he was committing no crime. He was just exercising his rights. Yet the Walmart cruelly harassed him by calling the cops. And the PD wrongfully arrested a law-abiding criminal who was only exercising his 2A rights! There are probably plenty of lawyers and gun nut groups that would be chomping at the bit to help him sue them for a share of the profits. Welcome to America.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Twitter is a congress person. But white supremacist president and his AG covered up that white terrorists were responsible for 100% of the race based terror violence in 2018. Almost like we have a problem.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's the "absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity" that could be used against him, actually. Because anyone reasonable would know that what he did would expect another attack occurring.
"His intent was not to cause peace or comfort to anybody that was in the business," [ Police Lt. Mike] Lucas said. "In fact, he's lucky to be alive still to be honest."
A prosecutor said it's incumbent that an individual carry a weapon in a responsible manner.
"Missouri protects the right of people to open carry a firearm, but that right does not allow an individual to act in a reckless and criminal manner endangering other citizens," Greene County Prosecuting Attorney said in a statement Friday. "As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously explained, 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre causing a panic.'"
I'm most curious about his motive for doing it and if any 2A rights lawyers or groups, like the NRA are going to step in to defend him on this.
Edit: He was indeed testing his 2A rights!
Andreychenko told the police that he had bought a rifle and body armor because of the recent shootings and the fatal stabbings of four people in Orange County, California, on Wednesday, according to the arrest report.
He shared his plans beforehand with his wife and sister, both of whom were questioned by the authorities and said they had warned Andreychenko that he would cause alarm, the police said.
"He said he wanted to see if the Walmart manager would respect his Second Amendment rights," the arrest report said.
This does shoot down my theory that he was an activist trying to make a specific point or for lulz/memes. He's still a complete idiot.
No, he was doing it "for the lulz." When earlier I said he was a troll, I still meant that he was doing it "to test his 2A rights."
He knew what would happen, and figured it was fine because he felt he was legally in the right to do so. He's hardly the first white man to cause panic for walking around with a rifle and/or body armor just so he could film himself doing it to flaunt his 2A rights.
Getting into the weeds about whatever a M1 Garand is is pointless. Weapons should be licensed on how dangerous they are, and that will always be a bit of a judgement call. What matters is they *are* licensed and categorized by danger potential.
Which is why i advocate for caliber based restrictions, not model based.
A bolt action 7mm STW will wreck shop and annihilate anything in its path from 1000 yards away.
A .22 Caliber MP-5 "replica" will certainly put some people in the hospital, but its lethality is 1/100th of that bolt action caliber.
Those can 100% be reversed too. It woudl get rid of the "whats an assault weapon" game too. Doesnt matter what it is, it's all based off caliber for restrictions.
To go back to this, because I thought it was an interesting idea before the asides the thread took...
I think this sort of seems logical but I can’t possibly figure out how it would work...
You look at the most used caliber in mass shootings you probably have the .223 and in general non-mass shootings probably the 9mm (these are just my guesses so apologies if some other caliber ‘wins’)
These calibers are notable more for their efficiency than raw power, they are essentially lightwight, small rounds with “just enough” power to kill someone reliably (vs like .22 or the like which can kill someone (see the VA tech shooting) but isn’t a sure thing).
The problem is that I am not sure eliminating them for a slightly less efficient cartridge would solve much...
To eliminate largest calibers certainly wouldn’t have much effect as that would just steer things towards smaller and more efficient rounds - if everything just switches to, say 5.45x39 or a .18 round based off .223 that isn’t doing much either.
So here’s a radical thought - what about a MINIMUM caliber for semi-automatic weapons, especially rifles?
It sounds counter intuitive, but consider - most .308 semi automatic weapons are rather large, heavy weapons with maximum magazine capacities of 10 rounds or so. Rate of fire also tends to be much lower. Most legitimate semi-auto hunting rifles are also .308 or heavier. Plus if you set a minimum dimension for cartidge size (say 762x51) it becomes a much harder restriction to just efficient your way out of than a small cartridge restriction.
Getting into the weeds about whatever a M1 Garand is is pointless. Weapons should be licensed on how dangerous they are, and that will always be a bit of a judgement call. What matters is they *are* licensed and categorized by danger potential.
