HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » there seems to be a seman...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:02 AM

there seems to be a semantics issue here concerning guns.new words might help.Offensive Weapons Ban

i think someone on this forum said something about GUNS, and somebody else got confused

maybe more than once.

Offensive- meaning ANY gun that is designed for the military. offense/attack.

people who aren't fighting a war (the public) don't need to have the same guns as soldiers.

are there any guns that hold more than 12 bullets that aren't for soldiers?

i don't understand how you need more than 12 to go hunting- if you need 12 to kill an animal, i'd say stop spending so much on bullets and take a hunting class and shooting lessons.

and for self-defense, why more than 12? if you are being attacked by so many criminals 12 isn't enough, you're in serious trouble. ANY gun isn't going to be much help. the best way a gun defends you is if the baddies run away, i doubt someone would base whether they're going to run away or not on how many bullets you have or the size of the gun. understand?

if you get mugged by 5 guys, either:
1. you pull your gun, they run away.
2. you shoot one, the other 4 run away
3. you shoot a couple, get overpowered, bad scene

you can't shoot in 5 different directions at once. they'll have weapons, too
more bullets wouldn't come into play when you're totally outnumbered

so OFFENSIVE WEAPONS BAN means you can't have a gun that holds more than 12. you can keep all your guns that you already have, just trade in your 30 round clip for 2 twelves.

ok, let's hear about how HORRIBLE this would be!

32 replies, 2136 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply there seems to be a semantics issue here concerning guns.new words might help.Offensive Weapons Ban (Original post)
farminator3000 Dec 2012 OP
tblue Dec 2012 #1
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #2
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #3
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #17
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #19
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #26
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #29
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #30
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #4
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #32
PavePusher Dec 2012 #5
Lordquinton Dec 2012 #6
PavePusher Dec 2012 #7
Orrex Dec 2012 #9
PavePusher Dec 2012 #13
Orrex Dec 2012 #14
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #22
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #21
xoom Dec 2012 #15
quakerboy Dec 2012 #10
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #23
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #18
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #20
JoeyT Dec 2012 #8
beevul Dec 2012 #11
Orrex Dec 2012 #12
billh58 Dec 2012 #24
beevul Dec 2012 #27
Ron Green Dec 2012 #25
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #28
Ron Green Dec 2012 #16
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #31

Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:15 AM

1. farminator3000, you rock!

Sorry I'm too tired to write a nice response to your op. I just want to thank you for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:26 AM

2. thanks!

i also am going thru an insomniac phase. any advice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:54 AM

3. There are many pistols

 

That hold more than twelve rounds and that were not designed for the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:16 PM

17. why?

what do people use them for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:24 PM

19. Home defense, concealed carry, target shooting

 

Most pistols' capacity is dictated by the length of the grip. If the grip is 5" long and the magazine sits flush with the bottom of the grip, a 9mm might hold 15 rounds while a .40 would hold 13 and a .45 would hold 10, just as an example. These are what are referred to as standard capacity magazines. Making them hold an artificially limited amount of rounds would require modifying the magazine to block off the bottom portion from accepting rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:31 PM

26. great!

so who designed the ones for home defense?

and why? what were their reasons for doing this?

how do you design a weapon for concealed carry?

why would a gun designed for target shooting shoot so fast? don't you have to aim at targets?

isn't every gun designed for target shooting? aren't you supposed to practice?

are there any designed for hunting that hold over 12? what do you hunt with them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:04 PM

29. Wow, that's a lot of questions.

 

Let me see if I can take them one at a time.

so who designed the ones for home defense?


Many guns were designed by many different companies, some being Kahr, Kel-Tec, Hi-Point, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and Walther.

and why? what were their reasons for doing this?


Profit, I imagine. As I wasn't the designer, I'm afraid that I don't have firsthand knowledge as to what she/he was thinking when they came up with a particular design.

how do you design a weapon for concealed carry?


Ideally, by making it narrow with a short grip and no sharp edges that would snag on clothing when attempting to draw quickly from concealment.

why would a gun designed for target shooting shoot so fast?


How fast? I don't recall discussing rate of fire in this thread, just capacity.

don't you have to aim at targets?


I prefer to aim at my targets when shooting for good groups.

isn't every gun designed for target shooting?


