The most defining and consistent feature of an AR-15 is probably the spec for how the two halves of the receiver are joined. Since almost all AR upper/lower receivers are compatible with one another, that's one thing that's usually pretty consistent.
I know they're ubiquitous and an obvious target for legislation, but really I don't think it's valuable to get bogged down in the ins-and-outs of what it would take to narrowly define one basically open source platform.
Especially when the political will required to restrict access to all semi-automatic firearms is approximately the same as that required for restricting just AR-15s. Why split hairs at that point.
The most consistent feature is using. .223 or 5.56 nato round intended for militaries.
Correct me if I’m wrong is there a single reason you’d want a round like that aside from hunting like bears?
It's smaller/less energetic than ethical hunting cartridges. Big game usually requires (really, by law) a larger round, so its existence can't even be justified by that.
And now we have NBC News reporting that federal officers entered the school and engaged the shooter not because the Uvalde police finally let them, but because they could not abide not doing something any longer, and carried out entry to the school of their own volition.
Because they were human fucking beings with empathy, unlike the Uvalde police apparently
They were Border Patrol and ICE agents, let's not give them too much credit here.
The idea that only the mentally ill can be mass murderers needs to be seriously fought against.
It has way too much traction on the left.
Yeah that’s the convenient narrative that a lot of people want to believe. That there has to be something physically wrong with these people, instead of it being a factor of marketing and cultural entitlement to deadly weapons.
So
With the heads up that what you are about to click on is a game promo, delivered by its director… via a sock puppet he’s operating, Yoko Taro some years back had a damn good conversation about violence, and how he moved on from thinking that you had to be insane to be a mass murderer to a different view:
and then we worked on Nier… we created this game called Nier and after the world experienced the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq, we were being bombarded with updates on terrorist organizations and activities even in Japan. That’s when my opinion changed.
The vibe I was getting from society was: you don’t have to be insane to kill someone. You just have to think you’re right.
And now we have NBC News reporting that federal officers entered the school and engaged the shooter not because the Uvalde police finally let them, but because they could not abide not doing something any longer, and carried out entry to the school of their own volition.
Because they were human fucking beings with empathy, unlike the Uvalde police apparently
They were Border Patrol and ICE agents, let's not give them too much credit here.
Oh ACAB absolutely
But they at least meet some minimum level of “can’t stand sitting there and listening to kids getting murdered”
The barest bottom of the barrel standard that Uvalde cops couldn’t even meet
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited May 2022
I recommend everyone in this thread rapidly gets familiar with the name Peter Arredondo, who is the Chief of Police. The bus is coming for him and they’ve picked their sacrificial goat.
What I want to know is... how can the police expect us to believe that they thought all the kids were dead already when, even putting aside that there were 911 calls coming from inside the school the whole goddamn time they were standing around outside, the shooter was still shooting people.
Am I really supposed to believe that the gunshots could not be heard from outside?
And now we have NBC News reporting that federal officers entered the school and engaged the shooter not because the Uvalde police finally let them, but because they could not abide not doing something any longer, and carried out entry to the school of their own volition.
Because they were human fucking beings with empathy, unlike the Uvalde police apparently
And this is the border patrol! They suck! They're worse than most police departments and do shit like destroy water left in the desert for emergency use.
What I want to know is... how can the police expect us to believe that they thought all the kids were dead already when, even putting aside that there were 911 calls coming from inside the school the whole goddamn time they were standing around outside, the shooter was still shooting people.
Am I really supposed to believe that the gunshots cannot be heard from outside?
That is priority one, yeah
Pick at the thread of the obvious lies and watch the whole thing unravel
The fact that the truth as presented is already fucking horrible doesn’t inspire a lot of optimism for whatever they’re hiding
This theme of advertising bans like we did for smoking is sounding better and better to me tbh. This thread is the first I've heard of it and, and it seems like a great idea.
The difficulty is the consumer protection basis for advertising laws. Generally, truth in advertising is to protect the consumer of the product/service from undisclosed hazards/lack of value. That’s not like “cigarettes will make you cool and get you sex (but we won’t tell you about how it gives you cancer and makes you die).” The people dying from the “fuck yeah adrenaline alpha top dog protector guy” gun advertising are not the buyers
I suppose you could go with "Using this product may cause death by cop". But like advertising bans on cigarettes did little to reduce use, I doubt bans on gun advertising will have much real effect. I feel it was the change in focus from "it will kill you" to "it will kill others" where smoking bans finally started gaining traction. But we've already got piles of bodies as a very visible "guns will kill others" evidence and not only has there been no progress on the issue, but half the country sees it and cries "yes, I want more of that".
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
And now we have NBC News reporting that federal officers entered the school and engaged the shooter not because the Uvalde police finally let them, but because they could not abide not doing something any longer, and carried out entry to the school of their own volition.