Which is why i advocate for caliber based restrictions, not model based.
A bolt action 7mm STW will wreck shop and annihilate anything in its path from 1000 yards away.
A .22 Caliber MP-5 "replica" will certainly put some people in the hospital, but its lethality is 1/100th of that bolt action caliber.
Those can 100% be reversed too. It woudl get rid of the "whats an assault weapon" game too. Doesnt matter what it is, it's all based off caliber for restrictions.
To go back to this, because I thought it was an interesting idea before the asides the thread took...
I think this sort of seems logical but I can’t possibly figure out how it would work...
You look at the most used caliber in mass shootings you probably have the .223 and in general non-mass shootings probably the 9mm (these are just my guesses so apologies if some other caliber ‘wins’)
These calibers are notable more for their efficiency than raw power, they are essentially lightwight, small rounds with “just enough” power to kill someone reliably (vs like .22 or the like which can kill someone (see the VA tech shooting) but isn’t a sure thing).
The problem is that I am not sure eliminating them for a slightly less efficient cartridge would solve much...
To eliminate largest calibers certainly wouldn’t have much effect as that would just steer things towards smaller and more efficient rounds - if everything just switches to, say 5.45x39 or a .18 round based off .223 that isn’t doing much either.
So here’s a radical thought - what about a MINIMUM caliber for semi-automatic weapons, especially rifles?
It sounds counter intuitive, but consider - most .308 semi automatic weapons are rather large, heavy weapons with maximum magazine capacities of 10 rounds or so. Rate of fire also tends to be much lower. Most legitimate semi-auto hunting rifles are also .308 or heavier. Plus if you set a minimum dimension for cartidge size (say 762x51) it becomes a much harder restriction to just efficient your way out of than a small cartridge restriction.
Weirdly enough, this is actually how AR-platform rifles are regulated in the state of MD as of a few years ago
You can only have them as a .308 or larger in a heavy barrel, which makes for a way more unwieldy gun
Establish limits on maximum rounds fired per minute and number of rounds before reload. Ban removable magazines and speedloading devices traditional clips included.
It seems like this would also solve other problems with regard to the tacti-cool aspect.
Start a generous buyback program and remove the option to transfer legal ownership of banned weapons even through inheritance.
Ultimately, the wacky accessories that people use because they saw them in a movie once aren't that big of a deal to me. Even the bump stocks and really easy pull triggers. Someone with trigger discipline doesn't need a fully automatic weapon or red dot to kill a bunch of people who aren't prepared, they need a gun that shoots bullets. The only thing we can do is make sure that gun holds as few bullets as is reasonable and takes as long to shoot as possible.
Every mass shooting basically shows someone who doesn't know what they're doing, doing something that requires very low skill.
The Texas Tower Shooting in 1966 killed 16 and wounded 31 with an M1 Carbine, he was a trained marine who happened to have a brain tumor that may have seriously affected his behavior. In the San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre in 1984 the shooter used an Uzi, a 9mm semi-auto pistol and a shotgun to kill 22 people in a McDonalds.
This shit isn't happening with grandpa's Henry 45/70 lever action. It's been going on for a long time though.
The North Hollywood Shootout - a bank heist that went wrong by professionals in armor lasted 44 minutes as they did a shoot-and-scoot in an effort to escape. I'm just hoping a professional and abundance of available semi-autos don't ever overlap. The shootings we have had recently have all ended in 5-10 minutes. How about 44 minutes of people who know what they're doing?
Edit: The North Hollywood Shootout is one of the things people usually bring up as the start of an escalation of firepower between criminals and law enforcement. Local law enforcement didn't carry anything large enough to stop them at the time. Both men were hit multiple times. The robbers also have a bit of a cult following, even though by all accounts they were mostly shitty people with criminal histories.
I could see regulating caliber size being acceptable as long as the semi auto rifle in question doesn't have a detachable magazine.
If we insist on keeping semi-autos at all then they need to be fixed mag rifles only with a max capacity of 5-10 rounds. Having a detachable box mag of .308 would be a pain in the ass, but doable and still deadly. I would rather you have to load each individual round or have to use some kind of stripper clip than to just drop one via gravity and slap a new one in.