While I imagine that all guns are designed for hitting targets, it is my understanding that not all make the same compromises in order to hit the target in the same place each time. For instance, it seems that some guns are designed more for light weight than hitting the target in the same spot with each shot.

aren't you supposed to practice?


I believe that practice is an important step towards proficiency.

are there any designed for hunting that hold over 12?


I believe so, although, again, I don't know specifically what was going through the designers' heads when developing many weapons.

what do you hunt with them?


Wild hogs are a popular choice, along with small varmints such as groundhogs. Personally, I don't often hunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:37 PM

30. thanks for the answers

ok,
gun companies design and market guns for home defense, and every other use, to make a profit, i'll buy that

quick draw is the important thing in concealed carry-
getting the jump is the thing that matters, not amount of bullets

you have to stop and aim between shots to shoot accurately when target shooting, size of clip not important

hunting game or varmints, 12 should take down a hog, or pretty much anything but a grizzly

groundhogs are definitely varmints

anyway, why do you think they design these guns, that take these oversized clips, for civilians if nobody really needs one?

i'm guessing it wouldn't bother you if you weren't allowed to have more than 12 shots in your clip,

kids would be safer (not totally safe, but safer) from psychopaths,

and gun companies' profits would shrink a little. they wouldn't go bankrupt, their profits would probably not even shrink for very long.

i can't imagine a gun lover giving up guns because they can't put 13 or more bullets in a clip

plus, its just a gun corporation, not a person, so who cares.

any thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:32 AM

4. Better To Just Outlaw All Weapons And Then The Various Scenarios Become Irrelevant

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:35 AM

32. Because if they were outlawed, no one would have them. Kinda like weed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:15 AM

5. This may well be the stupidest post on the Internet today.

 

It's obvious you have no idea of what the definition of a "weapon" is or how self-defense works.

It's like trying to discuss orbital mechanics with someone who thinks the Earth is flat, and rides on the back of an elephant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:20 AM

6. Tell us more

about mental illnesses and how you are an expert of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:28 AM

7. For the life of me, I can't recall ever claiming expertise on the subject.

 

Better work on that strawman a bit more, he's decidedly... understuffed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:42 AM

9. Then could you perhaps address the ideas proposed in the OP?

That would be more interesting to read than than your cranky insults directed at the poster and, preaumably, anyone who doesn't share your profound knowledge of and love for Guns! Guns! Guns!

I await your informed and informative response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:15 PM

13. Any weapon that can be used in defense can be used in offense, and vice versa.

 

As has been stated repeatedly, weapons have no intent, only people have intent.

Which takes us back to mental health care.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:25 PM

14. The intent of a weapon is in the design

That is, no one thinks that the weapon itself has any intent or volition, but would you agree that a high-powered rifle with built-in telescopic sight was likely designed with a different intent than a .38 snub?

Similarly, a sword has a different intent than an axe, even if neither weapon wakes up in the morning thinking "I'm going to hack off somebody's head today."


I see what you're getting at, but I submit that your point is misdirected, and your tone probably didn't help either. If you want to argue about a weapon's intent, as if the weapon itself has free will, then of course you're going to defeat that strawman.

But if you would engage the actual point, that to some extent the function of the weapon follows its form, then the discussion as a whole could move forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:30 PM

22. and any gun that can commit mass murder in 30 sec or less

is a thing designed to be used in a battle

and vice versa.

check your brain, dude

you can use a flashlight or a pair of scissors to defend yourself

or your hands- there was this guy called bruce lee, check him out

so what you said is a regiment can run into battle with scissors

why would you say something so nonsensical?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:19 PM

21. no, but you said you were smarter than a post on the internet

and not much else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:29 PM

15. Haha, pulled that right out of your ass!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:11 AM

10. Thank you for warning us what was to come in your post...

Ok.. insulting titles traded.

Why don't you explain in what regard he is wrong re self defense?

Or his weapon definitions. If you would have politely disagreed there, i could have gone along with that, I don't agree with his definitions.