Because they were human fucking beings with empathy, unlike the Uvalde police apparently
And this is the border patrol! They suck! They're worse than most police departments and do shit like destroy water left in the desert for emergency use.
I suppose if I expected anyone to take the 14 Words seriously, it would be border patrol agents
The most defining and consistent feature of an AR-15 is probably the spec for how the two halves of the receiver are joined. Since almost all AR upper/lower receivers are compatible with one another, that's one thing that's usually pretty consistent.
I know they're ubiquitous and an obvious target for legislation, but really I don't think it's valuable to get bogged down in the ins-and-outs of what it would take to narrowly define one basically open source platform.
Especially when the political will required to restrict access to all semi-automatic firearms is approximately the same as that required for restricting just AR-15s. Why split hairs at that point.
The most consistent feature is using. .223 or 5.56 nato round intended for militaries.
Correct me if I’m wrong is there a single reason you’d want a round like that aside from hunting like bears?
It's smaller/less energetic than ethical hunting cartridges. Big game usually requires (really, by law) a larger round, so its existence can't even be justified by that.
.223/5.56 was designed to still be able to penetrate body armor but be more controllable in automatic fire and lighter than the 7.62x51 round the M-14 was using, enabling the soldier to be more accurate and carry more. Its existence is entirely as an offensive/defensive cartridge. Anyone using it to hunt is either completely desperate or has no business hunting.
I am pessimistic about the fate of any potential assault weapons ban under the current SCOTUS. Alito has specifically said that he doesn't think Congress has the power to ban specific categories of weapons. Kavanaugh and Barrett are both 2A absolutists.
However, if there is a snowballs chance in hell of getting an assault weapons ban to stick, we have to be very careful about how it's crafted. There must be a causal dotted line between the features banned by the law and the body count (eg, high-capacity magazines).
Scalia's majority opinion for Heller (which is what defines the status quo on gun control) stated that Congress retains the power to ban weapons that are "dangerous and unusual."
If an assault weapons ban singles out features that are of questionable relevance (an AR-style receiver, a bayonet mount) or relies on a specific list of models (without clearly delineating the criteria by which these models, and not others, were chosen) then SCOTUS will use that as an excuse for overturning the ban for being insufficiently focused on the "dangerous and unusual."
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+1
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I want these people to be pestered until they cave or they come right out and state that they don't give a shit. Like at this point I don't care which it is but stop pulling this thoughts and prayers shit and moving on after you've made a show of feeling bad and doing nothing.
Also, I did some measurements (because apparently that's what I get to do today; figure out numbers for things that should be getting me on some kind of google watch list) and figured out a cathartic (if theatric) response to Ted cruz and company doing everything they can to prevent sensible gun laws from passing:
Get these:
Fill them with pigs blood and then pour those 3 buckets of blood on them while the senate is in session after they demure about how they can't do anything about it.
Why 3 buckets instead of one? Because based off my quick and dirty math that's about how much innocent blood was spilled because of the carnage in Uvalde; 15 gallons.
Hey folks, much as I agree with the sentiment, please don't endorse what would be considered felony assault on politicians on these here publicly indexed forums. You can endorse harassing them in ways that are not illegal all you want, though.
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.
This theme of advertising bans like we did for smoking is sounding better and better to me tbh. This thread is the first I've heard of it and, and it seems like a great idea.
The difficulty is the consumer protection basis for advertising laws. Generally, truth in advertising is to protect the consumer of the product/service from undisclosed hazards/lack of value. That’s not like “cigarettes will make you cool and get you sex (but we won’t tell you about how it gives you cancer and makes you die).” The people dying from the “fuck yeah adrenaline alpha top dog protector guy” gun advertising are not the buyers
Could you use the link between guns and suicide by gun?
shryke on
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
edited May 2022
But smoking cigarettes is actually physically addicting where owning guns is at best possibly psychologically addictive to a small chunk of the population.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
The most defining and consistent feature of an AR-15 is probably the spec for how the two halves of the receiver are joined. Since almost all AR upper/lower receivers are compatible with one another, that's one thing that's usually pretty consistent.
I know they're ubiquitous and an obvious target for legislation, but really I don't think it's valuable to get bogged down in the ins-and-outs of what it would take to narrowly define one basically open source platform.
Especially when the political will required to restrict access to all semi-automatic firearms is approximately the same as that required for restricting just AR-15s. Why split hairs at that point.
The most consistent feature is using. .223 or 5.56 nato round intended for militaries.
Correct me if I’m wrong is there a single reason you’d want a round like that aside from hunting like bears?
It's smaller/less energetic than ethical hunting cartridges. Big game usually requires (really, by law) a larger round, so its existence can't even be justified by that.
.223/5.56 was designed to still be able to penetrate body armor but be more controllable in automatic fire and lighter than the 7.62x51 round the M-14 was using, enabling the soldier to be more accurate and carry more. Its existence is entirely as an offensive/defensive cartridge. Anyone using it to hunt is either completely desperate or has no business hunting.
I feel you might've missed a key segment in your phrasing:
"Its existence is entirely as an offensive/defensive cartridge against other human beings."
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Mental Illness? Check. The Vidja Games? Check. Have we blamed Heavy Metal, interracial marriage, and Communism yet? Since we're playing "Blame Something--PLEASE GOD ANYTHING--Else" Bingo here.
I am pessimistic about the fate of any potential assault weapons ban under the current SCOTUS. Alito has specifically said that he doesn't think Congress has the power to ban specific categories of weapons. Kavanaugh and Barrett are both 2A absolutists.
However, if there is a snowballs chance in hell of getting an assault weapons ban to stick, we have to be very careful about how it's crafted. There must be a causal dotted line between the features banned by the law and the body count (eg, high-capacity magazines).
Scalia's majority opinion for Heller (which is what defines the status quo on gun control) stated that Congress retains the power to ban weapons that are "dangerous and unusual."
If an assault weapons ban singles out features that are of questionable relevance (an AR-style receiver, a bayonet mount) or relies on a specific list of models (without clearly delineating the criteria by which these models, and not others, were chosen) then SCOTUS will use that as an excuse for overturning the ban for being insufficiently focused on the "dangerous and unusual."
Getting any weapons ban to stick is gonna involve taking control of the courts imo.
Also again: do not forget they favor the “mental illness” dodge for multiple reasons:
- creates an other that elevates themselves as physically superior people
- - allows them to stoke fear that good, law abiding citizens are surrounded by ticking time bombs that they need Republicans to protect them from
- Allows them to further expand the carceral state
Lanz on
+16
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I want these people to be pestered until they cave or they come right out and state that they don't give a shit. Like at this point I don't care which it is but stop pulling this thoughts and prayers shit and moving on after you've made a show of feeling bad and doing nothing.
Also, I did some measurements (because apparently that's what I get to do today; figure out numbers for things that should be getting me on some kind of google watch list) and figured out a cathartic (if theatric) response to Ted cruz and company doing everything they can to prevent sensible gun laws from passing:
Get these:
Fill them with pigs blood and then pour those 3 buckets of blood on them while the senate is in session after they demure about how they can't do anything about it.
Why 3 buckets instead of one? Because based off my quick and dirty math that's about how much innocent blood was spilled because of the carnage in Uvalde; 15 gallons.
Hey folks, much as I agree with the sentiment, please don't endorse what would be considered felony assault on politicians on these here publicly indexed forums. You can endorse harassing them in ways that are not illegal all you want, though.
At least we would find out how fast they would ban owning buckets of pigs blood.
Does anybody know the proper pronunciation of "Uvalde" ?
Is there an actual / legal definition for "AR(-15) style" weapons? Like, I know what's being referred to, I'm just wondering if there's an actual / official / legal term that applies
So I guess I'll be That Dude by answering the question but
AR stands for Armalite Rifle, the company that manufactured the rifle in the 50s or 60s. It's kind of a Kleenex or Germex situation in that basically all "AR" style rifles aren't actually Armalites but it's become the standard nomenclature for that particular type of rifle.
AR-15's or AR style rifles are basically just semi automatic, magazine fed, full sized or carbine length weapons patterned off the military version of the M16s and later M4s. The only functional difference between the two is that an AR is not select fire, meaning you cannot select either semi automatic or fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons are banned in the US under the NFA unless you have a very specific and expensive license. Also, if I remember correctly, the ATF stopped accepting new stamps for fully automatic weapons at some point in the... 90s? 2000s? Meaning basically all the actual honest to God machine guns that you theoretically could buy under that license have been in the market for 20 or 30 years and carry price tags upwards of $5-10,000 USD.
But back to it, there are lots of basically civilianized "assault" rifles out there that aren't AR-15s. The common theme for any rifle like that though is
1. Semi automatic
2. High capacity magazines
I'd also add fancy rails for mounting all manner of kit and all sorts of tacti-cool bolt ons. Really though the only AR-15 in most of these guns seems to be the receiver.
So, yes but also kinda no
The actual attachments that most people slap on their rifles really wouldn't increase the weapons effectiveness in this particular situation. Most of these mass shootings take place in very small, confined spaces where things like optics, grips, flashlights or the odd laser don't matter.
The one standout here would probably have been the Vegas shooting because the guy was hanging out of a way high up window from a few blocks over and presumably had his shit set up to shoot from range. But even then he had a bump stock, all he really had to do to inflict all the carnage he did was point the muzzle at the huge crowd of people and pull the trigger.
What I'm getting at is I can slap a foregrip, laser, red dot sight and 3 point sling on my old 3 shot bolt action hunting rifle but I'm not really increasing its effectiveness at killing. It comes down to rate of fire and ammo capacity.
True, my point was more that while they're looking for the "AR" type guns, they're also lusting after all the dumb shit they can bolt onto it. Does that rise to banning those elements, I don't think so, but I don't think it's something to discount either. Basically any semi-auto rifle that isn't 22, or even frankly a 9 mm pistol, can output crazy damage with high capacity mags. But these shooters aren't buying/using those guns to commit mass murder, they're specifically chasing these tacti-cool military adjacent rifles.
Does anybody know the proper pronunciation of "Uvalde" ?
Is there an actual / legal definition for "AR(-15) style" weapons? Like, I know what's being referred to, I'm just wondering if there's an actual / official / legal term that applies
So I guess I'll be That Dude by answering the question but
AR stands for Armalite Rifle, the company that manufactured the rifle in the 50s or 60s. It's kind of a Kleenex or Germex situation in that basically all "AR" style rifles aren't actually Armalites but it's become the standard nomenclature for that particular type of rifle.
AR-15's or AR style rifles are basically just semi automatic, magazine fed, full sized or carbine length weapons patterned off the military version of the M16s and later M4s. The only functional difference between the two is that an AR is not select fire, meaning you cannot select either semi automatic or fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons are banned in the US under the NFA unless you have a very specific and expensive license. Also, if I remember correctly, the ATF stopped accepting new stamps for fully automatic weapons at some point in the... 90s? 2000s? Meaning basically all the actual honest to God machine guns that you theoretically could buy under that license have been in the market for 20 or 30 years and carry price tags upwards of $5-10,000 USD.
But back to it, there are lots of basically civilianized "assault" rifles out there that aren't AR-15s. The common theme for any rifle like that though is
1. Semi automatic
2. High capacity magazines
I'd also add fancy rails for mounting all manner of kit and all sorts of tacti-cool bolt ons. Really though the only AR-15 in most of these guns seems to be the receiver.
So, yes but also kinda no
The actual attachments that most people slap on their rifles really wouldn't increase the weapons effectiveness in this particular situation. Most of these mass shootings take place in very small, confined spaces where things like optics, grips, flashlights or the odd laser don't matter.
The one standout here would probably have been the Vegas shooting because the guy was hanging out of a way high up window from a few blocks over and presumably had his shit set up to shoot from range. But even then he had a bump stock, all he really had to do to inflict all the carnage he did was point the muzzle at the huge crowd of people and pull the trigger.
What I'm getting at is I can slap a foregrip, laser, red dot sight and 3 point sling on my old 3 shot bolt action hunting rifle but I'm not really increasing its effectiveness at killing. It comes down to rate of fire and ammo capacity.
True, my point was more that while they're looking for the "AR" type guns, they're also lusting after all the dumb shit they can bolt onto it. Does that rise to banning those elements, I don't think so, but I don't think it's something to discount either. Basically any semi-auto rifle that isn't 22, or even frankly a 9 mm pistol, can output crazy damage with high capacity mags. But these shooters aren't buying/using those guns to commit mass murder, they're specifically chasing these tacti-cool military adjacent rifles.
Virginia Tech was 9mm pistols.
Frankly any gun that is semiautomatic and can take high capacity magazines - even if chambered in .22 - is going to have a horrendous death toll used against unarmed and unarmored civilians.
There is simply no way to square semi-automatic magazine fed guns with no high body count mass shootings / killings. And a shotgun and couple revolvers can still be pretty horrendous - not downplaying that.
+22
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
Our neices are over in Austin. I work in grocery and people also love shooting up grocery stores. I had to worry less about me or family being randomly killed twenty years ago when I was in Pakistan & Afghanistan doing up a war.
And now we have NBC News reporting that federal officers entered the school and engaged the shooter not because the Uvalde police finally let them, but because they could not abide not doing something any longer, and carried out entry to the school of their own volition.
This genuinely makes me wonder how much longer they would have waited outside if BORTAC hadn't decided fuck it and gone in themselves
I don't think it's reasonable to have any firearms at this point. Maybe someday in the future there can be carveouts for sports shooting and such, but we've really lost the capacity to be responsible adults about this.
Arrest anyone who possesses a gun after a grace period to turn them in, arrest and charge anyone caught with a firearm in a public space that isn't actively engaged in a duty related to firearms - this includes off-duty cops. Give teachers some Bear Spray just so the "omg what about the knives" nutters can shut the fuck up.
All of the room for nuance has left the room. "They want to ban guns!" yup, sure fucking do.
Our neices are over in Austin. I work in grocery and people also love shooting up grocery stores. I had to worry less about me or family being randomly killed twenty years ago when I was in Pakistan & Afghanistan doing up a war.
At least you in theory knew you were in warzone when you were overseas. Here shit just becomes one.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The idea that only the mentally ill can be mass murderers needs to be seriously fought against.
It has way too much traction on the left.
Hello friendly reminder from your friendly neighborhood person with diagnosed mental illness (10 years this year!) that people with mental illness are exponentially more likely to harm themselves than harm others.
Also I'm surprised WaPo still has this all over the front page (constant press conference fuck ups seems to be doing it) but this little thing gave me a chuckle:
+14
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I hate hate hatethe mental illness moniker about all this kind of shit
Most people with mental illnesses hurt nobody
By no definition is committing wanton acts of violence mental illness by default
All it accomplishes is absolving the perpetrators and the culture at large of any responsibility for violence
While making out millions of people with mental illnesses out to be mass murderers
Let's just say the shooter did have the kind of mental condition that could precipitate into a snap of this kind. Just go along with me here on this I promise I've got a point.
So, this guy is extraordinarily troubled. According to numerous places he'd shown violent tendencies in school, self-mutilation, and a lot of other outward signs that he had a problem (this was actually true). Let's just say that is what caused this entire thing.
In any society that calls itself a society, we should have institutions that allow for mental health treatment to be provided. We do have the modern capability to treat a dizzying array of mental disorders and allow these people to live a pretty normal, good life. We also should have the capability to rehabilitate, or in extreme cases where the person just doesn't function, the ability to give them a place where they can't hurt themselves or others.
We, as a country, have none of that. This kid went through school, got bullied, ended up having some actual fucking issues that were clearly outward and visible (though not necessarily mental illness, I'm not a doctor so I can't diagnose him) and ended up taking out a class full of kids. And the access to the care for this kid was locked behind a paywall.
We as a society failed that kid, and then we gave him an instrument of mass murder as a prize for when he finally got himself out of school where he was apparently relentlessly treated like shit.
And then the police failed his victims because they have no fucking human compassion left in them, just CYA.
So whether or not the kid had a mental health problem is immaterial, since we as a country have decided mental health is better left to for-profit counselors and under-funded social workers, complete with a constant stigma of shame associated with it. And now here we sit, arguing fruitlessly that we can't do anything because doing something requires someones hobby to be cut off, or because we haven't precisely defined a semi-automatic rifle well enough, or because universal healthcare is the devil.
This is a perfect storm of absolute bullshit, all of it our own making, and I see nothing but abject failure and misery from this whole situation. No silver lining, except that people seem to be getting madder and madder that this bullshit isn't stopping.
Of this shooter was armed with a 9mm pistol think the cops would be afraid to go in?
Yes. There were procedural as well as courage level issues in this situation.
Police fetishists in America must be loving headlines like this
Honestly the most surprising thing I've seen is the media is not swallowing the usual bullshit. Most articles are like this one, highlighting that they sat on their hands while kids were murdered.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The most defining and consistent feature of an AR-15 is probably the spec for how the two halves of the receiver are joined. Since almost all AR upper/lower receivers are compatible with one another, that's one thing that's usually pretty consistent.
I know they're ubiquitous and an obvious target for legislation, but really I don't think it's valuable to get bogged down in the ins-and-outs of what it would take to narrowly define one basically open source platform.
Especially when the political will required to restrict access to all semi-automatic firearms is approximately the same as that required for restricting just AR-15s. Why split hairs at that point.
The most consistent feature is using. .223 or 5.56 nato round intended for militaries.
Correct me if I’m wrong is there a single reason you’d want a round like that aside from hunting like bears?
You really wouldn’t want a .223 for hunting bears or really any animal larger than “varmints” like maybe a coyote or something.
Military usage is a lot different than hunting. In ww2 and prior they used big hunting style cartridges but it turned out that smaller ones worked just as well, you could carry more, shoot faster, etc. Also in the 1800s you needed a round that could reliably take down a horse, not so much after ww2.
Hunting needs a bigger round for 2 reasons:
1. Animals are just fucking tough. There are videos of boar just straight up getting shot with 45.70 rounds and getting shot straight on the shoulder bone and glancing. There are recored instances of bears on the charge taking 30 .223 rounds and still making it to the shooter. Large animals just have a degree of resiliency that humans don’t have.
2. While there are a few scattered cases of self defense from wildlife, most of the time someone shoots an animal they are trying to recover it for meat, trophies, etc. if you are in a military situation and shoot some guy and he gets a glancing blow and runs off and dies of an infection in the hospital three days later, or even recovers but loses a leg and can’t fight anymore, you’ve accomplished your goal of removing the enemy soldier from combat. If you are hunting a deer and the deer runs off and dies a few days later of infection, you’ve killed a deer for no reason. If the deer runs off a mile and you have to track it down and bring it back, you’ve made your own life harder and made the deer suffer for no reason.
So hunting you typically fire less (most of the time once), and the effectiveness of an individual shot is much more important. There are some bolt action rifles that use .223, but I think they would be for some pretty specific applications in smaller game.
As far as banning .223 for civilian use? I don’t know, there are a lot of other similar calibers that could just slot right in. You could make a semi auto rifle in 9mm that would probably be as effective for a mass shooter.
I think a magazine round limit would be a lot more effective.
Jealous Deva on
+6
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Of this shooter was armed with a 9mm pistol think the cops would be afraid to go in?
Yes. There were procedural as well as courage level issues in this situation.
Police fetishists in America must be loving headlines like this
Honestly the most surprising thing I've seen is the media is not swallowing the usual bullshit. Most articles are like this one, highlighting that they sat on their hands while kids were murdered.
100% it was the cellphone footage of the police pointing tasers and demanding distraught parents stand back. The moment that was made public they had no chance of regaining any favourable narrative.
It was linked earlier in the thread. It has haunted me for days.
Of this shooter was armed with a 9mm pistol think the cops would be afraid to go in?
Yes. There were procedural as well as courage level issues in this situation.
Police fetishists in America must be loving headlines like this
Honestly the most surprising thing I've seen is the media is not swallowing the usual bullshit. Most articles are like this one, highlighting that they sat on their hands while kids were murdered.
100% it was the cellphone footage of the police pointing tasers and demanding distraught parents stand back. The moment that was made public they had no chance of regaining any favourable narrative.
It was linked earlier in the thread. It has haunted me for days.
The public's willingness to turn on their cell phones to document the police being awful has really opened eyes. Like I know my own belief system about the police took a sledge hammer to it in the decades of recorded bad cops being bad.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The most defining and consistent feature of an AR-15 is probably the spec for how the two halves of the receiver are joined. Since almost all AR upper/lower receivers are compatible with one another, that's one thing that's usually pretty consistent.
I know they're ubiquitous and an obvious target for legislation, but really I don't think it's valuable to get bogged down in the ins-and-outs of what it would take to narrowly define one basically open source platform.
Especially when the political will required to restrict access to all semi-automatic firearms is approximately the same as that required for restricting just AR-15s. Why split hairs at that point.
The most consistent feature is using. .223 or 5.56 nato round intended for militaries.
Correct me if I’m wrong is there a single reason you’d want a round like that aside from hunting like bears?
You really wouldn’t want a .223 for hunting bears or really any animal larger than “varmints” like maybe a coyote or something.
Military usage is a lot different than hunting. In ww2 and prior they used big hunting style cartridges but it turned out that smaller ones worked just as well, you could carry more, shoot faster, etc. Also in the 1800s you needed a round that could reliably take down a horse, not so much after ww2.
Hunting needs a bigger round for 2 reasons:
1. Animals are just fucking tough. There are videos of boar just straight up getting shot with 45.70 rounds and getting shot straight on the shoulder bone and glancing. There are recored instances of bears on the charge taking 30 .223 rounds and still making it to the shooter. Large animals just have a degree of resiliency that humans don’t have.
2. While there are a few scattered cases of self defense from wildlife, most of the time someone shoots an animal they are trying to recover it for meat, trophies, etc. if you are in a military situation and shoot some guy and he gets a glancing blow and runs off and dies of an infection in the hospital three days later, or even recovers but loses a leg and can’t fight anymore, you’ve accomplished your goal of removing the enemy soldier from combat. If you are hunting a deer and the deer runs off and dies a few days later of infection, you’ve killed a deer for no reason. If the deer runs off a mile and you have to track it down and bring it back, you’ve made your own life harder and made the deer suffer for no reason.
So hunting you typically fire less (most of the time once), and the effectiveness of an individual shot is much more important. There are some bolt action rifles that use .223, but I think they would be for some pretty specific applications in smaller game.
As far as banning .223 for civilian use? I don’t know, there are a lot of other similar calibers that could just slot right in. You could make a semi auto rifle in 9mm that would probably be as effective for a mass shooter.
I think a magazine round limit would be a lot more effective.
Do not allow semi automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.
Of this shooter was armed with a 9mm pistol think the cops would be afraid to go in?
Yes. There were procedural as well as courage level issues in this situation.
Police fetishists in America must be loving headlines like this
Also like, even the subheading here
They literally had a tactical team there in the form of the Border Patrol squad, who sound like they even had their tactical gear?? And were likely federally trained/probably more pro on paper than their local SWAT team??? And they got there basically a matter of minutes after the shooter went inside????
Fucking, why would you not deploy them immediately instead of using them as extra window duty guys
Posts
It's smaller/less energetic than ethical hunting cartridges. Big game usually requires (really, by law) a larger round, so its existence can't even be justified by that.
They were Border Patrol and ICE agents, let's not give them too much credit here.
So
With the heads up that what you are about to click on is a game promo, delivered by its director… via a sock puppet he’s operating, Yoko Taro some years back had a damn good conversation about violence, and how he moved on from thinking that you had to be insane to be a mass murderer to a different view:
Oh ACAB absolutely
But they at least meet some minimum level of “can’t stand sitting there and listening to kids getting murdered”
The barest bottom of the barrel standard that Uvalde cops couldn’t even meet
Yes, I've heard people from Texas speak before
Am I really supposed to believe that the gunshots could not be heard from outside?
Most people with mental illnesses hurt nobody
By no definition is committing wanton acts of violence mental illness by default
All it accomplishes is absolving the perpetrators and the culture at large of any responsibility for violence
While making out millions of people with mental illnesses out to be mass murderers
And this is the border patrol! They suck! They're worse than most police departments and do shit like destroy water left in the desert for emergency use.
That is priority one, yeah
Pick at the thread of the obvious lies and watch the whole thing unravel
The fact that the truth as presented is already fucking horrible doesn’t inspire a lot of optimism for whatever they’re hiding
I suppose you could go with "Using this product may cause death by cop". But like advertising bans on cigarettes did little to reduce use, I doubt bans on gun advertising will have much real effect. I feel it was the change in focus from "it will kill you" to "it will kill others" where smoking bans finally started gaining traction. But we've already got piles of bodies as a very visible "guns will kill others" evidence and not only has there been no progress on the issue, but half the country sees it and cries "yes, I want more of that".
I suppose if I expected anyone to take the 14 Words seriously, it would be border patrol agents
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
.223/5.56 was designed to still be able to penetrate body armor but be more controllable in automatic fire and lighter than the 7.62x51 round the M-14 was using, enabling the soldier to be more accurate and carry more. Its existence is entirely as an offensive/defensive cartridge. Anyone using it to hunt is either completely desperate or has no business hunting.
However, if there is a snowballs chance in hell of getting an assault weapons ban to stick, we have to be very careful about how it's crafted. There must be a causal dotted line between the features banned by the law and the body count (eg, high-capacity magazines).
Scalia's majority opinion for Heller (which is what defines the status quo on gun control) stated that Congress retains the power to ban weapons that are "dangerous and unusual."
If an assault weapons ban singles out features that are of questionable relevance (an AR-style receiver, a bayonet mount) or relies on a specific list of models (without clearly delineating the criteria by which these models, and not others, were chosen) then SCOTUS will use that as an excuse for overturning the ban for being insufficiently focused on the "dangerous and unusual."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Hey folks, much as I agree with the sentiment, please don't endorse what would be considered felony assault on politicians on these here publicly indexed forums. You can endorse harassing them in ways that are not illegal all you want, though.
Could you use the link between guns and suicide by gun?
I feel you might've missed a key segment in your phrasing:
"Its existence is entirely as an offensive/defensive cartridge against other human beings."
Getting any weapons ban to stick is gonna involve taking control of the courts imo.
- creates an other that elevates themselves as physically superior people
- - allows them to stoke fear that good, law abiding citizens are surrounded by ticking time bombs that they need Republicans to protect them from
- Allows them to further expand the carceral state
At least we would find out how fast they would ban owning buckets of pigs blood.
OH COME ON REALITY WRITERS
True, my point was more that while they're looking for the "AR" type guns, they're also lusting after all the dumb shit they can bolt onto it. Does that rise to banning those elements, I don't think so, but I don't think it's something to discount either. Basically any semi-auto rifle that isn't 22, or even frankly a 9 mm pistol, can output crazy damage with high capacity mags. But these shooters aren't buying/using those guns to commit mass murder, they're specifically chasing these tacti-cool military adjacent rifles.
Virginia Tech was 9mm pistols.
Frankly any gun that is semiautomatic and can take high capacity magazines - even if chambered in .22 - is going to have a horrendous death toll used against unarmed and unarmored civilians.
There is simply no way to square semi-automatic magazine fed guns with no high body count mass shootings / killings. And a shotgun and couple revolvers can still be pretty horrendous - not downplaying that.
This genuinely makes me wonder how much longer they would have waited outside if BORTAC hadn't decided fuck it and gone in themselves
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
Arrest anyone who possesses a gun after a grace period to turn them in, arrest and charge anyone caught with a firearm in a public space that isn't actively engaged in a duty related to firearms - this includes off-duty cops. Give teachers some Bear Spray just so the "omg what about the knives" nutters can shut the fuck up.
All of the room for nuance has left the room. "They want to ban guns!" yup, sure fucking do.
At least you in theory knew you were in warzone when you were overseas. Here shit just becomes one.
pleasepaypreacher.net
100% yes. Then they'd say he had "cop killers" loaded in his magazines or some other mythical bullshit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Hello friendly reminder from your friendly neighborhood person with diagnosed mental illness (10 years this year!) that people with mental illness are exponentially more likely to harm themselves than harm others.
Also I'm surprised WaPo still has this all over the front page (constant press conference fuck ups seems to be doing it) but this little thing gave me a chuckle:
Yes. There were procedural as well as courage level issues in this situation.
Police fetishists in America must be loving headlines like this
Let's just say the shooter did have the kind of mental condition that could precipitate into a snap of this kind. Just go along with me here on this I promise I've got a point.
So, this guy is extraordinarily troubled. According to numerous places he'd shown violent tendencies in school, self-mutilation, and a lot of other outward signs that he had a problem (this was actually true). Let's just say that is what caused this entire thing.
In any society that calls itself a society, we should have institutions that allow for mental health treatment to be provided. We do have the modern capability to treat a dizzying array of mental disorders and allow these people to live a pretty normal, good life. We also should have the capability to rehabilitate, or in extreme cases where the person just doesn't function, the ability to give them a place where they can't hurt themselves or others.
We, as a country, have none of that. This kid went through school, got bullied, ended up having some actual fucking issues that were clearly outward and visible (though not necessarily mental illness, I'm not a doctor so I can't diagnose him) and ended up taking out a class full of kids. And the access to the care for this kid was locked behind a paywall.
We as a society failed that kid, and then we gave him an instrument of mass murder as a prize for when he finally got himself out of school where he was apparently relentlessly treated like shit.
And then the police failed his victims because they have no fucking human compassion left in them, just CYA.
So whether or not the kid had a mental health problem is immaterial, since we as a country have decided mental health is better left to for-profit counselors and under-funded social workers, complete with a constant stigma of shame associated with it. And now here we sit, arguing fruitlessly that we can't do anything because doing something requires someones hobby to be cut off, or because we haven't precisely defined a semi-automatic rifle well enough, or because universal healthcare is the devil.
This is a perfect storm of absolute bullshit, all of it our own making, and I see nothing but abject failure and misery from this whole situation. No silver lining, except that people seem to be getting madder and madder that this bullshit isn't stopping.
Honestly the most surprising thing I've seen is the media is not swallowing the usual bullshit. Most articles are like this one, highlighting that they sat on their hands while kids were murdered.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You really wouldn’t want a .223 for hunting bears or really any animal larger than “varmints” like maybe a coyote or something.
Military usage is a lot different than hunting. In ww2 and prior they used big hunting style cartridges but it turned out that smaller ones worked just as well, you could carry more, shoot faster, etc. Also in the 1800s you needed a round that could reliably take down a horse, not so much after ww2.
Hunting needs a bigger round for 2 reasons:
1. Animals are just fucking tough. There are videos of boar just straight up getting shot with 45.70 rounds and getting shot straight on the shoulder bone and glancing. There are recored instances of bears on the charge taking 30 .223 rounds and still making it to the shooter. Large animals just have a degree of resiliency that humans don’t have.
2. While there are a few scattered cases of self defense from wildlife, most of the time someone shoots an animal they are trying to recover it for meat, trophies, etc. if you are in a military situation and shoot some guy and he gets a glancing blow and runs off and dies of an infection in the hospital three days later, or even recovers but loses a leg and can’t fight anymore, you’ve accomplished your goal of removing the enemy soldier from combat. If you are hunting a deer and the deer runs off and dies a few days later of infection, you’ve killed a deer for no reason. If the deer runs off a mile and you have to track it down and bring it back, you’ve made your own life harder and made the deer suffer for no reason.
So hunting you typically fire less (most of the time once), and the effectiveness of an individual shot is much more important. There are some bolt action rifles that use .223, but I think they would be for some pretty specific applications in smaller game.
As far as banning .223 for civilian use? I don’t know, there are a lot of other similar calibers that could just slot right in. You could make a semi auto rifle in 9mm that would probably be as effective for a mass shooter.
I think a magazine round limit would be a lot more effective.
100% it was the cellphone footage of the police pointing tasers and demanding distraught parents stand back. The moment that was made public they had no chance of regaining any favourable narrative.
It was linked earlier in the thread. It has haunted me for days.
The public's willingness to turn on their cell phones to document the police being awful has really opened eyes. Like I know my own belief system about the police took a sledge hammer to it in the decades of recorded bad cops being bad.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Do not allow semi automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.
Easy.
Also like, even the subheading here
They literally had a tactical team there in the form of the Border Patrol squad, who sound like they even had their tactical gear?? And were likely federally trained/probably more pro on paper than their local SWAT team??? And they got there basically a matter of minutes after the shooter went inside????
Fucking, why would you not deploy them immediately instead of using them as extra window duty guys
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786