Again, I don't necessarily believe the caliber of the round is all that important (an exception can be made with regards to 5.56 or 5.45 or whatever it is the AK-74's use now, which was specifically designed as a military round to kill people, not adapted from available civilian calibers like the 30-06) it's the ability to have a lot of those rounds and fire them rapidly and continuously with minimal reload time. That's what we absolutely have to target with legislation.
The idea that a country with a population of about 320 million people, many heavily armed, and a military of about 1/320 that size could have a civil war where the population decisively defeated the military is not farfetched in the slightest. Insurgency warfare exists and is successful.
But it is also not going to happen. You might as well say "we need guns for when the Martians invade." It is a talking point of the political philosophy and not an actual basis for policy (and besides the above point is true regardless of whether the population is limited to AR-15s or 10 round bolt actions).
This also stipulates that in the event of the tyrannical government (TM) coming to power it feels the need to be limited to conventional warfare and wouldn't bombard suspected areas of resistance with gas, bio weapons, white phosphorous and neutron bombs.
Color me unconvinced that a citizen militia would choose to resist when confronted with such stark annihilation as being a real thing.
I do think its important to actually look at the caliber of these AR/AR-style weapons as playing a major role in these shootings.
Like I said, 5.56x45 NATO was designed specifically as a military cartridge. When the US military introduced the M16 in 5.56 during Vietnam soldiers reported seeing enemies just drop like a ragdoll whenever they were hit. The rounds design gives it a very high chance to yaw, or upset, as it hits the target. Basically it tumbles and fragments through the body on impact creating a massive internal cavity and pulverizes bone or organs. It is an incredibly lethal round. There was an article I read at one point by a doctor who operated on (I believe) victims of a spree shooting and they were basically saying that getting shot with an AR is not like getting shot by anything else. I'll see if I can find it as I get time.
.223 is a lower pressure load but has the same dimensions and functionality as 5.56. You can shoot .223 out of a rifle chambered in 5.56 but you cannot shoot 5.56 out of a rifle chambered in .223.
Interestingly enough, per wikipedia, a lot of the criticism of the round comes from it's supposed lack of lethality which is likely due to the US adopting the M4 carbine. The M4 carbine is 14.5" barrel rifle and thus generates less power as opposed to the original 20" barrel of the M16. Civilian AR patterned rifles are 16" or longer. So, if I'm understanding correctly civilian weapons may be more deadly than what our Marines are carrying.
Tl;dr everything about the AR-15/AR pattern rifles was designed to kill human beings and there is basically no argument that can be made, in my mind, that they serve any other purpose and thus have absolutely no reason to be in the hands of civilians.
Every round used by the military since the .50-70 has had a huge number of people claiming it basically explodes people on impact while a similar number of people claim they shot someone 20 times and they didn’t even drop their cigarrette, I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in any claims of vast differences in killing efficiencies between centerfire rifle cartridges on nonarmored human beings.
The reason .223 was a huge step forward and that the Russians copied it was that humans are not particularly robust and up until WW2 the rifle cartridge design was limited not by “can it reliably kill a person” but “can it reliably kill a horse?” Up until mid ww2 and shortly after you had infantry using cartridges that had been designed as incremental improvements on a 19th century philosophy of what a cartidge should be able to do, which included the idea that you might get charged by a cavalry charge. This was not a real threat by WW1, but it took until WW2 for anyone to really step back and consider the implications of this - that it was no longer necessary for an infantryman to carry a rifle capable of taking down a large animal, and if you didn’t- a lot of things like rate of fire, number of carryable rounds, magazine sizes, etc could be improved by carrying a lighter round.
The russians accounted for this in the 7.62x39, the americans in the .30 carbine, but these were flawed - the 762x39 didn’t go far enough and was underpowered for its bullet size which had negative ballistic implication, the .30 carbine was essentially a revolver round that lacked many modern (even at the time) rifle round features which again had significant negative ballistics implications (same with many other transitional pistol caliber “sub machine gun” rounds like 9mm, .45, and 10mm) The .223 was just a very optimized round for anti-personel purposes that had no major limiting drawbacks.
So in news that shows that the US isn't alone in this; A few hours ago there was an attempt at a mass shooting at a mosque in Norway. One perp, dressed in uniform with a bulletproof vest(which is illegal in Norway for civilian ownership). He was caught because the Mosque had implemented precautions after Christchurch. One parishioner was lightly hurt as was the perp. He was apprehended by the parishioner and turned over to the cops. He did not have a semi-auto rifle, but did apparently have several shotguns and a couple of handguns.
Will update on the shooting as I learn more, but thank good it turned out good.
Edit. Seems like the parishioner was a 75 year old man. So way to go, but too fucking close for comfort.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
So in news that shows that the US isn't alone in this; A few hours ago there was an attempt at a mass shooting at a mosque in Norway. One perp, dressed in uniform with a bulletproof vest(which is illegal in Norway for civilian ownership). He was caught because the Mosque had implemented precautions after Christchurch. One parishioner was lightly hurt as was the perp. He was apprehended by the parishioner and turned over to the cops. He did not have a semi-auto rifle, but did apparently have several shotguns and a couple of handguns.
Will update on the shooting as I learn more, but thank good it turned out good.
Edit. Seems like the parishioner was a 75 year old man. So way to go, but too fucking close for comfort.
I wonder if he also posted a manifesto to 8chan, thereby establishing his motive as forever mysterious and inscrutable gottabethevideogames.
So update; as far as I have been able to find out, he has not posted on 8chan as its been taken down I think? He has however posted on several net forums praising various mass shooters. Including the Christchurch asshole.
He is also suspected in connection to the death of a young woman in another house. Turns out domestic violence is a commonality.
Also he apparently wrote Valhalla Awaits in his posts. Which he made before trying to shoot up a Mosque... Before getting his ass kicked by a 75 year old pensioner.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I googled it, which brought up a verge article saying he might have, but the link to the article is suspiciously dead
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We've opened Pandora's box on this and now every maladjusted twerp with a chip on their shoulder and no connection to reality has a gameplan.
Like, fuck we gotta figure something out. Not just about guns. How to we cut this off at the source?
Do we just nuke the fucking internet? I'm being only slightly hyperbolic. We let a bunch of shitty nerds fester in their own shitty spaces and talk themselves up to fucking murder orgies and I guess nobody really thought they'd be a problem? Like, the dudes with the anime twitter icons ranting about ethics in game journalism suddenly turned into a "western chauvinists" or whatever the fuck and now they're killing people. Fuck they're in our goddamned government.
We've opened Pandora's box on this and now every maladjusted twerp with a chip on their shoulder and no connection to reality has a gameplan.
Like, fuck we gotta figure something out. Not just about guns. How to we cut this off at the source?
Do we just nuke the fucking internet? I'm being only slightly hyperbolic. We let a bunch of shitty nerds fester in their own shitty spaces and talk themselves up to fucking murder orgies and I guess nobody really thought they'd be a problem? Like, the dudes with the anime twitter icons ranting about ethics in game journalism suddenly turned into a "western chauvinists" or whatever the fuck and now they're killing people. Fuck they're in our goddamned government.
No we fight fascism loudly, every way we can, by whatever means is necessary.
I like how its nuanced and involves congressional and executive actions, and folds into her other plans like anti corruption and removing senate filibusters.
I'm sure she'll be accused of being a gun grabber now, but fuck it those disingenuous liars would say that whether she claimed she would.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I like how its nuanced and involves congressional and executive actions, and folds into her other plans like anti corruption and removing senate filibusters.
I'm sure she'll be accused of being a gun grabber now, but fuck it those disingenuous liars would say that whether she claimed she would.
There are definitely areas where I would go even further if possible, but overall it is a far more comprehensive plan than I expected from a major candidate and there is a lot that I like about it.
Regarding the idea that everyone having a gun makes everyone safer: Nah.
I worked at a base in Iraq. Because of the location in what was considered a war zone at the time, guns were understandably mandatory for all military personnel. Fortunately, during that year no one needed their weapon.
Unfortunately during that year, there was one suicide, one death caused through negligence, several injuries, and a couple dozen misfires that thankfully just didn't hit anyone. Also the occasional weapon forgotten in a bathroom or rec area. That's with military training and severe punishments providing incentive to not do those things.
Without even addressing the sheer insanity of even more armed people in even more stressful situations, the reality is most people would get careless with their weapons.
Quid on
+23
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Regarding the idea that everyone having a gun makes everyone safer: Nah.
I worked at a base in Iraq. Because of the location I'm what was considered a war zone at the time, guns were understandably mandatory for all military personnel. Fortunately, during that year no one needed their weapon.
Unfortunately during that year, there was one suicide, one death caused through negligence, several injuries, and a couple dozen misfires that thankfully just didn't hit anyone. Also the occasional weapon forgotten in a bathroom or rec area. That's with military training and severe punishments providing incentive to not do those things.
Without even addressing the sheer insanity of even more armed people in even more stressful situations, the reality is most people would get careless with their weapons.
How many stories have we had of armed security guards leaving their weapon in school bathrooms already?
Regarding the idea that everyone having a gun makes everyone safer: Nah.
I worked at a base in Iraq. Because of the location I'm what was considered a war zone at the time, guns were understandably mandatory for all military personnel. Fortunately, during that year no one needed their weapon.
Unfortunately during that year, there was one suicide, one death caused through negligence, several injuries, and a couple dozen misfires that thankfully just didn't hit anyone. Also the occasional weapon forgotten in a bathroom or rec area. That's with military training and severe punishments providing incentive to not do those things.
Without even addressing the sheer insanity of even more armed people in even more stressful situations, the reality is most people would get careless with their weapons.
How many stories have we had of armed security guards leaving their weapon in school bathrooms already?
Regarding the idea that everyone having a gun makes everyone safer: Nah.
I worked at a base in Iraq. Because of the location I'm what was considered a war zone at the time, guns were understandably mandatory for all military personnel. Fortunately, during that year no one needed their weapon.
Unfortunately during that year, there was one suicide, one death caused through negligence, several injuries, and a couple dozen misfires that thankfully just didn't hit anyone. Also the occasional weapon forgotten in a bathroom or rec area. That's with military training and severe punishments providing incentive to not do those things.
Without even addressing the sheer insanity of even more armed people in even more stressful situations, the reality is most people would get careless with their weapons.
How many stories have we had of armed security guards leaving their weapon in school bathrooms already?
Sounds like we need to give guards two guns
Do you not care about the children? We need to have guns stationed throughout schools, like fire extinguishers, so there is always a gun handy in case of emergency.
Nobeard on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Posts
The argument wasn’t so much that it doesn’t make the weapons more effective. More that the impact is marginal. That matters when you’re fighting an armed force, you need every edge. For murdering unarmed women and children in a Walmart, a Mini14 without a pistol grip is nearly as effective. It’s mostly fire rate and reload time that matters then.
Which is why I’ve always said bans centered around pistol grips are dumb. Just ban semi auto rifles...or guns in general...full stop.
Of course lately as mentioned earlier I think the cosmetics matter, because of the cultural element.
Make it less visually appealing/"badass"
Edit: oh also ban semi autos for sure
There are a handful of mechanical efficiency advantages to the AR platform over the Mini-14 or AK even in the same caliber, plus many ARs are often actually cheaper and easier to find these days than a Mini-14 or AK, but that is definitely splitting hairs in a big way relative to the fundamental and obvious point that mechanically they're all literally overkill outside combat
Though the AR also definitely has the cultural and aesthetic aspect in a huge way, especially with all the customization potential. You can't do much to a Mini-14 or even many AKs, but AR-platform rifles are basically infinitely dressable dolls for gun aficionados. Literally every part from the muzzle to the stock, as well as internal bits of the action, can be tweaked! Not to mention all the stuff you can mount on to them. That's a big draw for the kind of gun nerds who really love the damn things. The sheer availability of parts is also why they've gotten horrifically cheap relative to other semi-automatic rifles
Rad this got posted, Ian does a lot of great research and history on firearms, and I always felt these videos really show the jump in output you get from a semi automatic firing mechanism vs. bolt action. (Even though these are more about WW1 weapons specifically, and modern bolt actions won't have a lot of the same issues, they're still way slower to fire.)
Yeah, his other channel Forgotten Weapons is pretty great politically neutral history/engineering stuff that has an international scope, and that's one that is actually pretty objectively neat
About the best exercise in this otherwise if you don't want to go to a historical run-and-gun match in Arizona (I get the feeling most of the thread really wouldn't), is to go play PUBG and find a Kar98 or SKS and face off against someone with an M16 or HK416. That game does not fuck around with trying to handhold you on an outmoded weapon (unlike something like Counter-Strike or CoD which makes bolt-action guns more balanced)
In the interest of gender inclusiveness, it is also not a place to wave your vaginas around.
Just.
Don't wave around any genitalia.
Or be assholes.
Thank you.
You're saying that like the there was any other alternative other than ramming the Federal army down the South's throat to end slavery. John Brown made a stand for humanity at any rate, or tried to. The man has statues for a reason.
But it is also not going to happen. You might as well say "we need guns for when the Martians invade." It is a talking point of the political philosophy and not an actual basis for policy (and besides the above point is true regardless of whether the population is limited to AR-15s or 10 round bolt actions).
I'm most curious about his motive for doing it and if any 2A rights lawyers or groups, like the NRA are going to step in to defend him on this.
Edit: He was indeed testing his 2A rights!
Armed man who caused panic at Missouri Walmart said he was testing his rights.
This does shoot down my theory that he was an activist trying to make a specific point or for lulz/memes. He's still a complete idiot.
It’s a big thing with these “2A is an absolute right” cultists.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yeah sounds about right.
You want to know what is fucked up? According to Missouri Law he was right. According to Missouri law he committed no crime. According to Missouri Law he was just exercising his rights. He has a great case for walking off scot free.
Want to kick the fuck up a notch (to AMERICA levels of fucked up)? You know the urban legend stories about criminals who get hurt while trying to break into a home and then use the courts to sue the homeowner for damages? (The guy who falls through a second story sky light is a favorite). They can't actually happen. You can't sue for damages if you are committing a crime while the injuries occur. If the injuries happen after you have been captured, sure. Homeowners don't have the right to beat you up after they capture you, but even then the odds of you making a case is slim given the US skepticism of criminal testimony.
This guy though... He has an excellent case against both Walmart and the PD. He can probably sue them for a decent amount of money. Like I said he was committing no crime. He was just exercising his rights. Yet the Walmart cruelly harassed him by calling the cops. And the PD wrongfully arrested a law-abiding criminal who was only exercising his 2A rights! There are probably plenty of lawyers and gun nut groups that would be chomping at the bit to help him sue them for a share of the profits. Welcome to America.
Twitter is a congress person. But white supremacist president and his AG covered up that white terrorists were responsible for 100% of the race based terror violence in 2018. Almost like we have a problem.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No, he was doing it "for the lulz." When earlier I said he was a troll, I still meant that he was doing it "to test his 2A rights."
He knew what would happen, and figured it was fine because he felt he was legally in the right to do so. He's hardly the first white man to cause panic for walking around with a rifle and/or body armor just so he could film himself doing it to flaunt his 2A rights.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
To go back to this, because I thought it was an interesting idea before the asides the thread took...
I think this sort of seems logical but I can’t possibly figure out how it would work...
You look at the most used caliber in mass shootings you probably have the .223 and in general non-mass shootings probably the 9mm (these are just my guesses so apologies if some other caliber ‘wins’)
These calibers are notable more for their efficiency than raw power, they are essentially lightwight, small rounds with “just enough” power to kill someone reliably (vs like .22 or the like which can kill someone (see the VA tech shooting) but isn’t a sure thing).
The problem is that I am not sure eliminating them for a slightly less efficient cartridge would solve much...
To eliminate largest calibers certainly wouldn’t have much effect as that would just steer things towards smaller and more efficient rounds - if everything just switches to, say 5.45x39 or a .18 round based off .223 that isn’t doing much either.
So here’s a radical thought - what about a MINIMUM caliber for semi-automatic weapons, especially rifles?
It sounds counter intuitive, but consider - most .308 semi automatic weapons are rather large, heavy weapons with maximum magazine capacities of 10 rounds or so. Rate of fire also tends to be much lower. Most legitimate semi-auto hunting rifles are also .308 or heavier. Plus if you set a minimum dimension for cartidge size (say 762x51) it becomes a much harder restriction to just efficient your way out of than a small cartridge restriction.
Weirdly enough, this is actually how AR-platform rifles are regulated in the state of MD as of a few years ago
You can only have them as a .308 or larger in a heavy barrel, which makes for a way more unwieldy gun
It seems like this would also solve other problems with regard to the tacti-cool aspect.
Start a generous buyback program and remove the option to transfer legal ownership of banned weapons even through inheritance.
Ultimately, the wacky accessories that people use because they saw them in a movie once aren't that big of a deal to me. Even the bump stocks and really easy pull triggers. Someone with trigger discipline doesn't need a fully automatic weapon or red dot to kill a bunch of people who aren't prepared, they need a gun that shoots bullets. The only thing we can do is make sure that gun holds as few bullets as is reasonable and takes as long to shoot as possible.
Every mass shooting basically shows someone who doesn't know what they're doing, doing something that requires very low skill.
The Texas Tower Shooting in 1966 killed 16 and wounded 31 with an M1 Carbine, he was a trained marine who happened to have a brain tumor that may have seriously affected his behavior. In the San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre in 1984 the shooter used an Uzi, a 9mm semi-auto pistol and a shotgun to kill 22 people in a McDonalds.
This shit isn't happening with grandpa's Henry 45/70 lever action. It's been going on for a long time though.
The North Hollywood Shootout - a bank heist that went wrong by professionals in armor lasted 44 minutes as they did a shoot-and-scoot in an effort to escape. I'm just hoping a professional and abundance of available semi-autos don't ever overlap. The shootings we have had recently have all ended in 5-10 minutes. How about 44 minutes of people who know what they're doing?
Edit: The North Hollywood Shootout is one of the things people usually bring up as the start of an escalation of firepower between criminals and law enforcement. Local law enforcement didn't carry anything large enough to stop them at the time. Both men were hit multiple times. The robbers also have a bit of a cult following, even though by all accounts they were mostly shitty people with criminal histories.
If we insist on keeping semi-autos at all then they need to be fixed mag rifles only with a max capacity of 5-10 rounds. Having a detachable box mag of .308 would be a pain in the ass, but doable and still deadly. I would rather you have to load each individual round or have to use some kind of stripper clip than to just drop one via gravity and slap a new one in.
Again, I don't necessarily believe the caliber of the round is all that important (an exception can be made with regards to 5.56 or 5.45 or whatever it is the AK-74's use now, which was specifically designed as a military round to kill people, not adapted from available civilian calibers like the 30-06) it's the ability to have a lot of those rounds and fire them rapidly and continuously with minimal reload time. That's what we absolutely have to target with legislation.
This also stipulates that in the event of the tyrannical government (TM) coming to power it feels the need to be limited to conventional warfare and wouldn't bombard suspected areas of resistance with gas, bio weapons, white phosphorous and neutron bombs.
Color me unconvinced that a citizen militia would choose to resist when confronted with such stark annihilation as being a real thing.
Like I said, 5.56x45 NATO was designed specifically as a military cartridge. When the US military introduced the M16 in 5.56 during Vietnam soldiers reported seeing enemies just drop like a ragdoll whenever they were hit. The rounds design gives it a very high chance to yaw, or upset, as it hits the target. Basically it tumbles and fragments through the body on impact creating a massive internal cavity and pulverizes bone or organs. It is an incredibly lethal round. There was an article I read at one point by a doctor who operated on (I believe) victims of a spree shooting and they were basically saying that getting shot with an AR is not like getting shot by anything else. I'll see if I can find it as I get time.
.223 is a lower pressure load but has the same dimensions and functionality as 5.56. You can shoot .223 out of a rifle chambered in 5.56 but you cannot shoot 5.56 out of a rifle chambered in .223.
Interestingly enough, per wikipedia, a lot of the criticism of the round comes from it's supposed lack of lethality which is likely due to the US adopting the M4 carbine. The M4 carbine is 14.5" barrel rifle and thus generates less power as opposed to the original 20" barrel of the M16. Civilian AR patterned rifles are 16" or longer. So, if I'm understanding correctly civilian weapons may be more deadly than what our Marines are carrying.
Tl;dr everything about the AR-15/AR pattern rifles was designed to kill human beings and there is basically no argument that can be made, in my mind, that they serve any other purpose and thus have absolutely no reason to be in the hands of civilians.
The reason .223 was a huge step forward and that the Russians copied it was that humans are not particularly robust and up until WW2 the rifle cartridge design was limited not by “can it reliably kill a person” but “can it reliably kill a horse?” Up until mid ww2 and shortly after you had infantry using cartridges that had been designed as incremental improvements on a 19th century philosophy of what a cartidge should be able to do, which included the idea that you might get charged by a cavalry charge. This was not a real threat by WW1, but it took until WW2 for anyone to really step back and consider the implications of this - that it was no longer necessary for an infantryman to carry a rifle capable of taking down a large animal, and if you didn’t- a lot of things like rate of fire, number of carryable rounds, magazine sizes, etc could be improved by carrying a lighter round.
The russians accounted for this in the 7.62x39, the americans in the .30 carbine, but these were flawed - the 762x39 didn’t go far enough and was underpowered for its bullet size which had negative ballistic implication, the .30 carbine was essentially a revolver round that lacked many modern (even at the time) rifle round features which again had significant negative ballistics implications (same with many other transitional pistol caliber “sub machine gun” rounds like 9mm, .45, and 10mm) The .223 was just a very optimized round for anti-personel purposes that had no major limiting drawbacks.
Will update on the shooting as I learn more, but thank good it turned out good.
Edit. Seems like the parishioner was a 75 year old man. So way to go, but too fucking close for comfort.
I wonder if he also posted a manifesto to 8chan, thereby establishing his motive as forever mysterious and inscrutable gottabethevideogames.
He is also suspected in connection to the death of a young woman in another house. Turns out domestic violence is a commonality.
Also he apparently wrote Valhalla Awaits in his posts. Which he made before trying to shoot up a Mosque... Before getting his ass kicked by a 75 year old pensioner.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We've opened Pandora's box on this and now every maladjusted twerp with a chip on their shoulder and no connection to reality has a gameplan.
Like, fuck we gotta figure something out. Not just about guns. How to we cut this off at the source?
Do we just nuke the fucking internet? I'm being only slightly hyperbolic. We let a bunch of shitty nerds fester in their own shitty spaces and talk themselves up to fucking murder orgies and I guess nobody really thought they'd be a problem? Like, the dudes with the anime twitter icons ranting about ethics in game journalism suddenly turned into a "western chauvinists" or whatever the fuck and now they're killing people. Fuck they're in our goddamned government.
Doubt he'll need to, except to grift.
That area of Missouri, every church in the county would take collections to help him out.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
No we fight fascism loudly, every way we can, by whatever means is necessary.
I like how its nuanced and involves congressional and executive actions, and folds into her other plans like anti corruption and removing senate filibusters.
I'm sure she'll be accused of being a gun grabber now, but fuck it those disingenuous liars would say that whether she claimed she would.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Add provisions for museums to be able to take possession of restricted and banned weapons that would otherwise be destroyed. Other than that, I would be fine with Warren's plan especially the raising of the minimum age to purchase.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
There are definitely areas where I would go even further if possible, but overall it is a far more comprehensive plan than I expected from a major candidate and there is a lot that I like about it.
I worked at a base in Iraq. Because of the location in what was considered a war zone at the time, guns were understandably mandatory for all military personnel. Fortunately, during that year no one needed their weapon.
Unfortunately during that year, there was one suicide, one death caused through negligence, several injuries, and a couple dozen misfires that thankfully just didn't hit anyone. Also the occasional weapon forgotten in a bathroom or rec area. That's with military training and severe punishments providing incentive to not do those things.
Without even addressing the sheer insanity of even more armed people in even more stressful situations, the reality is most people would get careless with their weapons.
How many stories have we had of armed security guards leaving their weapon in school bathrooms already?
Sounds like we need to give guards two guns
Do you not care about the children? We need to have guns stationed throughout schools, like fire extinguishers, so there is always a gun handy in case of emergency.