But in the end, your post typifies the problem. Instead of offering any real ideas or trying to teach or have a discussion, you did exactly what every extreemist who cant justify his position does. Im getting sick of extremists ruling our system. When you win, we all lose, whichever side of whichever topic you happen to win on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

23. ha! that's totally aweome!

i went to a quaker school!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:22 PM

18. i doubt it why don't you keep looking

somewhere other than here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:17 PM

20. do you expect me to agree with you?

oh i'm sorry i don't have a w key can you look it up for me?

i heard a rumor that weapons hurt people

sorry to waste your time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:34 AM

8. Yeah, there are some guns,

that hold more than 12 that aren't military guns. Mostly tube loaded .22s. Not really a mass murderer's gun of choice. (The bullet is only slightly larger than the pellet a BB gun shoots) You can also measure the reload time for one in minutes.

You're being more generous than I would. 5 is the most a person would ever need for hunting. 5 in the magazine, one in the chamber. If they need more than six shots, they either need to practice or sight in their scope better. Everything I can think of that you can hunt with a rifle has a bag limit of one anyway. (Maybe pigs? I dunno.)

And quick change mags need to be a thing of the past. Just making the magazine smaller by itself won't help much.

So I'm not saying it's horrible, I'm saying I'd like it to be much more horrible. It might give some people a sad, but they'll get over it.

Edited for clarity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:51 AM

11. "people who aren't fighting a war (the public) don't need to have the same guns as soldiers."

"people who aren't fighting a war (the public) don't need to have the same guns as soldiers."


Civilians, with VERY few exceptions, don't own the same guns as soldiers.

Anyone who has hinted, implied, or flat out told you otherwise, has sold you a falsehood.

Where did you come to the belief that "the public" has the same guns as soldiers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:11 AM

12. That's a common Libertarian mantra, by the way

I've known Libertarians (by which I mean "crazy, fringe far-Right reactionary assholes) who believe that citizens should have access to any man-portable weaponry that exists, including explosives and high-powered military armaments. I don't know why they drew the line at "man-portable," for that matter; you'd think that their flavor of crazy would love to see a nuke in every white man's garage.

When pressed to explain how they justify this lunacy, they invariably cite the 2nd Amendment and demand to be shown where such arms are forbidden. Typically they follow with some sort of putrid screed about personal sovereignty and defending themselves from tyranny blah blah blah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:44 PM

24. What a great example

of an NRA talking point. Any semi-automatic, high capacity bullet machine has equal killing power to a military weapon. The "public" does indeed have access to guns with the same killing effectiveness as soldiers. They may not be fully automatic, or have a fucking bayonet stud, but rapid fire can accomplish almost the same kill ratio.

What you are trying to sell, on the other hand, is known as a "half-truth," and is a very deceptive right-wing debate tactic, and was used extensively by Romney in his debates with President Obama. The public may not own the "same" guns as soldiers, but the difference in performance is slight, and the mass killing capacity is about the same.

Another Gungeon fail...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:41 PM

27. Then by definition, the OP is selling a half truth as well.

Pointing that out, is "an nra talking point"?

I really think, that ANYTHING thats said in response to something a gun control supporter says, claims, or implies, that someone in the gun control camp doesn't like, is viewed, ( or at the very least labelled as) "an nra talking point". Particularly if it undercuts the facts of the matter.

Half truths are ok as long as they support the pro-control/anti-gun agenda, huh?

And some of you wonder why essentially nobody in the pro-rights camp trusts anyone in the "pro-control/anti-gun camp...

"Any semi-automatic, high capacity bullet machine has equal killing power to a military weapon. The "public" does indeed have access to guns with the same killing effectiveness as soldiers."

I guess you guys will fall right in behind in support, when someone suggests doing away with the national firearms act then, right?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:48 PM

25. The public has access to offensive weapons.

This must change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:43 PM

28. i figured it out for myself. try it sometime

what does the make and model of a gun have to do with anything?

could you provide an example of a gun designed to be used by a civilian that can fire more than 2 bullets per second?

why should a citizen be allowed to own a gun bigger than the cop's guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:50 PM

16. Kicking and recommending this because

"offensive weapon" is the most useful term I can imagine to convey to the public what ought to be restricted to military use.
It describes a function, and can be interpreted to mean what lawmakers must decide it shall mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:32 AM

31. thanks

plus, it subtly says 'we think those guns are kinda gross'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread