HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Pistol grips on long guns...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:03 PM

Pistol grips on long guns, and rifle crime in general.

I ran across a discussion in another thread regarding pistol grip stocks on rifles, and rather than further hijack that thread, I decided to start a new thread on pistol grips, and rifle crime in general. It's a topic that comes up from time to time, but I think it's worth revisiting.

The initial statement that piqued my interest was this:

What do you need a pistol grip for? Again, no real purpose but killing a lot of people real fast.

From a design standpoint, separating the handgrip from the shoulder stock allows the receiver of a firearm to sit well back over the hand, allowing a better weight distribution and (in some designs) a longer barrel (or longer receiver) for the same overall length. This was probably the main reason pistol grip designs were first introduced. However, their ergonomic advantages are what made them dominant in the civilian realm, first in high-end target rifles and then mainstream civilian guns.

However, as it turns out, vertical handgrips on long guns also put the wrist at the ideal angle when firing from the shoulder, allowing a more secure grip and a better trigger pull, and making it unnecessary to stick your dominant elbow up and out like a chicken wing when shooting from the shoulder. That's why almost all very-high-end European target rifles used in unlimited-class target shooting have either pistol grip stocks, or thumbhole/extreme Monte Carlo stocks that approximate pistol grip angles.

For example, here's an Anschutz single-shot bolt-action target rifle:



and a thumbhole design (same principle, same grip angle):



Here's an Olympic biathlon rifle (also bolt-action); notice the grip angle:



Next time you see an Olympic biathlete "spray firing from the hip", let me know.

Finally, here's a civilian AR-15 at a range. Notice the natural wrist angle, and the perfect alignment of the barrel axis with the shoulder.



That's not an accident; that's good ergonomics, and it's why all kinds of new rifles designed in the last decade or two have imitated the AR's design.

FWIW, if that guy dropped his arm to hip level, but kept the natural wrist angle, the rifle would be pointed at the ground about 3 feet in front of his feet. That's another nice thing about pistol grip stocks; they make it easier to point a long gun safely down at the floor while keeping the gun close to your body for security, instead of encouraging a less-safe muzzle high hold like straight stocks do. You can do a low hold with a traditional straight stock, but it bends your right wrist like a chicken wing and weakens your grasp on the gun. A pistol grip also makes it somewhat harder for an attacker to snatch a long gun away from you if they get close (muzzle-down carry also helps with this), and makes it easier to "short-stock" the gun if needed.

(pistol grips) make firing from the hip after concealment much easier.

This line of thought surprised me a bit, as I believe it's the first time I've ever pistol grip stocks associated with concealability. Let me put that to rest by posting a pic of my first rifle (Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, a little .223 caliber carbine) with the three stocks I owned for it:



It was by far the most concealable with the straight stock, due to how slim it was. Even with the bottom stock (folds for storage), it was harder to conceal than with the straight stock; the grip probably added six inches in height to the rifle. And while none of them could be readily concealed under a coat by anyone not named "Sasquatch", the straight-stocked rifle would be easiest because the stock and receiver would align with one's arm, rather than sticking out several inches off-axis.

Letting the AWB expire was stupid and politically motivated.

It was the rational thing to do. Rifles of any type are the least misused class of weapon in the United States, and pretty much always have been.

Table 20 - Murder by State and Type of Weapon 2010

Rifle homicide - FBI UCR

Criminal rifle possession - BATFE YCGIS

The 6-year trend in rifle homicides, 2005-2010, per the UCR:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358

By comparison, blades were used to murder 1,704 people in 2010, and bare hands/shoes/knees/elbows were used to murder 745. Rifles are simply not commonly used in either homicide or aggravated assault in this country, contrary to the hype.

Finally, a disclaimer.



As the old saying goes, it's like ham and eggs; if you're a chicken, you're concerned, but if you're a pig, you're involved. I'm very much involved in this one; it was the "assault weapon" fraud that got me interested in gun politics to start with. I'm now down to three rifles---one bona fide weapon of war, and two roughly comparable civilian carbines, my favorite being a Rock River Arms 16" middy (a self-loading centerfire .22 in the AR-15 mold) that serves as my competition gun, plinking gun, target gun, and HD long gun.



I'd like to keep that and the SAR-1, and pass them down to my kids someday. Of course, since the AR-15 platform has long since become the most popular civilian rifle in the United States, I think the chances of another AWB---especially one that actually banned anything---are pretty slim. But that's an important issue to me, which is why I still follow the discussion as much as I can even though I have a whole lot of other stuff going on these days.

248 replies, 73612 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 248 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pistol grips on long guns, and rifle crime in general. (Original post)
benEzra Jan 2012 OP
Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #1
ileus Jan 2012 #2
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #4
Hoyt Jan 2012 #3
DonP Jan 2012 #5
Hoyt Jan 2012 #21
Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #12
Hoyt Jan 2012 #19
benEzra Jan 2012 #25
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #81
Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #119
Wistful Vista Jan 2012 #135
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #51
SteveW Jan 2012 #72
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #83
DragonBorn Jan 2012 #221
oneshooter Jan 2012 #224
ellisonz Jan 2012 #6
DonP Jan 2012 #7
ellisonz Jan 2012 #15
ileus Jan 2012 #50
rl6214 Jan 2012 #10
ManiacJoe Jan 2012 #14
benEzra Jan 2012 #23
beevul Jan 2012 #16
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #66
benEzra Jan 2012 #22
ellisonz Jan 2012 #70
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #89
ellisonz Jan 2012 #91
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #115
ellisonz Jan 2012 #213
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #219
ellisonz Jan 2012 #220
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #223
oneshooter Jan 2012 #225
beevul Jan 2012 #228
ellisonz Jan 2012 #230
Straw Man Jan 2012 #232
beevul Jan 2012 #233
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #234
benEzra Jan 2012 #136
YllwFvr Jan 2012 #198
benEzra Jan 2012 #121
Wistful Vista Jan 2012 #137
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #152
rl6214 Jan 2012 #154
ellisonz Jan 2012 #155
DragonBorn Jan 2012 #222
ileus Jan 2012 #49
oneshooter Jan 2012 #118
rl6214 Jan 2012 #156
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #59
SteveW Jan 2012 #73
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #87
ellisonz Jan 2012 #90
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #95
ellisonz Jan 2012 #98
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #107
ellisonz Jan 2012 #109
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #110
beevul Jan 2012 #151
mvccd1000 Jan 2012 #173
PavePusher Jan 2012 #189
benEzra Jan 2012 #138
ellisonz Jan 2012 #149
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #187
ellisonz Jan 2012 #197
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #200
ellisonz Jan 2012 #204
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #205
ellisonz Jan 2012 #208
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #211
ellisonz Jan 2012 #215
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #216
Wistful Vista Jan 2012 #231
rl6214 Jan 2012 #158
ellisonz Jan 2012 #159
benEzra Jan 2012 #172
rl6214 Jan 2012 #177
ellisonz Jan 2012 #178
rl6214 Jan 2012 #180
ellisonz Jan 2012 #183
rl6214 Jan 2012 #184
iverglas Jan 2012 #114
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #117
iverglas Jan 2012 #124
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #128
iverglas Jan 2012 #148
mvccd1000 Jan 2012 #174
DissedByBush Jan 2012 #126
ellisonz Jan 2012 #179
rl6214 Jan 2012 #181
ellisonz Jan 2012 #182
rl6214 Jan 2012 #185
rl6214 Jan 2012 #8
Hoyt Jan 2012 #26
benEzra Jan 2012 #28
Hoyt Jan 2012 #30
benEzra Jan 2012 #32
Hoyt Jan 2012 #37
benEzra Jan 2012 #45
Hoyt Jan 2012 #48
benEzra Jan 2012 #125
Hoyt Jan 2012 #161
beevul Jan 2012 #47
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #67
Hoyt Jan 2012 #165
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #186
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #188
Hoyt Jan 2012 #192
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #193
E6-B Jan 2012 #34
Hoyt Jan 2012 #36
E6-B Jan 2012 #52
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #57
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #62
Union Scribe Jan 2012 #130
Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #133
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #60
SteveW Jan 2012 #74
Wistful Vista Jan 2012 #140
rl6214 Jan 2012 #160
my boy x dog Jan 2012 #9
Lint Head Jan 2012 #11
Hoyt Jan 2012 #38
Lint Head Jan 2012 #227
DissedByBush Jan 2012 #127
X_Digger Jan 2012 #13
ellisonz Jan 2012 #17
benEzra Jan 2012 #24
X_Digger Jan 2012 #27
krispos42 Jan 2012 #35
ellisonz Jan 2012 #40
beevul Jan 2012 #42
ellisonz Jan 2012 #43
beevul Jan 2012 #44
ellisonz Jan 2012 #68
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #69
ellisonz Jan 2012 #77
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #79
Wistful Vista Jan 2012 #141
ellisonz Jan 2012 #144
Wistful Vista Jan 2012 #145
PavePusher Jan 2012 #191
ellisonz Jan 2012 #194
PavePusher Jan 2012 #199
ellisonz Jan 2012 #202
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #201
ellisonz Jan 2012 #203
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #206
ellisonz Jan 2012 #209
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #212
ellisonz Jan 2012 #214
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #217
ellisonz Jan 2012 #218
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #226
SteveW Jan 2012 #76
benEzra Jan 2012 #46
ellisonz Jan 2012 #146
benEzra Jan 2012 #166
ellisonz Jan 2012 #175
benEzra Jan 2012 #176
Euromutt Jan 2012 #235
ellisonz Jan 2012 #236
Euromutt Jan 2012 #238
ellisonz Jan 2012 #240
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #239
ellisonz Jan 2012 #241
TheWraith Jan 2012 #78
ellisonz Jan 2012 #80
TheWraith Jan 2012 #84
ellisonz Jan 2012 #85
X_Digger Jan 2012 #92
ellisonz Jan 2012 #93
X_Digger Jan 2012 #99
ellisonz Jan 2012 #100
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #102
ellisonz Jan 2012 #103
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #105
ellisonz Jan 2012 #106
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #111
killer angel Jan 2012 #195
X_Digger Jan 2012 #112
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #116
moriah Jan 2012 #157
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #162
moriah Jan 2012 #164
The Doctor. Jan 2012 #169
X_Digger Jan 2012 #153
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #237
X_Digger Jan 2012 #245
benEzra Jan 2012 #143
TheWraith Jan 2012 #96
benEzra Jan 2012 #139
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #94
DonP Jan 2012 #101
krispos42 Jan 2012 #82
Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #242
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #58
DissedByBush Jan 2012 #131
E6-B Jan 2012 #171
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2012 #56
oneshooter Jan 2012 #120
DonP Jan 2012 #61
spin Jan 2012 #18
Union Scribe Jan 2012 #20
E6-B Jan 2012 #29
Hoyt Jan 2012 #31
E6-B Jan 2012 #33
Hoyt Jan 2012 #39
E6-B Jan 2012 #54
Wistful Vista Jan 2012 #142
E6-B Jan 2012 #170
Wistful Vista Jan 2012 #229
era veteran Jan 2012 #41
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2012 #53
ellisonz Jan 2012 #88
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #104
oneshooter Jan 2012 #123
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2012 #55
X_Digger Jan 2012 #63
montanto Jan 2012 #64
Glassunion Jan 2012 #65
SteveW Jan 2012 #71
benEzra Jan 2012 #150
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #163
DonP Jan 2012 #190
SteveW Jan 2012 #196
E6-B Jan 2012 #75
ellisonz Jan 2012 #86
gejohnston Jan 2012 #97
DissedByBush Jan 2012 #134
E6-B Jan 2012 #167
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #207
Union Scribe Jan 2012 #129
ellisonz Jan 2012 #147
E6-B Jan 2012 #168
DissedByBush Jan 2012 #132
Glassunion Jan 2012 #108
benEzra Jan 2012 #243
PavePusher Jan 2012 #246
Glassunion Jan 2012 #247
PavePusher Jan 2012 #248
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2012 #113
DissedByBush Jan 2012 #122
ellisonz Jan 2012 #210
ileus Jan 2012 #244

Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:13 PM

1. Outstanding post, benEzra.


Here's hoping that your son is doing well!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:15 PM

2. Pistol grips on any long gun are much more comfortable.

They're even catching on in the big and medium game shotgun market now. To me it's so much easier to be accurate off hand when shooting a pistol grip firearm.

I'm seriously considering sending my Mini 14 down the road to finance another AR except in 6.5 or 6.8 caliber. To me the mini just feels wrong when shouldered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:30 PM

4. Pistol grips on any long gun are much more comfortable, especially for women.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:30 PM

3. I guess some want to sit in a recliner and blast away.

I think you should warn people before posting gun porn here. There are plenty of sites for that junk. Didn't read narrative so might have missed something pertinent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:39 PM

5. Those are his concealed carry guns

They all fold up to the size of a really small cell phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:29 PM

21. Yeah, they can also be used as a crutch if he shoots his foot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:59 PM

12. "Didn't read narrative......."


Of course you didn't. Heaven forbid you should get the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:16 PM

19. Sorry, there is little in it I'm likely to agree with in this life.

I can tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:47 PM

25. Well, you might agree that pistol grips are common on European target guns...

...and some cognitive dissonance might set in when you realize that Anschutz bolt-actions and Olympic biathlon rifles are not "spray fired from the hip".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:46 PM

81. Ignorance, especially of the deliberate variety,

 

goes a loooong way toward revealing many weaknesses.

So, dismissing the OP out of hand? Why so much hatred that you refuse to even learn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:43 PM

119. More like you avoid material which conflicts with your memes,


even when the material is clearly factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:01 PM

135. That's what I say when I'm too ashamed to say "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"

 

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:28 AM

51. Here's what I think:

 

I think you should warn people before posting gun porn here. There are plenty of sites for that junk. Didn't read narrative so might have missed something pertinent.

Here's what I think:

I think if you are not even going to bother to read what your opponents are saying, then you should refrain from commenting on the post.

...might have missed something pertinent.

Ya think?

So...having in fact missed what was pertinent in the discussion, why are you running your mouth like my 3-year-old at the dinner table while the adults are trying to have a conversation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:00 PM

72. Yeah, that blue color was a little lurid. Don't worry about not 'reading...

the narrative.' That would have punctured too many holes in gun-banner arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:49 PM

83. That line of 'reasoning' would make any pictures of flowers

 

'flower porn'.

Or pictures of water 'water porn'.

Or pictures of people just 'porn'.

Or pictures of kitties 'kitty porn' (of course).


Or were the guns actually having sex with each-other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:07 PM

221. Ignorance is bliss

Good, don't bother reading the post its much easier to win debates with the ignorant than it is with an actual informed person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DragonBorn (Reply #221)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:16 PM

224. I believe that the"gun porn" scares him. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:41 PM

6. Maybe the law could be rewritten...

But this:



Is nothing but a death spewer...



for expected virulent pro-death spewer reaction...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:49 PM

7. "Death Spewer"? That is funny

It would make a good garage band name too, but I may have it engraved on one of my AR-15s.

Thanks for the idea it will get a lot of laughs at the range.

Gun control people have the best sense of humor ... and they don't even know how hysterical (in every way) they really are.

Thank you for the chuckle "Laugh Spewer". Keep up the good work of talking the gun control message to death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:06 PM

15. Yeah whatever...

I mean really, if you need to justify yourself by getting "a lot of laughs at the range." I really don't know what to say to you other than...I sense a high level of insecurity.

^^^^^^
Lover of Death Spewers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:14 AM

50. rude death spewer gunner toter baser.

Like I said death spewer is a instant classic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:57 PM

10. Intentionally or unintentionally not showing the side with the stock folded against it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:00 PM

14. Looking at the pic of the AK,

Given that the stock is folded under and that the mag is inserted, can that stock be unfolded without removing the mag?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:32 PM

23. Yes. Underfolders are slow to deploy and a bit of a pain for that reason, though.

The buttplate is U-shaped to clear the mag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:06 PM

16. No...This is a death spewer.



This:



Is just a rifle with a folding stock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:12 PM

66. I have occassionally...

...said that some folks, who are over eager for gun control, frequently would not know the difference between an AK-47 and an AC-47.

I am a bit of a fan of the AC-130. Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:30 PM

22. It's understandable that one might get that impression from the "fear sells" media...

but did you happen to check the rifle homicide stats from the FBI and the rifle possession stats from the BATFE that I posted? That rifle (a 7.62x39mm, BTW) is included in the FBI homicide tally....which means yeah, they are rarely misused in this country.

I'm also assuming you don't realize how popular non-automatic civilian AK derivatives are with the law-abiding shooting public, but that's understandable too, given the paucity of media coverage of noncriminal gun ownership.

Anyway, since I posted a pic of my current USPSA competition rifle in the OP (the Rock River AR), let me post a pic of my other carbine:



That's a 2002 Romanian SAR-1, a non-automatic civilian AK in 7.62x39mm (.30 Russian short, a little less powerful than .30-30 Winchester), essentially the same gun as the underfolder you posted just now. It fires exactly the same ammunition at exactly the same rate of fire as a Ruger Mini Thirty, and is functionally indistinguishable from any other civilian semiauto.

That SAR-1 was the rifle I got my start in USPSA carbine matches with, as it was a lot more affordable than an AR and I had a four-year-old and a two-year-old at the time.

For scale, here is the same carbine compared to my 9mm pistol, temporarily fitted with a stock that folds for storage and a Galil-style forend:



In any configuration, it is big, bulky, heavy as bricks, and is even harder to sorta-conceal than that straight-stocked mini-14 I posted in the OP. Even the magazines weigh ~2 pounds each, due to the thick steel they are made from (for durability). Not portable and not concealable, which is why (like other rifles) they barely rate in the homicide stats.

BTW, here it is in hunting configuration, with a 5-round hunting magazine and a 4x scope:



I would respectfully submit that my rifle is not, in fact, a "death spewer." It's an ultra-reliable, relatively small-caliber civilian carbine that fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:54 PM

70. Nope, that's a death spewer.

You're very clearly ready for ze Germans to attack....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:05 PM

89. 'ze Germans' would be carrying automatics in this case. His guns are no match.

 


Where does this fear/hatred of guns come from?

I mean, academically, I know what guns can do. It's horrible. But you go so far as to hate everyone who doesn't also hate them as viscerally as you do. That can only mean you have one of two issues: a personal (and likely tragic) experience with a gun, or a form of hyper-associative neurosis/empathic response. Do you have the sort of imagination where you can literally feel what is being done to another as though it is to yourself?

That might explain quite a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:10 PM

91. I resent you saying I have "hatred" by the way.

What I have is a strong desire for a safer, saner society in which one does not believe he needs such weapons of war for "self-defense."

I'd appreciate an apology, but given your apparent hostility to those who emphasize with the suffering of others...I don't expect one.

Why are you a rock?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:50 PM

115. After you apologize for all of your mischaracterizations,

 

deliberate vilification, and hyperbole will I consider the possibility that you do not harbor hatred.

After that, and after you choose to participate honestly and earnestly in these discussions will I entertain the possibility of considering an apology for saying that you harbor 'hatred'. Until then, your evasiveness and nasty characterizations of your fellow DUers can only lead to such a conclusion.

Meanwhile, this still stands:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=8253

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:19 PM

213. It's not mischaracterization when it's true and the consensus depiction...

I think you've earned a political cartoon from a mid-size city newspaper:


By J.D. Crowe, Mobile Register - 1/20/2010

I'm very honest and earnest and can do so without making ludicrous off-topic analogies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #213)


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #219)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:04 PM

220. Why would I want to play footsie with you?

What you've proven is that you have a substantial amount of anger towards those who disagree with you and will go to great lengths to make a rhetorical argument against them. Nothing more.

"It is very disturbing to me that someone can be so convinced of something they can't actually demonstrate because their perception filters prevent them from actually reading, thinking, understanding, and applying reason of any kind. You're just the sort of person who behaves the way you do only because the internet allows you to get away with it. If we were face-to-face, you would actually feel the shame of deliberately refusing to back up your own assertions. But the internet allows you to believe you are something you are not."

Oh please...you're the one insisting that I play your game to prove some vacuous point about how reasonable the gun culture truly is when there are tens of millions of educated adult Americans who disagree with that perception. Are they all wrong? Am I wrong to note that this is not a zero-sum game of right and wrong? That this is a policy issue requiring an approach of compromise, but to deny the significance of the effect of gun violence upon victims and their family is to deny their very humanity. I have no such desire to play some game with a person who can't appreciate the basic issues at stake and instead seeks to play a game in order to prove himself right. It's like dueling, and I have no wish to do it. I have no desire to entertain your fantasies about having some sort of showdown with you.

"Thing is, I know to a certainty that you would behave very differently in person... especially if you knew you were being video-recorded. Assuming you are no coward, I'll let you know when I can come around your area. We can talk terms and make a nice lunch out of the occasion or something."

Case in point. Please enjoy an educational video about how arguments such as "You're a coward and are wrong" tend to play out in real life. I stand up for what I believe in; always have, always will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying



Do you act this way in GD?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #220)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:14 PM

223. You don't realize how much you are projecting, do you?

 


You're so very over-the-top and irrational, there's just no point.

You know you can't handle a face-to-face with the people you demonize because your fragile and hateful perspective might be shattered.

I have nothing left to say to you. After someone else has told me that you've apologized for the insanity you spout or accepted my challenge, then perhaps I'll respond to you again one day.

But not until then. In the meanwhile, please learn some introspection and self-observation. I don't know what happened to you to make you hate guns and their owners so much, but you are apparently entirely blind to your own hatred. If it was well-founded, you could actually meet the challenge.

To the rest of us, it's plain as day.

I'm done with you.

Good bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #220)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:21 PM

225. Sounds to me like you are afraid to take the test. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #220)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:49 PM

228. LOL

"What you've proven is that you have a substantial amount of anger towards those who disagree with you and will go to great lengths to make a rhetorical argument against them. Nothing more."

Based upon what exactly, do you make such an assertion? Be specific. I saw no evidence of anger.


"Oh please...you're the one insisting that I play your game to prove some vacuous point about how reasonable the gun culture truly is when there are tens of millions of educated adult Americans who disagree with that perception."

Facts not in evidence.

"Am I wrong to note that this is not a zero-sum game of right and wrong? That this is a policy issue requiring an approach of compromise, but to deny the significance of the effect of gun violence upon victims and their family is to deny their very humanity."

Theres that word: Compromise. What does your side of the debate have, which it is willing to give up, in the spirit of compromise? Compromise will no longer be defined as "they give and we take, and what we didn't get this year, we'll be back for next year" - like it was when the anti-gun lobby was allowed to define it.

So tell us all about what you had in mind, when you use the word "compromise". What is your side of the debate willing to give up? And to be crystal clear about this - its going to have to be something your side "has" in order to be in the position to "give" it in the firstplace. The days of giving things they dont have, in order to get something they didn't have, are over.


Nobody here in this forum denies the significance of the effect of gun violence upon victims and their family. Whats being denied, is the ability of people with beliefs and intent such as you have demonstrated on this issue, do do certain things about it. That doesn't mean NOTHING can be done about it. It just means certain avenues are unavailable. Those unfortunately, seem to be the only avenues you are interested in.

And that, unfortunately, speaks to your sincerity on the issue, and brings rightly into question, what your intent really is.

Here is someone espousing similar, familiar sentiments - only interested in the avenues pro-gunners oppose:

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum




" I have no such desire to play some game with a person who can't appreciate the basic issues at stake and instead seeks to play a game in order to prove himself right."

The basic issue, as you state it, seems to be "gun violence". Why is it, that you and the few that make up the "anti-gun-violence" lobby are not interested in any of the avenues which gun rights proponents do not oppose, and are only interested in the avenues which we DO oppose?


I'd really like to see an honest forthright answer to that question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #228)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 08:21 PM

230. I'll bite.

You'll get only one post in answer.

1. Jury disagreed 5-1.

2. "Facts not in evidence." - The idea that there are tens of millions of educated Americans who support gun control is plain obvious.

3. I haven't denied the right to carry or to self-defense, I've just said there are limits.

4. "Nobody here in this forum denies the significance of the effect of gun violence upon victims and their family. Whats being denied, is the ability of people with beliefs and intent such as you have demonstrated on this issue, do do certain things about it. That doesn't mean NOTHING can be done about it. It just means certain avenues are unavailable. Those unfortunately, seem to be the only avenues you are interested in." - That would be your opinion on the availability of "certain avenues" and nothing more. The Court by no means slammed the door on an AWB in Heller.

5. "Why is it, that you and the few that make up the "anti-gun-violence" lobby are not interested in any of the avenues which gun rights proponents do not oppose, and are only interested in the avenues which we DO oppose?" - That's not true, in numerous posts that I have no desire to go digging for pro-gun members and I have found agreement on closing the private sale loophole (more accurate term), on strengthening the NCIS, and on requiring reasonable safety efforts to keep guns from children.

I'm a very reasonable poster, whats unreasonable often in this forum is the willingness to accept that gun control proponents have a seat at the table and to be heard.

That's it, nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #230)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:31 PM

232. Fundamental misunderstandings.

Jury disagreed 5-1.

The jury ruled on offensive language, not on whether you made your point.

You'll get only one post in answer.

Leaving the field is not an indication of victory.

I'm a very reasonable poster, whats unreasonable often in this forum is the willingness to accept that gun control proponents have a seat at the table and to be heard.

What's unreasonable about willingness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #230)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:53 PM

233. And bite you did.

"1. Jury disagreed 5-1."

That a jury hid that post is not evidence of anger.

But you knew that.

"2. "Facts not in evidence." - The idea that there are tens of millions of educated Americans who support gun control is plain obvious."


Thats a nice assertion, but the assertion in question was this:

"Oh please...you're the one insisting that I play your game to prove some vacuous point about how reasonable the gun culture truly is when there are tens of millions of educated adult Americans who disagree with that perception."

So again, facts not in evidence.

"3. I haven't denied the right to carry or to self-defense, I've just said there are limits."

Yet.

4" That would be your opinion on the availability of "certain avenues" and nothing more. The Court by no means slammed the door on an AWB in Heller."

Hahaha. You misunderstand. I am not talking about what avenues the courts will allow. I'm talking about the avenues WE will allow. We - you know - the WE that write letters, send emails, and make phone calls to elected officials. The WE that are the strength of the pro gun lobby. It guess it hasn't occured to you yet, that outside the few and dwindling (see Chicago and DC) anti-gun strongholds, you really aren't going to be able to shove things like another AWB down our throats anymore, unless we allow it - politically speaking - so long as the political equation remains the same, or tips farther in our favor. And it doesnt show any signs of getting worse, for us. We have the political strength. The anti-gun lobby does not. WE dont need the anti-gun lobby, the anti-gun lobby needs us. If that weren't true, the anti-gun lobby wouldn't be blaming us every time they didn't get what they want.

"5. That's not true, in numerous posts that I have no desire to go digging for pro-gun members and I have found agreement on closing the private sale loophole (more accurate term), on strengthening the NCIS, and on requiring reasonable safety efforts to keep guns from children.

Fair enough, I stand corrected, however, many in the anti gun lobby, including yourself, can't seem to shy away from things WE find intolerable, like the AWB for example.

Until you can, gun owners by and large - the kind that pay attention - will never trust you.

"I'm a very reasonable poster..."

Promoting a ban on rifles which are used in less than 3 percent of homicides, and are NOT easily concealable, is reasonable?

"...whats unreasonable often in this forum is the willingness to accept that gun control proponents have a seat at the table and to be heard."

I dont have any problem accepting that gun control proponents have a seat at the table.

I have a problem when "a seat at the table" becomes defined as uttering outright falsehoods, and blatantly false propaganda, completely with false and filthy insinuations, and "to be heard" becomes defined as being considered unquestionable, and not having to back up bold assertions which have no basis in reality as we know it.

Do I really need to post links to examples of any of those things for you?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #233)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 01:37 AM

234. There's the classic "Damn right we'll conficate"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11723908#post12

Doesn't strike me as "very reasonable", but YMMV...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:03 PM

136. Let me remind you what the gun control lobby *used* to say about Title 1 rifles like mine.

Let me remind you of what the gun control lobby *used* to say about Title 1 rifles like mine.

"(O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."

--Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, head of what is now the Brady Campaign 1978-1989 (Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48).

That statement is no less true now than it was then. Rifle crime was far worse when he said that than it is now. And when he wrote that, the AR-15 had been on the market for two decades and the M1 carbine for four decades.

It wasn't until 1988, when Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center popularized the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch as a means to build momentum for a ban on handguns, that the gun control lobby embarked on the rifle-ban crusade that would ultimately be its undoing.

What I have is a strong desire for a safer, saner society

And how, exactly, does advocating for cosmetic restrictions on the least misused of all U.S. weapons translate into a "safer, saner society"?

How does replacing this gun:



with this gun:



change rifle misuse one iota? They are the same gun. And the black-stocked one is less concealable, to boot.

...in which one does not believe he needs such weapons of war for "self-defense."

I have posted a picture of exactly one weapon of war in this thread. This one, originally designed to kill human beings at extreme ranges:



That's a military rifle made in Izhevsk, Russia for the Imperial Russian army in 1905, which was converted to M39 configuration in 1942 at the Finnish VKT arsenal in Jyvaskyla, and which likely saw action in two world wars. The sights are graduated from 100 meters to 2 kilometers, the latter for volley fire. It's also the archetype of the modern deer rifle, but it's the only military gun I own.

The other gun pics I posted are exclusively civilian guns that are not used by any military on this planet, as I'm sure you'd realize if you stopped to think about it. And the AR-15 just *any* civilian gun; it is the most popular civilian centerfire sporting rifle in the United States.

hostility to those who emphasize with the suffering of others

I'm not sure if you're referring to the other poster, or opponents of the "assault weapon" fraud in general, but if the latter then you simply have no idea. Empathy can be simultaneously blessing and curse, but I choose empathy and heartache over ignorance and bliss anyday.

But tell me, O empathetic one who would likely toss my ass in jail over the shape of a rifle stock, what do cosmetic restrictions on the *least* misused weapons have to do with "the suffering of others"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #91)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:34 PM

198. i have a very similar rifle

I bought it for fun, not for self defense. I find Target shooting very relaxing, and honing my shooting skill is good for work.

For self defense I carry a glock 17 on and off duty. The rifle is too bulky, too heavy, and would over penetrate for home defense. That's my opinion.

That rifle isn't a weapon of war either. It's modeled after one but would under perform if someone tried to use it, beyond its design being nearly seven decades old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:07 PM

121. No, just the West Germans. :-b

Nope, that's a death spewer. You're very clearly ready for ze Germans to attack....

Не, только Западногерманские, да?

Mine must be defective then, because it works like an ordinary NFA Title 1 civilian rifle. Exactly like this one, in fact:

http://www.ruger.com/products/miniThirty/models.html



Same ammunition, same range of magazine capacities, same accuracy, same rate of fire (one shot at a time), Oh, wait, that one doesn't have an evil handgrip, so it's OK.

Seriously, that total indifference to what is real---extreme rhetoric ("death spewer") in spite of the low level of rifle misuse, the functional distinctions between NFA Title 1 and Title 2 weapons, the fact that the guns you want to ban are less misused than the ones you don't want to ban---is exactly why your side lost the debate on this topic years ago, and why the "assault weapon" fraud eventually imploded the gun control movement in this country.

Civilian guns with protruding handgrips---AR's, Kel-Tecs, civilian AK's, FN's, what have you---are no longer just "in the mainstream" in the United States; they ARE the mainstream, thanks in part to the 1994 non-ban. In most of the country, you can once again buy AR-15's at Walmart, and AR/AK/M1A ammunition probably outsells all other centerfire rifle calibers combined.

Yet gun crime, and rifle crime, are about as low now as they've been in the last 50 years. Think about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:05 PM

137. Do you have some sort of plan to separate me from my death spewer?

 

I can give you GPS coordinates if you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:37 PM

152. death spewer toter -- I may have to make that my new sigline -- wonder how well that would go over

with all of DU?

I make you an offer.

I will make it my sigline. If DU makes me remove it will you agree that it is not good language to use on your fellow DUers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:46 PM

154. AAAAAAhahahahahahahahaha

 




You funny...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #154)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:49 PM

155. See someone with a sense of humor about life...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #70)


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:26 AM

49. I hope to get an AK pistol this year for the Jeep.

It's covered under my CHP and would make a dandy "truck gun" for those times when the family and I are out hiking, or hitting the trails in the Jeep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:35 PM

118. I have a 30cal BAR and a 1919a4 for my jeep

Also a 1943 Thompson and a M1 Garand.
Lots of semi-auto fun on my jeep!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:51 PM

156. I have an AR pistol I built that I take out often in the jeep.

 

Rifle power in a pistol form. I cruise the deserts of far west Texas and southern NM. You never know what you might run in to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:19 AM

59. "Death Spewer"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:05 PM

73. You expect "virulent pro-death spewer reaction" from fellow progressives?

Could you clarify your remark. I note that this cartoon might be worthy of an NRA royalty payment, but the guy portrayed is not very believable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:59 PM

87. You're as bad as the anti-choicers.

 

They also mischaracterize their 'opponents' as 'baby killers' and 'abortion lovers'. The vilification is their personal substitute for understanding and personal education.

Just like the vast majority of pro-choice folks want to see an end to abortion wherever possible, the vast majority of gun owners would like to see an end to violence wherever possible.

If you ask the majority of pro-choice people if they like abortion, they will say 'no'.

If you ask the majority of gun owners if they like gun violence, they will also say 'no'.


That you have to demonize people because of your hatred for guns shows a very irrational approach to the issue to begin with. It can certainly be characterized as 'hysterical', though I'll leave out the gender aspect of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #87)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:05 PM

90. "It can certainly be characterized as 'hysterical', though I'll leave out the gender aspect of it."

That's probably for the better...

Also - humor - it's a light of life. Not muzzle flashes...

"the vast majority of gun owners would like to see an end to violence wherever possible."

Prove it - I don't think most of the pro-death spewer fans here are likely to want to hear about what measures you'd like to take to further reduce gun violence...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:32 PM

95. That's not rational, but I'd like to help.

 

FWIW, I sat on a jury over one of your posts. I voted to leave it for its ambiguity. I'm far more in favor of allowing the irrational to be subject to reason than trying to hide it.

Your twisted view of gun owners cannot stand the test of reason, and I'll be happy to prove it. I doubt you're up to the challenge due to the implications you might have to visit, but I'll let you have a shot anyway. (I'm kind-hearted like that).

I'm going to give you three actions that will reduce gun violence significantly. If you personally object to any of them, just say so, declare victory, and be proud. If, after you've read them, you can find ONE gun owner or advocate of ownership on DU who has been here at least a year and has over 1000 posts (IOW: a veteran DUer, not someone with the potential for being a troll) who also objects to any of the three measures I propose, then you can also declare victory and live sound in the knowledge that you were right all along.


So, do you understand the challenge? Do you accept it?

If the answer is 'no' to either, then there is little doubt left of your inability to apply reason to this issue. I'm giving you a chance at a big win here. If I can't prove you wrong when you said: "I don't think most of the pro-death spewer fans here are likely to want to hear about what measures you'd like to take to further reduce gun violence", then I'll have to re-think everything I know about this issue.

And you don't need most. You just need ONE.

So, what say you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #95)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:43 PM

98. I have no need for your "help"

I think it's pretty funny that someone would even try to alert on "death spewer" as inflammatory in a post that's basically a call-out.

I've got other things to do today than debate ad nauesum someone who proudly wants to walk right up to the misogynist line by claiming that the many wonderful women who advocate for gun control have lost their senses because they're not as "scientifically" engaged as their male counterparts.

I'll just state that there are several posters here with thousands of posts that think it's reasonable to carry a gun in the presence of the President of the United States, carry a gun on a commercial plane, believe we should legalize full automatics, and view gun control as an opportunity to debate for less restrictions.

Good day to you sir, I have no need to play games.

You can just go ahead and state what you intend to say without ascribing the quality of hatred to another poster without warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:09 PM

107. Whatever excuse you need to avoid backing up your own assertions.

 


You stampede in here, do your very best to cast aspersions on people who you don't even bother to listen to, then when your own BS is challenged, you make an excuse to run away.

That's just downright pathetic. I really would be embarrassed to behave the way you have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #107)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:12 PM

109. "It can certainly be characterized as 'hysterical', though I'll leave out the gender aspect of it."

"That's just downright pathetic. I really would be embarrassed to behave the way you have."

Speaks for itself...

I'm off to another glorious day.

Aloha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #109)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:18 PM

110. Like I said, you were fishing for excuses to avoid a substantive challenge.

 

You would have used anything I said to do so. And yes, I would be embarrassed to be so transparent that even though I said I have 'other things to do', I give lie to my own words by continuing to post.

If you have other things to do, please go do them rather than continue to embarrass yourself. I'm really just trying to help at this point. If you decide you want to take up the challenge later, then fine.

Frankly, I don't know what it is you're so terribly afraid of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:21 PM

151. Full automatics ARE legal, in many states.

It would be wise for you to learn about that which you speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:55 PM

173. Wow, I haven't seen a backpedal like that in ages.

Nice job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #98)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 11:51 AM

189. When you call people and/or their tools "death-spewers", you are accusing them of homocidal intent

 

It's definitely alert-worthy.

I'll merely refer you back to the question I posed to you that got hidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:08 PM

138. Would you like to hear about the gun control measures I'm OK with?

Or are you too secure in your own prejudices ("pro-death spewer fans"? really?) to accept that one can simultaneously oppose criminal violence, and oppose irrational and pointless bans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #138)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:13 PM

149. I'm very open-minded....

...when I'm not greeted with such language as this: "That you have to demonize people because of your hatred for guns shows a very irrational approach to the issue to begin with. It can certainly be characterized as 'hysterical', though I'll leave out the gender aspect of it." - The above poster seems to have a very thin skin and views such humorous language as an excuse to lash out at people.

How do you think we should fix our failing gun control system?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #149)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:31 AM

187. Oh we can tell you're open minded...

 

...so much so that little things like facts cannot seem to stay in your mind, only big lies....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #187)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:22 PM

197. That's your opinion.

Personally, I don't find your presentation of "facts" to be convincing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #197)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:43 PM

200. What do you find unconvincing?

 

Fact: The US Supreme Court has unanimously found the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right.
Fact: The US Supreme Court has NEVER found in favor of the collective rights argument you support.
Fact: The 2nd Amendment does not grant a damn thing but instead makes it clear to government that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Fact: The AWB didn't really ban anything
Fact: You really don't know much about guns or gun laws (at least I have to conclude this is fact based upon your own statements)


What about any of that is untrue or requires some additional presentation? All of those statements are easily confirmed either through links you have been given by me and others or through the use of this new tool we call a search engine. Well except for the last one - which you have personally confirmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #200)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:50 PM

204. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #204)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:51 PM

205. I guess I just don't understand your sense of humor.

 

There was nothing funny about that post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #205)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:03 PM

208. There was a lot of funny about that post...

I won't go into details though - it's too side-splitting.

Here, have a cartoon:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #208)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:16 PM

211. Since you wont engage in actual debate....

 

...refuse to answer questions and think cartoons are a substitute for reasoned discourse, is it any wonder that you have a problem with actual facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #211)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:22 PM

215. Debating you is like debating a dining room table, I have no further interest in doing it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #215)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:28 PM

216. If you keep losing to the dining room table....

 

...why on earth did you expect an easier time in here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #216)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:10 PM

231. He's gonna have one bitch of a time when the armoire wakes up...

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:56 PM

158. I don't know a single gun owner that dosen't want to see an end to violence

 

They cut into my ability to collect firearms.

I collect what's called curios and relics. Guns that are at least 50 years old but that many would consider assault weapons. Specifically WW2 weapons because I like the history behind them. I own weapons as far back as just before WW1. I have US, British, German, Russian, Yugoslavian, Romanian, Albanian but with some of the laws passed in the past decade, many of these weapons can no longer be imported into the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #158)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:57 PM

159. Most European systems would liscense you as a collector I believe...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #159)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:48 PM

172. Or as a competitive shooter.

Here's a local IPSC match in Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #159)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:27 AM

177. I am licensed as a collector

 

My federal C&R lic allows me to purchase guns over the internet and without background checks to be shipped directly to me instead of having to go thru a dealer because I have already had the background checks done thru the ATF and FBI. I must renew my license every 5 years, keep meticulous records as to what I buy and sell, from and to sellers and buyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #177)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:49 AM

178. So then I suppose the question...

...I have for you is this: should you be held to a higher standard than anyone else who wishes to keep hundreds of guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #178)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:30 AM

180. I guess my question would be...what is a higher standard?

 

Like I said, I keep meticulous records of purchases and sales. My background is checked every five years when I renew my license and I also have a Texas concealed carry license to I must go thru training and have background checks for that every five years. I have sold a few guns and every sale goes thru a FFL or goes directly to a person that has a C&R lic like I do. Every gun I own is locked up in a gun safe or cabinet if it is not on my person.

What else would you consider to being "held to a higher standard"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #180)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:14 AM

183. Say required by law like you've done on your own to...

keep every gun locked up in a gun safe or cabinet if it is not on your person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #183)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:56 AM

184. I know there are some places that have requirements like that

 

My biggest concern with something like that is:

Having a requirement for someone to purchase a safe or gun cabinet to lock up their firearms, is it legal and what would constitute locking up your guns? Would that not be considered a tax on gun owners?

If you have a closet that you have put padlocks on, would that be good enough?

I have read about the enforcement of these laws and it seems to be all over the place. Would it be enforced only if an incident occured or would police be able to knock on your door and demand to see how you secure your guns?

I just don't know the technicalities and legalities of something like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #87)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:47 PM

114. I love Guns forum analogies

 

They are so often crafted by men using women as their decoys.

If you ask the majority of pro-choice people if they like abortion, they will say 'no'.
If you ask the majority of gun owners if they like gun violence, they will also say 'no'.


Yeah, well, this pro-choice person wouldn't answer the question, because it's dumb.

If I did address an issue it could be interpreted as raising, though, I would say I would be pleased to see a lower incidence of unwanted pregnancies, since an unwanted pregnancy is a negative experience for a woman in numerous ways.

Nothing to do with liking or not liking abortion. I don't have emotions or tastes when it comes to medical procedures.

Now here's where your analogy falls on its face.

My policy position is to take measures to reduce the number of women faced with unwanted pregnancies, which is what a woman with an unwanted pregnancy would want: not to have an unwanted pregnancy. This would involve taking what we call preventive measures. Increasing access to contraception. Improving contraception. Enhancing awareness on the part of male and female persons about the risks associated with sex, and how to reduce those risks. Conveying the understanding that an unwanted pregnancy is not a bolt from the blue that strikes one in a billion women, it is a foreseeable event in a near-majority of women's lives, and that while it may not be preventable, the risks can be reduced.

Hmm. If we were to analogize those measures to firearms ... well, we'd be taking measures to reduce the risk of firearms harms occurring. Reduced access, especially to certain kinds of firearms; better control over who has access; better control of firearms through safe/secure storage; like that.

The relevant distinction between the two situations is that with sex, it is the participant herself who is at risk of unwanted pregnancy. No one else is affected by her behaviour. So coercive measures are not appropriate; it is her choice what risks she will take, and then how she will deal with any harms that result.

In the case of most firearms harms, it is not the participant themself who is at risk. It is other people - family, acquaintances, total strangers - and entire communities. Coercive measures are therefore appropriate.

See? That's how it's done!

In the first instance, what pro-choice (or any other) people think about abortion is of not the least slightest concern to anyone. The matter is one on which only the opinion of the individual concerned matters. We should provide her with assistance in avoiding harm, as that is what good societies do, but leave it to her to choose her course of action and decide whether or not to take risk-reduction measures.

In the second instance, what gun owners think about gun violence is also not of the least slightest concern to anyone. They, for the most part, aren't the potential victims of the gun violence that might be associated with their guns. So we must provide the potential victims with assistance in avoiding harm, as that is what good societies do, and use coercive measures to reduce the risks of those harms occurring.

I don't even have a clue how your post was intended to relate to the one before it, but I hope I've been able to help here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #114)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:28 PM

117. That's pretty misandrist of you to say that.

 

I've done no such thing as 'use women'. What I used is an issue which we generally refer to as 'abortion'. Whether you like it or not, men are allowed to have an opinion on it.

It is sexist to say otherwise. Men who want to ban abortion are sexist. Men who, like myself believe that women are just as self-realized and mature as any other human beings, are pro-choice for women, are not sexist.

Trying to twist what I said into 'using women' is a pretty transparent attempt to sow rejection for a perfectly apt analogy. The only people that don't see through it are those who have eschewed reason here. As usual, you are not here to have a substantive discussion of any kind, but rather to attempt to vilify those you've chosen to target for their views... as your post outright proves.

As for your 'not having a clue', I can't avoid agreeing with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #117)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:13 PM

124. do you have an opinion on abortion?

 

Not that I'm especially interested in it, it's just that I didn't see you expressing one. I saw you USING women and women's interests to advance your agenda. And doing a piss-poor job of it. Just as I have seen so many times before.

So why you're telling me

Whether you like it or not, men are allowed to have an opinion on it.

-- I don't know. Have an opinion, have a picnic.

Your "analogy" was still ludicrously silly.

I addressed it, nonetheless. Something you haven't bothered to do in replying to mine. Mine was excellent. Near perfect, in fact.

All I see is a little vilifying ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #124)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:24 PM

128. You need glasses then.

 

If that's all you 'saw'.

Your attempts to twist my analogy on people's opinion and stances on abortion into 'using women' is utterly transparent and puts our 'discussion' quite beneath my time and effort.

If you can't make proper distinctions, and obviously have no interest in discussing the OP (or anything relevant), then we're done here.

Don't ever expect me to respond to you again until someone attests that you've decided to utilize reason in earnest discussion.

Good Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #128)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:07 PM

148. omg

 

Don't ever expect me to respond to you again

A promise???

Shall I try one more time to get you to see sense?

Your attempted analogy between

- pro-choice people not liking abortion
- gun owners not liking gun violence

was about the most incoherent word salad I've seen this week, and that's saying something, considering the amount of time I've spent loitering around DU so far.

Ack, forgive me, I was misremembering what you said to the point that it almost made sense. You actually said

Just like the vast majority of pro-choice folks want to see an end to abortion wherever possible,
the vast majority of gun owners would like to see an end to violence wherever possible.


So once again: your first statement is simply false, and your second is what we call, in French, pious wishes. Sound, fury, meaning nothing, you know.

I'm a pro-choice person. I don't not like abortion. Visit the archives of the Pro-Choice and Feminists groups here and you'll find that I'm not a unique specimen. In fact, I'd invite you to take your analogy out for a stroll over at Women's Rights now. The blank stares you are met with will dazzle your eyes.

Now, you did have a bit of a parallel constructed in referring to pro-choice people and gun owners: both of them are entirely irrelevant.

Pro-choice people (and everybody else) have no business meddling in anybody else's healthcare, so them wanting to reduce the number of abortions is as useful as me wanting to fly to the moon. It isn't.

Gun owners are not the people affected by firearms violence, at least not qua gun owners, so their hearts' desires are equally useless in the discussion.

See? Pro-choice people want other people to have access to a necessary health care service. Gun owners, well, I wouldn't presume to speak for them, and I would hope you would not either. We might be safe saying they want to own guns, since they do. And that's all we can safely say.

Pro-choice people who do not have unwanted pregancies just have fuck all to do with this. They didn't even need to get up this morning. We don't need them here. You were just wandering on from your decision to vilify someone -- in response to a clearly facetious post and a cartoon, ffs -- by trying to portray them as the same as a group of nasty people, the anti-choice (or at least a group everyone here would have to publicly agree is nasty).

Pro-choice people don't, like, own abortions, you know. Gun owners own guns. And of course, pro-choice people don't leave abortions lying around for little kids to get hold of, or for burglars to steal and use in robberies, and don't wander around in public with abortions on display, and don't object if they're limited to five abortions a month ... y'see it?

The people whose actual INTERESTS are at stake -- women with unwanted pregnancies and potential victims of firearms violence -- are the people you want to be looking at.

Why else would anybody care about either unwanted pregnancies or gun violence?

You want to reduce harms to those two groups, if we take unwanted pregnancies and firearms injury or crime to be harms.

And with that adjustment, we have you a damned fine analogy. Which I've already laid out, so I won't tire my fingers further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #128)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:58 PM

174. Many years, no reason.

From some regular posters here.

Don't hold your breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:17 PM

126. That AK is pretty stupid

 

As a civilian semi-automatic it does not "spew" but instead shoots rounds one at a time.

So what you have is a rather large, oversized weapon that's not really good at any one thing. It's too clunky to be a decent pistol, too uncontrollable to be a good rifle, and doesn't do fully-automatic so can't make for a good submachine gun substitute.

It's all flash, basically all it does is serve as a toy for some, and get the panties of ignorant banners all in a bunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissedByBush (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:50 AM

179. This poster is no longer with us.

DissedByBush

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #179)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:44 AM

181. What did dissed do to warrant his ejection?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #181)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:12 AM

182. From his profile:

"Clearly racist in intention. Perhaps in a way intended as a joke, but not a joke I would recognize as such and it is hurtful to those of Islamic faith."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #182)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:35 AM

185. Didn't I see something like that in a post that he was going to post it as his sig line

 

to see how long it would last?

Not the smartest move obviously.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:54 PM

8. Doncha know those against pistol grips don't care how uncomfortable it is to shoot without one

 

they are just EEEEEEEEEEEvil

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:47 PM

26. Yeah, but when I Read a few lines, it's about better if attacked.

Too much paranoia is another reason we need to address gun proliferation in this country soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:03 AM

28. "Too much paranoia" indeed.

2010 rifle murders: 358
2010 shotgun murders: 373
2010 hands/feet murders: 745
2010 knife murders: 1,704
2010 club/misc murders: 1,772

If you believe that rifle handgrips that stick out are a menace to this country, you are using criteria other than actual misuse, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:19 AM

30. Don't care about that bull. This commando bs is not good for society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:35 AM

32. Dude, I'm a 41-year old geek.

Aviation technical writer, part-time Perl monkey, and amateur competitive shooter, who happens to enjoy shooting rifles designed in the last 50 years. Heck, I read all 4 Twilight books, and *liked* them; they'd kick me out of Seal Force Recon Delta for that.

As I mentioned in the OP, I own one and only one military weapon---and it's 107 years old.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:34 AM

37. You still read townhall.com.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:55 AM

45. Actually, I don't.

But you are so wedded to the idea that no sane, thoughtful person could POSSIBLY own (gasp!) rifles with (shock! horror!) modern styling, that you have to make up all sorts of BS in order to fit people like me into your narrow worldview.

No, I don't read or post on townhall.com. Hmmm, let me Google that for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Awww.townhall.com+benezra
http://lmgtfy.com/townhall+benezra

I *do* read the ACLU blog (Blog of Rights), Right Wing Watch, Religious Right Watch, and the Agitator, among other things, and you can read between the lines about what that says about me (hint: I don't like authoritarian busybodies who think that Gawd has told them to run my life for me). And it's funny, the confluences one can find between the hardcore anti-gay fundies, the anti-muslim fundies, and some anti-gun fundies...

BTW, I see that you haven't been able to address a single point that I've made in this thread, which is the only reason you went straight for the smear. Nice try, but you might want to go for a rebuttal of the actual issues instead, if you can address them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:10 AM

48. Sorry, wrong thread. I was posting from new phone rather than desktop.

It doesn't display posters names well. I'll watch that closer in future.

BTW -- I like the ACLU's position on meaning of 2A for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:17 PM

125. No problem at all; we're all human here.

Sorry, wrong thread. I was posting from new phone rather than desktop. It doesn't display posters names well. I'll watch that closer in future.

No problem at all; we're all human here. Large threads and tiny screens have lead to cross-thread confusion more than once...

BTW -- I like the ACLU's position on meaning of 2A for sure.

Will you like it as well when the Santorums and Fischers and Vander Plaats types apply it to the First Amendment?

"We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of the press. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register the press.

Most opponents of press control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own child porn or detailed plans for nuclear weapons. Yet these, like novels, manuals, and even encyclopedias, are publications.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict the press, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

FWIW, I think the national ACLU is slowly coming around. Its position on the 2ndA is inconsistent with its high view of the rest of the Bill of Rights; one cannot logically find a right to privacy in the text of the 4thA, and not find a right of the people to keep and bear arms in the text of the 2ndA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #125)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:34 PM

161. I have no real problem with most people having a gun at home. But, not so much, in public.


I think too many people have too many guns at home and are losing a bit of perspective. I think more and more people are starting to feel guns are -- or are certainly on a trend to get -- out of control.

They seem to be multiplying like rabbits, and many here cheer -- and in some cases hope to profit from the proliferation.

You actually get a lot of hits when searching under "proliferation of guns."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:01 AM

47. Whoa, you can't remember who linked townhall.com?

Whoa, you can't remember who linked townhall.com, and in fact attributed it to someone else completely?

Time to hand over your car keys and your guns for good, is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:18 PM

67. Lookout...

...he might BLOG you to death!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:23 PM

165. Admittedly, that's funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #165)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 08:51 AM

186. Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #165)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 11:50 AM

188. BE CAREFUL!

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security. I occasionally blog/post from my phone. I 'open-carry' that phone in a belt holster but it is technically concealed when I'm wearing a coat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #188)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:28 PM

192. Do you strap on a backup as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #192)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:32 PM

193. Negative, sir.

My backup phone is a revolver (dial type) and the Mrs won't let me pull it off the kitchen wall.




ETA: my main carry does have however have an extended clip of 12 on the speed-dial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:59 AM

34. Define 'not good' and 'commando'

 

I don't think you really have thought this out very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to E6-B (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:32 AM

36. Members of gun culture always want definitions. Think is my advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:41 AM

52. I think you have not thought this out very much.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:11 AM

57. Well yeah....

 

I mean we do tend to prefer to work with facts and clearly defined information.

You, on the other hand, seem to prefer to work with imagination and fluidly defined fantasy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:28 AM

62. If you can't define a problem then it indicates you don't understand the problem.

 

As the old saying goes, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Asking for definitions forces one to concisely explain what they mean.

When someone can't do this is usually indicates a flaw in their position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:32 PM

130. Defining terms is important

if we're supposed to be talking about the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:51 PM

133. Read my signature.......

....from a highly respected criminologist to whom Jimmy Carter entrusted the job of estimating the value of gun control. (and who brought Jimmy some very disheartening news.)

This is my advice.

Edited for typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:23 AM

60. In what way is it harmful?

 

Don't care about that bull. This commando bs is not good for society.

OK, so in your first sentence you dismiss the death rates caused by the firearms under discussion, and then in the next breath say that they are not good for society.

If you don't care about the relatively few people who are killed by rifles every year (more people are killed with hands and feet), then what is the metric you are using to show that rifles are not good for society?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:08 PM

74. "Commando:" Are you referencing an old Studebaker? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:23 PM

140. I don't get it...why are you so opposed to people defending themselves against thugs?

 

There must be some reason besides the implicit one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:04 PM

160. I'd like to see your society policeman badge

 

Since you are the one that feels you should be able to decide what is or is not good for society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:54 PM

9. Good post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:58 PM

11. I carried a shotgun around with a sawed off stock when someone was stalking and tried

to kill me. The barrel was not cut just the wooden stock. It was really easy to handle and carry.
I eventually had him arrested and convicted.

Wonder if a pistol drip would decrease carpal tunnel syndrome from constant target practice?.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:38 AM

38. I hear you on stalker. On pistol grip, it's kind of like some folks recommend maturbation

for pain from prostate issues. Are you a competitive shooter (ie, accuracy), or someone practicing to shoot people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:55 PM

227. Not competitve. I just target practice.

I was always taught that you never shoot to wound and the person has to have the intent, the means and are attempting to kill you before it's justified by law to kill them. I'm not a hunter. At least not recently but I am a very good shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:24 PM

127. Pistol grips are very good on shotguns

 

Especially the heavier gauges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:59 PM

13. Yeah, hearing that silly meme repeated here made me scratch my head.

I mean it's not like anyone with an empty soda can can't figure out why the reverse is actually true.

Here's a photo that demonstrates that straight stocked weapons are easier to 'fire from the hip'.



Notice the straight, natural angle for the hand, similar to your fourth picture.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:07 PM

17. Again, talking about at close range in surprise at a crowd...

Accuracy isn't so important, surprise is though...

My point stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:43 PM

24. If you ever find yourself in NC, shoot me a PM.

I'd love for you to actually shoot a non-automatic carbine at a range to test your preconceptions vs. reality. That AK will put every round within 0.5" of the line of sight at 75 feet, so if your sights aren't pointed at the target, you are going to miss the target. And you can't just hold the trigger down and "stitch" an area like you could with an automatic weapon, and you can't get that kind of shot density with a semiauto-only 7.62x39mm.

Hip shooting only works in the movies because the actors are shooting blanks and the editors dub the "hits" in later in the editing room. Even at pretty close range, aiming is necessary.

And as for surprise, since (1) rifles would be much slower to deploy from "concealment" than handguns, and (2) folding-stock rifles are next to useless until the stock is extended, methinks a rifle is not the ne plus ultra in that scenario that you suggest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:51 PM

27. They're virtually the same in those circumstances, pistol grip or straight stock.

Matter of fact, you could flip a straight stocked rifle into position to fire from the hip faster than a pistol grip. (As that's the natural position for your hand and you wouldn't have to flex your elbow.)

No, you've just been conned by a talking point.

Take a flashlight in your hand at hip level and point it down at the ground. Flip your wrist to point the beam forward. Next, go grab a hair dryer or cordless drill (something with a pistol grip) and do the same thing.

It's obvious when you test it yourself.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:31 AM

35. You mean, like a crowd in the queue to go through a metal detector...

...to keep people disarmed and safe?




I've shot from the hip. 5-gallon pail at maybe 10 yards (maybe 15, it was a while ago) with an autoloading, traditional-stocked .22 rifle. It held 15 rounds, and I doubt I hit it more than 3 or 4 times.

I had to "walk" my fire onto it, and have a rigid posture and careful body control to bring the gun onto the pail.

It would have been far faster and more lethal to simply mount the gun in the ordinary fashion... I could have scored 15 out of 15 in maybe 5 seconds.

It's hard to hold the gun perfectly level. A slight dip, and you're striking the ground a couple of dozen yards downrange. A slight rise, and you're shooting over the crowd. You don't have a good sense of reference. Bullets don't spark when they hit things (like the movies portray them) so you don't get a good sense of where they are impacting unless you hit dry dirt or maybe glass. And looking down at the gun to try to make sure it's level means you're not looking down-range for targets.

We'd save lives if more criminals shot from the hip (rifles and shotguns) or held their pistols sideways. Because they couldn't hit much.

The only way that it from the hip would have worked well is if I had a laser sight mounted on the gun, and then I could just shoot from the hip while watching the red laser dot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:52 AM

40. Into a public event...

...with local LEOs on hand?

Accuracy isn't the point, concealment, surprise, and firepower - make such weapons deadly and with the only really purpose of being a death spewer.

We're talking point blank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:27 AM

42. By that criteria, you should be more worried about shotguns.

By that criteria, you should be more worried about shotguns.

They're lighter, every bit as reliable, easier to conceal, a 12-gauge - .729 caliber - shotgun can fire eight to twelve 7.62mm to 9mm projectiles for every pull of the trigger.

And yet...somehow I doubt that you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:30 AM

43. "And yet...somehow I doubt that you are."

I'm worried about people who would do their fellow citizens harm and the means they intend to do it in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:50 AM

44. Nice dodge.

Your dodge is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:46 PM

68. Are you keeping records?

Oh keeper of the Gungeon Faith?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #68)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:51 PM

69. We all are.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #69)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:38 PM

77. And yet I'm the totalitarian...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #77)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:42 PM

79. Indeed, and we are keeping record of that fact.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #77)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:26 PM

141. At last, something about which I can agree with you

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wistful Vista (Reply #141)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:45 PM

144. lol

You haven't really been around DU long enough to have formed an adequate impression of my beliefs. Hope you decide to stick around

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #144)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:50 PM

145. Well, I just took you at your word, it's my usual MO. I'm new here but not to the world.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #144)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:19 PM

191. Well, that's a very silly criteria.

 

It's quite possible to be knowledgeable about this place long before signing up, as one can read it without joining.

I did that for over a year before signing up, myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #191)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:38 PM

194. So are you saying dude's been following my posts for over a year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #194)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:35 PM

199. Really? You make an accusation of stalking from out of the blue?

 

Dude... it's not really about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #199)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:48 PM

202. Grow a sense of humor.

"At last, something about which I can agree with you" - If you can't see how that statement is slightly off considering his short membership, I have to wonder a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #194)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:44 PM

201. No, that is not even remotely what he said.

 

Do you have problems with English comprehension? I'm not attempting to insult you - I'm asking for information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #201)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:49 PM

203. When you say "I'm not attempting to insult you"

You're obviously intending to insult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #203)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:53 PM

206. No i really wasn't

 

It was a sincere question. It is possible after all that English is not your first or even 4th or 5th language and that could cause some of the misunderstanding.

I really can find no other logical reason for you to have interpreted his statement the way you did short of intentionally misrepresenting what he said...but you wouldn't do that, would you?

If i were intending to insult you, I'd make certain it was not misunderstood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #206)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:06 PM

209. Oh I sorree Mr. We_Have_A_Problem...

...I no speaky good Engrish, I very sorree for no speaky Engrish good...you good American, bring much peace to my land.



Feel free to apologize for such an outlandish supposition after probably reading hundreds of my posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #209)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:19 PM

212. Truthfully...

 

...it is the reading of so many of your posts that makes me wonder if you have a comprehension problem. You can type words quite well but seem to have a severe lack of comprehension when it comes to questions, as in, actually answering them. You also frequently seem to completely misunderstand what should have been crystal clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #212)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:21 PM

214. "You also frequently seem to completely misunderstand what should have been crystal clear."

When you assume you're right and demand that others agree with you on what is a very highly debated issue - you make an ass out of yourself. Good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #214)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:31 PM

217. I agree with you 100%

 

When you assume you're right and demand others agree, you do make an ass of yourself.

Everyone who read your posts gave you that advice in one form or another. Yet, you continued to do it.

Since you have now finally learned how to parrot that phrase, perhaps you could take the time to actually understand what it means?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #217)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:50 PM

218. I state my opinion...

I don't berate and insult my opponents until I try to force agreement. That's bullying.

"Everyone who read your posts gave you that advice in one form or another."

That's a classic bullying phrase - well "everyone" characterizes something that's not actually the case; there are many here that agree with my perspective, in fact the majority of DU agrees with my perspective; but here in the Gungeon where views like yours have been relegated you have a plurality. Most of DU has forsaken this forum, not because they don't have an opinion on the issue, but because they do not wish to deal with posters such as yourself who choose to berate and dismiss the substance of arguments against your position out of hand. Believe me, when I see the statistics that get presented I don't turn away, but I do ask questions. I wonder what sort of reputation you had in school or college if you attended; did you behave this way then? Telling people that they have "comprehension" problems because they disagreed or annoyed you. Please, step back from the keyboard, because you're taking the warriorism way too far when you start to insult people that way. I'd suggest reconsidering how you approach people who disagree with you and develop a new approach other than trying to silence dissent. Think about it





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #218)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:24 PM

226. Sigh....

 

As another poster pointed out, you demand answers, yet give none. You demand proof but provide none. When you're given proof and answers, you ignore or dismiss them out of hand. Your entire position is one based on lies, strawmen, appeals to authority and false dichotomies. You have NOTHING.

How I am perceived in real life is not really any of your concern, but since it seems to be important to you, I'll tell you - not that you'll believe it.

In real life, I'm seen as a very likable person once you get to know me. I'm a little difficult to get to know because I'm not terribly comfortable in crowds and prefer small gatherings of close friends. To a man (or woman) my friends will tell you that I am friendly, courteous to the point of being nearly obsequious, loyal to a fault, kind, trustworthy, never afraid to admit when I'm wrong or if I do not know something, always willing to help those who need it and an extremely good and understanding person. In short, one of the best people you'll ever know.

However, they will also be the first to tell you I have no tolerance for bullshit, less for stupidity, and I do not ever back down when I am right. In short, someone you don't EVER want to cross.

You came in here spewing all manner of pure vile garbage, making all sorts of assumptions about gun owners and have expressed your opinion in the most condescending manner possible and then acted like a poor babe in the woods when your positions were challenged and your condescension was met with resistance. Based upon how you've comported yourself in this forum, I'm reasonably certain were we to have a similar exchange in real life, you would have long ago slunk away with your tail between your legs. The Internet lets you pretend you have a pair and so you continue to post your cartoons and cartoonish commentary while telling yourself it is intelligent discourse.

For the record, I asked about your comprehension issues because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I accept that some people, when they do not completely understand something, tend to draw erroneous conclusions or ignore it entirely. In your case, based upon your reaction, I have to now conclude that you do understand, but would rather pretend you don't for the disruptive value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:26 PM

76. Worry about the wrath of an unplugged Remington 870 shotgun! Argh.

Your position is based on a poor understanding of gun accessories; you know, the Sugarmann "confusion."

But you got Edward G. Robinson down pat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:28 AM

46. You *do* have to index a rifle at any realistic distance.

First, point blank range:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-blank_range

It means, in shooting, the distance at which drop due to gravity hasn't become a major factor yet, and in forensics and popular culture it has come to mean ~1 meter from the muzzle, almost a contact shot. Beyond that distance, indexing (coarse, then fine) is necessary as distance increases. And yes, you *do* have to aim a rifle; that bullet is within 1/30 degree of the sight line laterally, and within three inches vertically, for two hundred yards. There is a reason that even when using automatic weapons at inside-the-room distances, the military and SWAT use Aimpoint and Eotech sights.

I've mentioned, I shoot USPSA matches. Due to the layout of our local range, stages are usually *close*, as in 2 to 20 yards, with lots of movement. Blasting away without aiming will make a lot of noise and a big fat zero on your score, but I'd love to take you to the range yourself and let you try it. It doesn't work like it does in the movies. Your scenario has not played out in the real world, and shooting real guns at a range would quickly demonstrate why.

FWIW, if you look at the worst mass shootings in the United States, the common denominators tend to be slow, deliberate shooting (enabled by trapped victims and a long delay for countervailing force to show up), and lots of reloading from a large stash of spare magazines (often low-capacity ones; the Virginia Tech shooter reloaded more than a dozen times). "Surprise trench coat ninja with a rifle at arm's length" just isn't what one generally sees, and there are reasons for that.

So again, we circle back to the fact that rifles, including pistol-gripped rifles, are the least misused class of firearm in the United States. There is simply no getting around that fact; the meme and the facts do not correlate.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Total murders...........................12,996.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,009......46.24%
Firearms (type unknown)..................2,035......15.66%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,772......13.63%
Edged weapons............................1,704......13.11%
Hands, feet, etc...........................745.......5.73%
Shotguns...................................373.......2.87%
Rifles.....................................358.......2.75%


Or, with the "type unknowns" rolled into the other categories using the same breakdown:

Total murders...........................12,996.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,950......53.48%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,772......13.63%
Edged weapons............................1,704......13.11%
Hands, feet, etc...........................745.......5.73%
Shotguns...................................431.......3.32%
Rifles.....................................414.......3.19%


Based on that, please explain how protruding rifle handgrips are such a menace in the real world, to the extent that requires banning the most popular civilian rifles in the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:56 PM

146. You're right, it's not that widespread in the United States yet...

...but in other countries and especially those less developed they are the weapon of choice. I think that as more enter the market, and more are diverted to criminal use, you'll see the number of incidents in rise. You're actually making a really good case for hand gun control. I again go back to this weapon, which since the expiration of the assault ban is now legal. What is the purpose of its design?



Today in L.A.:

2 shot in apparent assault-rifle attack in Cypress Park
January 11, 2012 | 2:53 pm
-- Andrew Blankstein and Angel Jennings

Two people were shot Wednesday, reportedly with an assault rifle, several blocks from a middle school in Cypress Park, authorities said.

The shooting occurred just after 2 p.m. at San Fernando Road near Loosmore Street. The assailants apparently fled in a white Chevrolet Astro van.

The conditions of the two victims -- an adult shot in the leg and a youth shot in the chest -- were not not immediately available, and their ages were not released.

Police were looking into reports that an AK-47 was used in the attack.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/2-shot-in-assault-weapon-attack-in-cypress-park.html


Simplified sociological arguments do not always trump questions of public safety. Why do you need to be able to outgun the police?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #146)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:25 PM

166. Thoughts, at some length...

You're right, it's not that widespread in the United States yet...

Yet? The rifle crime rate is going *down*, not up, and the overall violence rate is going down and has been for quite some time.

The shift toward smaller-caliber, higher-capacity civilian rifles has been going on for decades; my local Walmart sold Colt AR-15's and Norinco AK's circa 1988, and the AR first hit the market circa 1961 (JFK owned one). But the greatest increases in AR/AK ownership occurred 1994 to the present, and have coincided with a long decline in rifle crime and of gun violence in general.

I'm certainly not going to argue post hoc ergo prompter hoc here---I think it was other social factors at work---but more widespread "assault weapon" ownership has certainly not been associated with an increase in violence. Quite the contrary, actually.

...but in other countries and especially those less developed they are the weapon of choice.

Anywhere concealability (and to a lesser extent, portability) are irrelevant, rifles do make more sense as both offensive and defensive weapons than handguns do. That condition may be found across large parts of Africa, parts of Mexico, etc. The fact that the Warsaw Pact flooded large portions of the Third World with mass produced AK's (real ones, not civilian lookalikes) during the Cold War certainly didn't hurt the rifle/handgun balance, either.

The more developed and organized a region becomes, though, the more things shift from rifles toward handguns when out-and-about, as people trade range and capacity for concealability, portability, and convenience. I'd point out that rifles were once the personal weapon of choice in *this* country, too, back when it was almost exclusively rural.

I think that as more enter the market, and more are diverted to criminal use, you'll see the number of incidents in rise.

Why would they? Rifle availability on the criminal market has not increased in the last 50 years and isn't increasing now. Any criminal who wanted a box-magazine-fed semiauto rifle or carbine in 1910, or 1940, or 1970, or 1990, or 2000 could get one. Thing is, they don't often choose them, for the reasons I've described at length in this thread.

But don't just take my word for it; look at period of sharpest increase in AK/AR sales, e.g. beginning in 1994 and continuing to the present day, and plot it against rifle homicide and overall homicide rates. Violence rates peaked well before the sales surge began and have been declining steadily since.

You're actually making a really good case for hand gun control.

Well, by any objective standard, handguns in criminal hands *are* more of an issue than rifles and shotguns are. That, historically, is why handguns are more tightly controlled by Federal and most state law than rifles and shotguns.

You do need to distinguish between handguns in criminal and noncriminal hands, though; failure to do that was one of the gun control lobby's big strategic mistakes.

I again go back to this weapon, which since the expiration of the assault ban is now legal.

Umm, civilian AK's were legal 1994-2004; the Feinstein law banned no guns. AK's and 20/30-round magazines were just as legal in 1997 or 2002 as they are now.

The catch was that after 1994, *new* guns with folding stocks had to have the stocks pinned or tack-welded in the open position, the muzzle brake (if present) had to be pinned on rather than screwed on, the little protrusion on the bottom of the gas block couldn't be finish-machined, etc. But civilian AK's weren't banned, and neither were folding stocks; it's just that if you put a folder on a post-1994 AK, you could have theoretically gotten into trouble if someone noticed that the gun was post-'94.

My own AK and magazines are ban-era; here's how to tell by looking.



What is the purpose of its design?

What aspect? The square-ish receiver? Curved magazines? Handgrip placement? Folding stock?

To understand what drove the actual military AK, you have to look at what it was designed to replace, namely the PPSh submachinegun and the Mosin-Nagant rifle. The AK-47 was designed to exactly split the difference between the two guns, allowing both of them to be phased out in favor of a single compromise design. At the flick of a switch, it could either spray bullets at 10 rounds per second, or fire one aimed shot at a time, therefore fulfilling the submachinegun and rifle roles passably well.

Civilian AK derivatives have only the one-shot-at-a-time mode, like other civilian rifles, and lose the rapid-fire capability. They retain the original's legendary reliability, durability, looks, and ergonomics. The intermediate cartridge gives it less recoil and higher capacity than larger caliber rifles and makes it cheaper to shoot, and the basic construction makes it affordable on a working-class paycheck.

From a civilian standpoint, you can think of it as a ruggedized Winchester Model 94 in .30-30 feeding from 20- or 30-round detachable magazines, and capable of similar accuracy and terminal ballistics. Excellent reliability, good capacity, decent performance, excellent price (mine was $379 in 2003). A Ruger Mini Thirty (same capabilities) was going for $600-$700 at the time.

Simplified sociological arguments do not always trump questions of public safety. Why do you need to be able to outgun the police?

An AK or AR doesn't "outgun the police." Police officers have access to Title 2 restricted machineguns and submachineguns, Title 2 restricted assault rifles (including actual M16s and M4s), restricted armor piercing ammunition, grenades, armored vehicles, body armor, yadda yadda yadda. A medium-caliber Title 1 civilian rifle doesn't "outgun the police" just because it looks like a police/government Title 2 automatic weapon.

Having said that, if a police officer shows up to a dwelling with only a pistol and the occupant has a shotgun or centerfire rifle of any sort, then yes, the officer could be considered "outgunned" until he/she goes back to the cruiser and breaks out the long gun. But the police can have rifles and shotguns that you get you or me 10 years in Federal prison for simply possessing.

But here's the crux of the matter---rifles are the least threatening to public safety of all U.S. firearms, as demonstrated by the firearm assault and firearm homicide data. Call it simplistic if you want, but when all styles of rifles combined account for only 3 murders out of 100, then anyone claiming rifles are a menace is simply selling fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #166)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:17 AM

175. Thoughts, in brief...

(You're getting no further comments after these on this topic)

1. The assault weapons ban restricted sales from 1994-2005. Now that sales are booming, it's only logical that in time those guns will find their way into criminal hands, and then be put to criminal use. I also question using the rifle categorization as an assessor since it includes things like hunting rifles we aren't concerned about. Have you seriously asked yourself the simple question of what will happen to all these guns in time? Will they really become collectibles or will they just be going to a secondary market after all these people grow tired of their toys? To make a fun comparison, have you ever heard of the Great North Pacific Garbage Gyre? It is a massive field of floating, decaying plastic the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean; plastic is now finding its way into the fish population. Did plastic manufacturers anticipate this side effect? Probably not, they didn't care to think what the long term effect of our plastic-waste culture was going to be and this is the result. Similarly, I don't think assault weapons owners are thinking in the long-term about what effect they are going to have to society. They're just trying to read tea-leaves to make a narrow argument with very shaky logical justification, a contorted view of liberty as an individual question rather than as a social question.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/fish-ingesting-plastic-waste-study-finds/

2. When rifles were the preferred weapon of choice we had conceived of the blender or much less the Internet. Furthermore, the logical extension of the arguments made by those who think we should be allowed to carry arms wherever, whenever, we want is to de-emphasize the ability to conceal and to re-emphasize firepower. I'll call this the Wild West scenario where a society has gone from a stage where it doesn't have to address the problem of the public carrying arms to the point where you have to check your gun in with the Sheriff in Tombstone. Where does this "madness" (Bill Clinton's words, not mine) end if we are to have whatever gun rights we believe we ought to have irrespective of any possible social consequence?

3. You've already acknowledged: "I think it was other social factors at work," but still claim that connecting gun ownership with the violent crime rate provides an acceptable sociological analysis for the purpose of what gun control is necessary to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." If it doesn't meet that standard, all of them, a policy such as "gun control full of loopholes" is not in the broad public interest. You want these items, you have no real need for them; they do not secure the Blessings of Liberty in any real way unless you want to engage in the Red Dawn fantasy or nostalgia for the Confederacy. You have no right under any circumstance to have a need to overthrow the government in the Constitution; such arguments are anti-Federalist sophistry and mystification and this Democrat doesn't buy it for one minute.

4. I think the pro-gun lobby needs to ask itself how legal possession of guns becomes illegal possession of guns; for some reason (understandable), the pro-gun lobby doesn't want to engage this question in any meaningful way. This of course is understandable considering it makes for a great case for the true meaning of the Constitution, that the Second Amendment exists to create "a well regulated Militia" that can be called up to put down domestic insurrection or foreign invasion; rather than carte blanche gun rights.

5. I've already said I want a better written law so the gun manufacturers can't slither around the intent of the law. I think it's simple: weapon production must be approved by the government as being in accordance with State law, which of course can be coerced by Federal standard (see drunk driving laws). I don't care about the gun porn; that weapon has no purpose in independent hands, not connected with service in the Militia, other than to be, what I humorously call a "death spewer."

6. Killing other human beings; it has no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose on its own merit. I'll quote FDR on this issue:

A great many sportsmen have urged me to support this bill. It is hard for me to understand the interest of sportsmen in pistols. I myself have fished and hunted a great deal. I have a deep interest in outdoor sports and the various associations which foster them, but it is common knowledge, of course, that fishermen never use a pistol and hunters practically never use a pistol... theoretical self-protection, the value of a revolver is very problematical.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1931, opposing the Hanley-Fake firearms bill which would have increased access to handguns. Quoted in Gun Violence in America:The Struggle for Control, Alexander DeConde, 2003 (p.132).


7. This is where your argument falls entirely into anti-Federalist sophistry and mystification about various fantastical scenarios in which a suspect armed with these weapons is not a mortal threat to a law enforcement officer, operating under Constitutional protection, to reasonably undertake his job in upholding the law. I think here it's worthwhile to quote the former Governor of Vermont and Chairman of the Democratic Party on the expiration of the assault weapons ban:

By Gov. Howard Dean M.D.
September 13, 2004

On Monday, Sept.13, the law banning the manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons for private sale in the United States expired.

Before you read further I should tell you that my father was an avid hunter. I grew up with guns in the house, and although I do not hunt, I own an over-and-under shotgun. While running for office in Vermont, I won eight straight elections with the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. As Governor, I conserved hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat by partnering with the NRA to fight off the right-wing property rights advocates who opposed government land acquisition. I believed Vermont's outdoors should be the way it has been for generations, and now it will be.

However, I have never met a hunter who thought owning an assault weapon was necessary to shoot a deer or a bear. I have met a lot of law enforcement officers who think that the federal assault weapons ban saved a lot of their colleagues’ lives. I have met parents whose kids were killed by assault weapons years ago and are bracing for more of the same.

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Cagle_Editorial_Assault_Wpns_Sept13_2004.htm


Here's the crux of the matter: we're not talking about rifles; we're talking about assault weapons. I would never deny your right to ownership of weapons for hunting, self-defense, and sport. But when your choice of weapons present a clear and present danger to the safety of the public and their officials, despite the best efforts of law enforcement, I believe you have exceeded any Constitutional mandate to not have your rights "infringed." I will finally quote the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Warren Burger (someone you'd expect to think otherwise):


“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

---------

In 1992, Warren E. Burger, a former chief justice of the United States appointed by President Richard M. Nixon, expressed the prevailing view.

“The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all


(Again, you're not getting any further response, because very clearly you are more interested in having a fantastical debate than any substantive exchange - it's really obvious in your final three paragraphs that you don't wish to consider this in real life terms, but rather on your terms. Enjoy. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #175)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 01:50 AM

176. Sigh...

1. The assault weapons ban restricted sales from 1994-2005. Now that sales are booming, it's only logical that in time those guns will find their way into criminal hands, and then be put to criminal use.

The. AWB. Did. Not. Restrict. Sales.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. The AWB easily *tripled* AR-15 and AK sales. It merely required that all those new AR's/AK's being manufacture and imported had to have smooth muzzles, pinned rather than screwed on brakes, and pinned stocks.

Do I need to post BATFE sales figures? AR and AK ads from the late '90s/early '00's? My AK receipt from 2003? Those were the boom years for those guns.

I also question using the rifle categorization as an assessor since it includes things like hunting rifles we aren't concerned about.

Rifles of any type aren't significantly represented in U.S. homicide stats. Period. All rifles combined don't even reach 3% of recorded homicides most years.

You are in serious denial if you think that rifle homicide at <3% means that nontraditional looking rifles are a Menace To Society...

Have you seriously asked yourself the simple question of what will happen to all these guns in time?

Yep. The thing about guns is that if they are taken proper care of and not shot too much (or have worn-out parts replaced as needed), they last for many decades, or even centuries. Some will wear out, and those that don't will be passed down to heirs or sold back to gun dealers to re-enter the lawful retail market, just like civilian guns have done for the past 300 years. You are acting as if this is new, or as if a rifle with "Rock River Arms" on the side is qualitatively different from one that says "Winchester".

I currently shoot a rifle that is 107 years old. There's no reason my grandchildren's children can't enjoy shooting it a century from now, either.

Furthermore, the logical extension of the arguments made by those who think we should be allowed to carry arms wherever, whenever, we want is to de-emphasize the ability to conceal and to re-emphasize firepower. I'll call this the Wild West scenario where a society has gone from a stage where it doesn't have to address the problem of the public carrying arms to the point where you have to check your gun in with the Sheriff in Tombstone. Where does this "madness" (Bill Clinton's words, not mine) end if we are to have whatever gun rights we believe we ought to have irrespective of any possible social consequence?

No, not happening. The "open carry" movement started as pushback against California's lack of equitable concealed carry licensure, and were it not for that would IMO not exist.

Clinton's harshness on gun ownership was an attempt to triangulate law-and-order conservatives by looking "tough on crime". That was a serious miscalculation, as Clinton pointed out in his autobiography, and Dems paid for it by losing the trifecta for a decade.

{much drivel about the Confederacy, Red Dawn, and whatnot omitted}

Please don't put your delusions about what "real" gun owners think in my mouth. I haven't tried to use you as a sockpuppet; please extend the same civility in return.

4. I think the pro-gun lobby needs to ask itself how legal possession of guns becomes illegal possession of guns; for some reason (understandable), the pro-gun lobby doesn't want to engage this question in any meaningful way.

Since the gun-control lobby is primarily focused on banning the lawful and responsible ownership of the most popular civilian guns and rolling back CCW licensure, rather than specifically addressing diversion to criminal hands, I don't think you can exactly blame gun owners for that.

You wish to radically change the status quo, and enact sweeping new restrictions on the Title 1 civilian guns we may lawfully own. The answer to that is no. If you wish to discuss methods to reduce diversion from the legal market to the illegal one, let's talk.

This of course is understandable considering it makes for a great case for the true meaning of the Constitution, that the Second Amendment exists to create "a well regulated Militia" that can be called up to put down domestic insurrection or foreign invasion; rather than carte blanche gun rights.

Revisionist history that was eventually reversed in academia and shot down in U.S. v. Heller, which is now the law of the land. The 2ndA is an individual right that protects guns "in common use for lawful purposes." Next case.

5. I've already said I want a better written law so the gun manufacturers can't slither around the intent of the law.

The intent of the 1994 law was look "tough on crime" to law-and-order conservatives without alarming gun owners too much (hence the sunset clause and the fact that the law didn't actually ban any guns). Even so, it was a vast overreach, and the backlash all but destroyed the U.S. gun control lobby, gave us 49-state CCW, and made "assault weapons" the top selling guns in America by September 2004.

If you want to lobby for a far more restrictive law, in what is now a vastly less favorable political climate than in '94, when the guns you wish to ban now define the mainstream of the shooting sports, then go right ahead. Gun owners will ultimately thank you for it, as your movement follows the WCTU and the Temperance Party into the political dustbin.

I don't care about the gun porn; that weapon has no purpose in independent hands, not connected with service in the Militia, other than to be, what I humorously call a "death spewer."

You are free not to own one. It's a free country. But if you wanted the gun control lobby to remain relevant, you might want to try to have your positions reflect reality in 2012, rather than a Field & Stream fantasy from 1951.

As a movement, though, taking the position that the dominant sporting rifles in the United States have no sporting purpose, or that the top selling civilian rifles in the USA are not civilian rifles, is sheer idiocy from a pragmatic standpoint. It was exactly that sort of blind groupthink that led the gun control lobby to fall on the AWB sword a decade ago. I suppose I should be relieved to see that you guys are determined to stay on that sword until your movement bleeds out.

Meh, whatever. I'll keep shooting matches, going to the range, and taking friends and my kids shooting with the guns I supposedly can't do those things with. No worries.

6. Killing other human beings; it has no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose on its own merit.

I think you must have accidentally deleted some words here.

FWIW, re: Roosevelt, I notice that Eleanor Roosevelt was a competent handgun shooter, owned a revolver, and had a New York concealed carry license. I see that the Hanley-Fake bill was an attempt to repeal the Sullivan Act; I'll bet there is a deeper backstory there than your source is telling.

....Here's the crux of the matter: we're not talking about rifles; we're talking about assault weapons. I would never deny your right to ownership of weapons for hunting, self-defense, and sport. But when your choice of weapons present a clear and present danger to the safety of the public and their officials, despite the best efforts of law enforcement, I believe you have exceeded any Constitutional mandate to not have your rights "infringed."

Ah, notice the date: 2004. Back before Senator Kerry lost gun-owning Dems again, just like Gore had in 2000, just like the congressional leadership did in 1994, and before the DLC/DNC leadership began soul-searching to discover how they had managed to alienate gun-owning Dems so badly.

It wasn't until circa 2006 that the party began to get informed on the issue, discovered that (oops!!) "assault weapons" are civilian rifles (and the most popular ones, at that), and began to backpedal on the AWB, such that by 2008 the American Hunters and Shooters Association was confidently assuring gun owners that Obama had no interest in pushing for another AWB. They were right.

Legislating 19th century firearm aesthetics is dead. Handgrips that stick out are here to stay. Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #175)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 12:59 AM

235. A couple of observations re: claims on your part

Now that sales are booming, it's only logical that in time those guns will find their way into criminal hands, and then be put to criminal use.

It's only logical if you assume the premise--one you have not bothered to state--that use of firearms in crime is a supply-driven phenomenon, rather than a demand-driven one.

Here's the crux of the matter: we're not talking about rifles; we're talking about assault weapons.

The term "assault weapon," as used in this context, is an exercise in "framing the debate." Prior to the mid-1980s, the term "assault weapon" had one meaning: a weapon usable by infantry to breach or neutralize enemy fortifications, such as satchel charges, Bangalore torpedoes, flamethrowers, and rocket launchers. As applied to individual weapons, including small arms, the term has no single established meaning that is both comprehensive and exclusive, and is therefore in effect meaningless.

As a rule of thumb, a so-called "assault weapon" is a semi-auto-only version of a design originally capable of automatic fire. That includes weapons like Remington's R-15 and R-25, which, despite meeting the definition of "assault weapon" under California's Roberti-Roos Act, are most assuredly hunting rifles. They meet this definition because the Californian definition includes any rifle (there's that word again) that uses a semi-automatic action, a detachable magazine, and one or more cosmetic features such as a pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, grenade launcher spigot, bayonet lug etc. That means that weapons like the M1 and M1A1 carbines are, in their original configuration, "assault weapons." It also means that the M1 Garand rifle is not an "assault weapon" because it has a non-pistol grip stock and uses an en bloc clip in a fixed magazine. But during WWII, the Garand was the weapon issued to infantrymen who were expected to inflict casualties upon the enemy, whereas the carbines were made as self-defense weapons for military support personnel such as radio operators, truck drivers, supply clerks etc.

And since we are ultimately talking about pistol grips in this thread, it's worth remarking that there's an increasing number of shotguns configured for hunting wild turkey that come with pistol grip stocks, such as this Remington 870, some of these Mossberg 535s, or these Benellis. Unlike in wingshooting (at birds in flight), turkey hunting requires aiming rather than pointing the shotgun, and for that, a pistol grip stock is a better option.

Re: your quotes...
Tell the FDR one to Eleanor Roosevelt, who evidently trusted sufficiently in the value of a revolver for self-defense to carry one with her when she went to lend support to the civil rights movement in the 1950s.

As for Warren Burger, who gives a fuck what he thought? The SCOTUS made some good calls while he was Chief Justice, but almost invariably in spite of his opinion, not because of it. Burger tried to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1986 (Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists); he voted in favor of maintaining laws prohibiting sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick (also 1986); and he originally intended to vote in Nixon's favor in United States v. Nixon (1974). So Burger wasn't a proponent of the Second Amendment; neither was Nixon, who was not only of Quaker descent, but--let's face it--wasn't too keen on the rest of the Bill of Rights either. It just goes to show that "Republican" is not synonymous with "pro-gun rights."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euromutt (Reply #235)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:01 AM

236. A couple of judgments re: claims on your part

1. I'm presuming that there will always be a criminal demand for firearms at home and abroad, based on the judgment that criminality is a social fact.

2. Who cares what we call it, we all know what we're talking about; practical "tool" based uses in the character of the firearms as opposed to "military" based usages, I could give less than a damn about the specifics; the Constitution does not guarantee your right to whatever weapons you want.

3. "Problematic" means exactly what it sounds like; please tell me why someone should be allowed to own half-a-dozen handguns with little oversight.

4. Devolves into a pissing match.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #236)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 07:07 AM

238. If you're trying to make a point, maybe you should try sticking to it

Who cares what we call it, we all know what we're talking about <...>

Evidently, it mattered to you what we call it, because otherwise there would have been no reason for you to assert (in your post #175):
Here's the crux of the matter: we're not talking about rifles; we're talking about assault weapons.

And that is the crux of the matter, but only in the sense that "assault weapon" is a bullshit term, which in practice covers certain models or even configurations of firearm but not others, and makes the distinction almost entirely on the basis of cosmetic/ergonomics features alone. I hope benEzra doesn't mind if I borrow his photo:

With the wooden stock, this rifle is not a so-called "assault weapon."
With the rigid black stock, this rifle is an "assault weapon" in California.
With the folding stock, this rifle would have become an "assault weapon" for the purposes of the 1994 federal AWB.
Both in practical and legal terms, we're talking about the same firearm. Swapping out the furniture doesn't alter the ballistics or rate of fire.

More importantly, as others have pointed out or alluded in this thread, the Ruger Mini-series does not differ from AR and AK variants in any way that pertains to the proffered justifications for bans on so-called "assault weapons." They all accept detachable magazines, which means they can accept mags that hold more than 10 rounds, in .223 Remington or 7.62x39mm, and can go through the contents of those magazines as rapidly as the shooter can pull the trigger. The practical differences between the Ruger Mini-series and the "evil black rifles" is that AK variants are a lot cheaper, and that ARs were (until recently) more accurate, and that you could change calibers by installing a different upper receiver, which is cheaper than buying an entire new rifle (which you would have to do with a Ruger Mini). But no legislation pertaining to "assault weapons" ever addressed price, accuracy or modularity, so those distinctions are moot.

If you want to being up "'military' based usages," there isn't a governmental armed force in the world that has ever used a semi-auto-only variant of an assault rifle or sub-machine gun, mainly because they can get the selective-fire (i.e. full-auto-capable) versions. To get granular, by this I mean any weapon capable of being fired from the shoulder which fires a round with less kinetic energy than that possessed by a 7.62x51mm NATO round (.308 Win); the whole idea behind such weapons is that, at short range, they overcome lack of lethality inherent in the round by enabling the operator to put a bunch of them into the target in a very short amount of time.

That said, it behooves me to note that there are law enforcement agencies that issue "assault weapons" to their officers, from the (London) Metropolitan Police Service, which issues semi-auto-only H&K MP5s to officers at Heathrow airport to every police force in the United States that issues semi-auto-only AR variants as "patrol rifles." Now there's a funny thing: when legislators like Carolyn McCarthy and Chuck Schumer argue in favor of a renewed ban on "assault weapons," arguing that the only thing they're good for is mowing down large numbers of innocents, they invariably incorporate an exemption for law enforcement into the legislation they're pushing. Why is that? Do, in their minds, the police have legitimate need for weapons that are only good for mowing down large numbers of innocents? Or might it be that they tacitly acknowledge that there is a legitimate application for so-called "assault weapons" for a civilian (and cops are civilians, don't let them tell you otherwise) who needs to engage a small number of lightly armed opponents (as opposed to a heavily armed enemy who shows up in company or battalion strength)?

<...> please tell me why someone should be allowed to own half-a-dozen handguns with little oversight.

Handguns? I thought this thread was about pistol grips on long guns. You can hardly complain about pistols on the basis that they come with pistol grips, can you?

Anyway, if a person is deemed trustworthy in possession of one or two firearms, why should he (or she) not be trusted with as many as he damn well likes? Human anatomy being what it is, you can only wield two handguns or one long gun at a time anyway. The shooters at post office in Edmond, OK in 1986 or the Luby's in Killeen, TX in 1991 or Virginia Tech in 2007 wouldn't have been more lethal if they'd have three or more handguns on their respective persons, as opposed to the two each did have. And given that persons who run amok overwhelmingly choose locations to do so where everyone is almost certain to be unarmed anyway (e.g. schools, malls, anywhere in Europe, Japan or China outside a police station, etc.), they could probably rack up a similar body count with a single firearm (given enough pre-loaded magazines for it).

I'm presuming that there will always be a criminal demand for firearms at home and abroad, based on the judgment that criminality is a social fact.

Well, your previous assertions do not indicate that your reasoning incorporates that presumption. If you truly understand and accept that the criminal demand for firearms, and their use in criminal activity, exists independently of the number of firearms in government and particularly in private ownership in any given society, you must--if you're intellectually honest and have a grasp of basic economics--accept that a criminal demand for guns will be met by a supply from somewhere. In spite of the presence of extremely stringent firearms laws, the criminal element in both Jamaica and Japan can acquire firearms if and when they want them, and in both cases, they're getting them from overseas (given the North Korean government's involvement in criminal activities, I would be in no way surprised if they weren't more than happy to run guns to the Yakuza in exchange for hard currency). But as opposed to Jamaican gangs, the yakuza are far more reticent to kill people, and especially to do so using firearms, not least because Japanese culture looks down on firearms (with a large dose of "Not Invented Here" syndrome combined with bullshido).

The fact is that criminals worldwide tend to prefer handguns, not least because many criminals who carry firearms do so for the purpose of self-protection against other criminals (particularly competitors) or to intimidate unarmed victims, and in those circumstances portability and concealability weigh heavier than lethality; in other words, better to have a handgun on your person than an AK variant in your car or at home. If we look at the UK, going by the notion that availability should dictate the type of firearms used, British criminals should primarily be using double-barreled shotguns and bolt-action rifles, since those are the only firearms one can legally own. Instead, the primary weapons used for criminal purposes are handguns and sub-machine guns. Yes, sub-machine guns; the number of people murdered with automatic weapons in the UK exceeds the number killed in the US, not only in relative but also in absolute numbers. The reason is simple: sub-machine guns are no more expensive to make than handguns, and being quite compact, they're almost as easy to smuggle, which means that, on the black market, they shouldn't cost much more than a smuggled handgun while providing way more firepower. And when the penalty for illegally possessing a handgun is no heavier than for possessing an automatic weapon, why not go with the SMG?

Yeah, hey, imagine that: criminals not only don't follow gun laws, they find find ways to break them that the legislators hadn't thought of. Who could've guessed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euromutt (Reply #238)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:58 PM

240. Same shit, different poster. n/t

"you must--if you're intellectually honest and have a grasp of basic economics--accept that a criminal demand for guns will be met by a supply from somewhere."

The U.S. Government disagrees, which is why it has the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. You can keep spamming the same shit that's been discussed ad nauseum, but it's still not convincing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #236)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:12 PM

239. "Please tell me why someone should be allowed to own half-a-dozen handguns with little oversight."

Please tell us why they shouldn't.

Is there some hitherto unknown 'critical number' of firearms ownership beyond which a susceptible person will become a spree killer?
If so, what evidence do you have that it exists, and how is it determined?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #239)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:58 PM

241. The issue is theft and supply to the black market. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:39 PM

78. You really couldn't say more clearly that you do not understand the point.

A pistol grip stock has nothing to do with "concealment, surprise, and firepower." A pistol grip has nothing to do with "shooting from the hip." A pistol grip has nothing do do with making a gun more deadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:42 PM

80. What is the point?

That's it's just ergonomic



All these fucking guns - that one day no one will use...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:52 PM

84. Yes, that it's ergonomic.

It allows for the shooter to shoulder the weapon more comfortably, and better control the aim.

Asserting that pistol grips have anything to do with killing people is kind of like saying that adjusting your car's driver's seat is bad because it results in drunk driving. It's a completely non-logical association.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:56 PM

85. Well I hope that one day soon these military grade weapons will be severely restricted...

I think there association with killing is very logical.

I like how I say that the bill could be better written to address both sides of concern and all I get is a bunch of whining/how dare you say such a thing/you're stupid type responses.

There are valid points to both sides of this debate...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #85)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:10 PM

92. You've yet to provide any validity to your 'side'..

Just because an issue has two 'sides' doesn't make them equal. That's how we get shit like creationism taught in schools alongside evolutionary speciation.


And I love the 'military grade' canard.

Of course, no military uses semi-auto guns like we're discussing, either. Three round burst or full auto, sure. Grandpap's 30-06 is more deadly than any of these so-called 'assault weapons'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #92)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:13 PM

93. Different subject...

...This is the gun control and RKBA forum. Not science discussion...

"And I love the 'military grade' canard."

So you're admitting the only difference between these weapons and military weapons is that they're not full auto. How long before you all are demanding full auto?

"Grandpap's 30-06 is more deadly than any of these so-called 'assault weapons'."

Complete bullshit.

I'm sure you'll now post a picture of a World War I British soldier to try and prove your point, but really it's just gibberish to justify an unhealthy clinging to guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #93)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:44 PM

99. All guns or their antecedents, save for a few target guns / bench competition guns..

Owe their history to a military weapon.

Even bolt action 'huntin gunz' are derived from military arms. (Mauser, etc)

Pump-action shotguns? WWI trench sweepers.

"Grandpap's 30-06 is more deadly than any of these so-called 'assault weapons'."

Complete bullshit.

I'm sure you'll now post a picture of a World War I British soldier to try and prove your point, but really it's just gibberish to justify an unhealthy clinging to guns.


The .30-06 is the cartridge used in many battle rifles. It is truly high-power. Range for effective, targeted fire to stop a man sized target is 1000 yards (and still have enough energy to punch a soda can-sized hole.)

So-called 'assault weapons' such as AR-15's and AK variants use intermediate caliber rounds. Range is no more than 500 yards for 7.62 and 300 yards for 5.56.



5.56 on the left, .30-06 in the middle.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #99)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:44 PM

100. Can you reduce the size of your pron? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #93)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:48 PM

102. Do you even do the slightest bit of fact checking?

 

I'm referring to this specific exchange:

"Grandpap's 30-06 is more deadly than any of these so-called 'assault weapons'."

Complete bullshit.

Ellisonz, that statement is 100% accurate on any level.

The ballistic energy of a .30-06 at 200 yards is around 2000 ft/lbs . 500 yards is between 1000 and 1400 ft/lbs depending upon the loading. At 1000 yards, you're still dealing with 700 ft/lbs or so.

The ballistic energy of a .223 (that's what an M16 shoots) at 200 yards is barely 800 ft/lbs and at 500 yards has dropped to under 300 ft/lbs. Forget 1000 yards. It may still be flying but not fast enough to even raise a bruise.

Put another way, one round from a .30-06 fired into a crowd from the hip at short range (your apparent preferred method) is going to go through between 3 and 7 people with lethal force. The first 3 or 4 will die near instantly if its a center torso shot.

That .223 MIGHT make it through to a second person but isn't going to kill either of them with one shot unless its a lucky hit.

This information is not a secret. Its all over the place online. Most bullet manufacturers are even kind enough to provide ballistics tables for you.

Nobody with even a cursory understanding of firearms would ever claim an "assault weapon" is a high-power or extremely deadly rifle. Beyond 300 yards, most of them aren't your best choice - which is exactly what they were designed for. Militaries did not start using them because they were more deadly, but because they were actually less so. They also switched to them because the need for long range power really was no longer there. Battles were taking places at ranges under 300 yards, so why have a soldier carry 100 rounds of ammo good out to 1000 yards or more, when you could have him carry 250 rounds of stuff good out to 250 yards or so for the same weight?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #102)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:54 PM

103. Have you considered that there are other standards of lethality than ballistics? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #103)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:01 PM

105. By all means

 

Educate us.

You made the statement that an "assault weapon" was more lethal than a .30-06, now back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #105)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:09 PM

106. Sure.

Assault weapons are characterized by their compact design, use for close in attack, generally high rate of fire, ability to use high capacity magazines, and purposed military combat application.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Backed up; that combination of characteristics serves to make it a more lethal combination in many circumstances than a traditional long rifle. Given their frequent use to this effect, the claim that they are more lethal than the traditional long rifle is contextually correct in modern times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #106)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:29 PM

111. Except that....

 

you didn't back it up.

First off, that's wiki. Not exactly an accurate source on its best day.

Lets take the points one-by-one, shall we?

1) compact design

An AK or M16 is slightly smaller than say an M1 Garand, but not exactly pocket sized. It's like saying "compact truck" - you're still talking pretty big. AK and AR pattern rifles still run 3 to 4 feet long and 7-9lbs when loaded depending upon specifics. For comparison, an M1 Garand is 43" long (that's right at 3.5 feet) and weighs about 11lbs loaded. The weight is the only real difference.

Benefit to lethality? None. Arguably the size would make an M1 more lethal as it could be a more effective club.

2) Use for close in attack

All combat in which a rifle is used is "close in" and they are used both for attack and defense. In truth, this statement is nothing but editorial bullshit, but even assuming it is meant sincerely it really means nothing. "Assault weapons" were designed to be as effective at short range as a larger caliber is at much longer ranges. What this means is, the larger caliber is a LOT more lethal at close ranges.

Benefit to lethality? None. It is well known that at 200 yards an AK or AR is effective enough to make you stop and think twice about continuing, but a .30-06 or .308 is going to truly fuck you up - making it impossible for you to continue.

3) Generally high rate of fire

Purely untrue. Semi-auto is semi-auto. One round per trigger pull.

Benefit to lethality? None, and the statement is a lie.

4) Ability to use high capacity magazines

This is something that I almost - ALMOST - have to give you. I say "almost" because I can understand why you might believe the larger capacity magazine might be there to increase lethality potential. It is, but not in the way you think. The larger capacity magazine is a trade off for having a lower power cartridge. Since a .223 or 7.62x39 may not actually stop the target the first time, the ability to have a few more rounds to stop the target is a good thing. In essence, the increased capacity is there to make up for the reduced lethality.

Benefit to lethality? Draw really as the added capacity is making up for the reduced ability.

5) purposed military combat application

WTF is that pile of crap? As pointed out, virtually every modern firearm at one time had a "purposed military combat application". Regardless of that, not a single military in the world uses the semi-automatic versions. They use select fire variants which fire either full auto or bust as well as semi.

Benefit to lethality? Oh please - not even going to dignify that.

Simple fact ellisonz - they are not more lethal in any way than a traditional long rifle. You've not proved anything - you've merely thrown out some editorializing, a stupid picture and made a baseless claim.

I'll tell you this - I'd much rather be shot in the torso at 200 yards by an AK or an AR than by an M1. I'd have a damn good chance of surviving the first two. The latter? Nope - be DRT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #111)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 02:38 PM

195. Nice...

post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #106)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:30 PM

112. Did you think nobody would notice your substitution?

That text does not appear in the link you provided.

LOL!!

Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a muzzle break. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.


High rate of fire? Bullshit. They're not full-auto, or even three round bursts.

Purposed military combat application? Bullshit. No military uses semi-auto weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #112)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:06 PM

116. Do not expect honesty from these people.

 

This one in particular.

Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=8253

Can't even handle the prospect of having to face the reality that shatters his twisted version of gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #116)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:54 PM

157. You know you linked to your own post, right?

Would have considered it a call-out, which is against Da Rulez, but since you were calling out yourself......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #157)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:51 PM

162. Extrapolation isn't just a word beginning with 'E'.

 

'Attention' isn't just a word beginning with 'A'.

Try both. That's all you get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #162)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:58 PM

164. Damn, then, guess I shoulda voted to hide when it was alerted. ;)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #164)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:30 PM

169. Referring to other posts in a single thread

 


Can be considered 'calling someone out' by only the most tenuous standards. I took you post as some of the hostility typical of what the banners and anti-gun people bring to these threads.

If it was not, then I apologize. If you follow the 'sub thread', you'll see what I'm talking about when I say that these people bring no reason or rationale to the thread. One challenge to face the facts or the holes in their fantasies, and they run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #112)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:44 PM

153. *taps foot*..

Did you run away when you got busted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:33 AM

237. Which of course explains why they are used in less than 3% of all homicides committed with firearms.

Especially given that one of them, the AR-15, is the most popular center-fire rifle in the country, and couldn't GET much wider circulation than it currently enjoys.

You're just not going to give up, no matter how demonstrably wrong you are, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #106)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:02 PM

245. *taps foot*..

See post 112..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #103)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:43 PM

143. Yes, there are.

Have you considered that there are other standards of lethality than ballistics?


But if you are comparing rifles with and without pistols grips,

-- Accuracy is the same.
-- Capacity is the same.
-- Rate of fire is the same.
-- Conceability is similar (slight edge to straight stock).
-- Portability is the same.
-- Ease of reloading is similar.

What it comes down to is that you wish to outlaw civilian rifles that *look* a certain way, and a ban on handgrips that stick out is one way to codify that wish into law.

But have *you* considered that if rifles were as amazingly lethal and suited for criminal violence as you say they are, then rifles would account for more than 3% of U.S. murders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #85)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:34 PM

96. Those aren't "military grade weapons."

That's like saying that a Hummer H3 is a military vehicle, because it looks a little like a HUMMVW. No military on Earth issues it's troops semi-auto rifles as standard equipment. The similarity is more superficial than anything.

Yes, they derive some parts of their designs from military weapons, because said military weapons are well engineered and designed to be highly reliable. There's little reason to reinvent the wheel--and there never has been, since those "non-threatening" wooden stock and bolt-action rifles are ALSO derived from military weapons. Virtually every civilian bolt-action rifle these days is a knockoff to a greater or lesser extent of the Mauser 98K, which was in it's day as much a cutting-edge killing machine as any rifle manufactured today. Civilian guns have always been derived from military weapons, going back to the origin of the firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #85)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:18 PM

139. Except you are very insistently confusing NON-military-grade weapons with actual

military-grade weapons---which are already very tightly controlled under existing law.

You've been had.

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

--Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988


That was written by the lobbyist who popularized the "assault weapon" meme, in the paper that launched the whole "assault weapon ban" crusade and ultimately destroyed the gun control movement in the United States.

We are not talking about military-grade weapons. We are talking about non-automatic, small- and intermediate-caliber *civilian* rifles that (1) have handgrips that stick out, or (2) look (but do NOT function) like military grade weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:31 PM

94. Unless there is a serious and dramatic change in human behavior

 

I think it is safe to say, people will stop using guns when something better comes along.

For your fantasy to come true, humanity in its entirety would have to completely rid itself of any and all aggressive or self-protective behavior - neither of which is very likely to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #94)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:48 PM

101. It appears that some people think abysmal ignorance of a subject is somehow a progressive value?

... and something to actually be proud of?

The idea of someone admitting a total, willful ignorance and lack of any form of experience, besides reading Brady press releases, and considering themselves "ready to rule" on a significant issue just amazes me. Having a point of view is fine, but to enter the discussion with a poorly formed moral superiority, a condescending attitude and nothing to back it up, puts them on a par with the worst of the Fundies and the hard core pro lifers out there.

No learning curve or questions about "why" or "how" required, no search for data from a neutral source like DoJ, CDC or the FBI, in fact a total denial of those sources, and no, as you so accurately point out, considering human nature and the real world.

Maybe we should consider it the "Sgt. Schultz Syndrome" from Hogan's Heroes; "I see nothing, I know nothing" adding only "I need to know nothing either"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:47 PM

82. Well, if an armed citizen can't figure out and shoot the right person in a milling panicked, crowd..

...the cops will?

Assuming the cops are even nearby. As we learned from the Giffords shooting, if they're not "right there", they're not much help.

Frankly, I'd be much more worried about a cut-down pump-action 12-gauge loaded with magnum buckshot. 6 shots of that is 90 bullet-sized pellets down-range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:39 AM

242. Seriously?! A pistol grip aids in concealment?!


How does anything that protrudes from a rifle aid in concealment?

Brilliant thinking, this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:13 AM

58. You had a point?

 

Because I still don't see one.

Your claim that people want pistol grips for firing from concealment into crowds at close range is hardly a point. It rather sounds like something out of a bad action movie...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:38 PM

131. Notice how even soldiers carry for quick spraying

 



We have slings specially designed for easy carrying in this position. Notice, it's not for hip spraying. The soldier can instantly take a bead for shoulder fire on fully automatic, and therefore have a good chance at hitting his target(s).

Hip spraying is dumb, dumb, dumb. Here is a weapon that is almost useless on single-fire, as it was designed for controllable fully automatic fire of a small round (and not as an "assault" weapon, but as a personal defense weapon).



It is very difficult to fire comfortably from the hip, only from the shoulder.

But then you probably believe the gangsta style of shooting a pistol sideways makes him more likely to hit his target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissedByBush (Reply #131)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:45 PM

171. Interesting picture

 

I notice the guy up front opted out of the additional groin armor but took the extra neck armor. Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:57 AM

56. Nice historic photo - looks like an old Browning Automatic Rifle

in the hands of the inventor's son.

I don't know if that's the best way to use the rifle. The sight picture from that angle is probably not the most accurate.

Then again, I never took shooting lessons from a Lieutenant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:05 PM

120. That is and he is. The Browning BAR was designed as a "keep their heads down"

weapon. He is not wearing the ammo belt with the cup on the side that holds the buttstock. The idea was to place a BAR with every 10 men. When advancing thru "no mans Land" between the trenches the BAR gunner advanced with the troops and swept the enemy lines to "keep their heads down" and allow the troops to reach the opposing trenches with little oposing fire.
The LMG was late in entering the fray and was only used twice in combat. Both times by troops under the command of Lt. Browning.

Later in WW2 the Marines used a lot of BAR's in the Pacific, issuing as many as 4 per platoon. The gunners using the weapons as LMG's, advancing in teams of 3, one gunner and 2 helpers who carried extra ammo and covered the BAR man when reloading.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:27 AM

61. I wish my dad made me cool stuff like his father did

Imagine heading off to WW I and your father saying, "Son, here's a little something I cooked up in the workshop for you to try out over there. It's used for "walking fire" and I'm thinking of calling it an automatic rifle, what do you think?"

I had the "pleasure" of shooting one at a range outside of Phu Loi in 1971. It was a handful but I watched it pulverize a cinder block wall.

A lot of older, field grade officers were able to hang onto "obsolete" arms. We had one BAR, 2 Thompsons and an MP40 "bring back". The BAR had been converted to NATO .308.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:14 PM

18. Anschutz makes extremely accuarate target rifles...

Your post reminded me of my half brother's Anschutz 1413 Super Match with an enormous Unertl scope.

It was a beautiful precision tool and an absolute tack driver but it was a heavy beast. Some who post here would call it a sniper rifle but it was only a .22 LR single shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:16 PM

20. Always a pleasure to read a well thought out

and factual post that draws from both experience and data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:06 AM

29. Dreaded bayonet attacks

 

Nice post. If some could explain the logic of bayonet bans much would be appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to E6-B (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:24 AM

31. I endorse them? But, anyone who needs a bayonet, should be prohibited from guns.

Well, unless you are picking up roadside trash with your beloved gun. Get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:45 AM

33. Is it a massive problem? Bayonet fear mongering.

 

Are bayonet attacks such a massive problem that they need to be banned? I suspect some fear mongering going on? They are banned on the same legislation trying to ban pistol grips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to E6-B (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:40 AM

39. If you really think you need a bayonet, you should talk to a medical professional IMlayO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:45 AM

54. Why? Flash supressors?

 

Such a simple question. Yet no one can explain why banning bayonets needs to be in legislation. I also wonder why flash supressors need to be banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:40 PM

142. Why should he need a medical professional when you're right here on the scene?

 

Can't you just do a Frist diagnosis and prescribe some meds for the poor guy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wistful Vista (Reply #142)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:40 PM

170. Can you help me understand flash suppressor logic?

 

Flash supressors are also on the ban list, I don't understand why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to E6-B (Reply #170)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 08:06 PM

229. Sadly, I can not.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:05 AM

41. I prefer to shoot the litter back to the stone age

="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

The pistol grip would make it easier to control the bayonet.
Lighten up



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:42 AM

53. I used my bayonet in the army, and carry one when hunting

First, they're great for opening cans. They seem to be made of very strong steel, plus they're ugly enough that opening a can won't mar them noticably.

Second, stick a bayonet into a tree, and it makes a great T-P roll holder. This is after using the same bayonet to dig a personal latrine hole.

I sharpened the army bayonet, so I could use it as a general-duty knife. Not the best for that purpose, but it worked for cutting rope, army green tape, communication wire, etc.

Disclaimer: The only blood drawn with my bayonets was my own. Ouch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:59 PM

88. I think really they're talking about the attachment to a rifle...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:59 PM

104. A bayonet is merely a knife...

 

...designed in such a manner as to allow it to be attached to a rifle. The reason for this is simple necessity.

When firearms were first brought to the battlefield, they didn't have the range or accuracy they have today. They also took (comparatively) forever to load. At some point, the enemy was going to close to a range at which one could no longer use them as a firearm and would be reduced to using melee weapons. At that time, the most common arm was a pole arm, basically a spear - which is nothing more than a knife on a stick. The first bayonets allowed musketeers to turn their weapons into something a bit more useful at contact range.

As firearms progressed, there remained a need for close in protection - and so the bayonet remained. Even today, when the idea of doing away with it has been brought up, the very real effect of 7-10" of steel on the body of someone who is wanting to kill you tends to keep the bayonet attachment on military firearms. Yes, it is barbaric, but war is supposed to suck. If it were fun, we'd never stop fighting.

Does a bayonet have other uses? Sure does - at the end of the day, its simply a knife - man's first tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #104)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:10 PM

123. Most of the early bayonets were 16-24" long

And were quite handy for a number of projects.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:47 AM

55. Is there any use for a forward pistol grip?

I've seen a pistol grip on an AR-style rifle which was mounted under the front of the handguard. So it had two pistol grips.

It looked interesting but didn't seem to offer much in terms of improved shootability.

Have you used one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:30 AM

63. The same ergonomics as the rear pistol grip.

It rotates your wrist and hand 90 degrees (a more natural position), and puts the flexor / extensor muscles in your forearm in a better position to control the front sight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:04 AM

64. Great post!!

I particularly liked that you boldly posted the statistics which clearly demonstrate that rifles are less frequently used to kill people than hands/feet and steak knives. I see already that there are those among us who take it as an article of faith that rifles are the greatest evil and will not even trouble their mind with those same statistics. Keep up the good work! Surely there are some "fence-sitters" around for whom those statistics will be meaningful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:31 PM

65. The Devil!!!

That guy with the AR is shooting *GASP* left-handed!!! He's the devil!!! A death spewing devil!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:57 PM

71. Good to hear from you again, Ben. Hope all is well in your family. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:20 PM

150. Doing great, thanks!

Here's my superhero sidekick on his way to his most recent cardiology checkup at Duke Children's:



He's gained back most of his pre-surgery weight and is totally back to baseline in most respects, except for being on a small amount of Lasix to deal with some residual lung effusion. The heart surgery was totally successful, but they do need to go back in with a balloon catheter and dilate some stenoses in the distal pulmonary arteries, which they can't reach surgically, so I'll be taking him back to Boston Children's in a couple months for that. (We knew about that going in, so this isn't unexpected.)

His RV-PA conduit looks great and it's big enough that it should last him till the valve wears out, and it's designed to accomodate one transcatheter valve replacement (Melody valve). So it's not unreasonable to speculate that he could go 20 years on this conduit, unless calcification is worse than expected or something.

He also made out like a bandit on Christmas presents, as might be expected. Although I didn't fulfill one request....he asked me a few weeks ago for a semiauto-only PPSh to keep in the safe for range trips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #150)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:53 PM

163. +1. Dude, that's good news. Thanks for the update.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #150)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:08 PM

190. Glad to hear things look a lot better than they did for a while there.

It's toughest when the little ones are hurting and there's little we can do for them.

I went through that once, spent my share of time in the waiting rooms at Mayo in Minnesota. But now they are all grown adults, parents on their own and going through some ups and downs of their own.

Good to have you back and with things at home better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #150)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:01 PM

196. That determined look. Wish I were that young if for that reason only. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:13 PM

75. What a person with no feffing clue sounds like....

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to E6-B (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:58 PM

86. I see you're a fan of the Tucker! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #86)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:39 PM

97. no, probably googled

"MacCarthy saying something stupid"

here is one about heat seeking bullets, a true technological feat (or tracer rounds, she changes the subject or does not know the difference)



Oh yeah, she is a DINO (ran as Dem only after losing a GOP primary. She was still a registered Republican in her first term) that voted for the Enron loophole

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #97)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:51 PM

134. OMFG!

 

I hear ignorant bullshit from the anti-gunners all the time, but how much downright stupidity can one person pack into a few seconds?

This woman takes the cake.

Yes, I have to say stupidity.

Ignorance can be cured. But being faced with the facts and ignoring them, as this woman surely has been, is stupidity.

Stupidity can't be cured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissedByBush (Reply #134)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:27 PM

167. OMFG she is in Congress writing gun control laws.

 

OMFG is right. When I first saw this video I could not believe that someone so ignorant about guns is actually writing gun control legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to E6-B (Reply #167)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:56 PM

207. I cannot believe...

 

...someone can be that stupid and manage to remember to breathe on their own...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #86)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:30 PM

129. Didn't you just post a thread in Meta

where you admitted you posted something from a Tucker site? Maybe we should grant each other the benefit of the doubt I'm sure you'd want extended to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #129)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:06 PM

147. Unknowingly via yahoo news.

I then raised the question of whether such sources were allowable in DU3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #147)


Response to E6-B (Reply #75)


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:10 PM

108. Death Spewing hip fire...

There are a lot of factors to take in when determining where a shot will land. Those factors would be compounded if one is firing from the hip.



1. When fired from the hip a rifle is at one's side off center from the body, by about 8 inches.
2. The individual is not aiming, but guessing where the shot will land.
3. The body is not behind the rifle to take up recoil so the firearm will sway and bounce quite a bit.
4. Also, since the rifle is off center it causes the body to twist away from the rifle.

In the video above you can see that the muzzle of the rifle moves up and down about 3 to 4 inches and you can also see his body rotating away 3 to 4 inches from every shot. Just these factors will add up to missed shots even at very close range.

Here are some simple math factors that can determine where a shot will land.
1. Distance the muzzle to the target
2. Left/Right movement of the muzzle by the shooter
3. Up/Down movement of the muzzle by the shooter

Since we are not talking longer shots I will not need to show the effects of gravity, wind, elevation, muzzle velocity, bullet weight, ballistic coefficient, temperature, altitude, air pressure, etc... as they will have almost zero effect on where a shot would land within 3 meters.

Just judging from the video this shooter is not aiming level, but the muzzle is pointed about 2 inches higher than level. Also, since he is at the hip and to the side he has to compensate(aim across his body to the left) for where he thinks that the shot will go. So if he is simply off by that 2 inches up and 4 inches left at the tip of the muzzle he will miss his theoretical aim point. He will be about 6 inches left and 5 inches high off his target if his target is only a meter away and 18~19 inches high and 13~14 inches to the left of his target at 3 meters. And that is just his first shot. His other shots would be off even farther. This does not even take into account his ability to guess as to the actual aim point.

There was an episode of Top Shot where the contestants had to hip fire. These were highly trained military professionals and competitors. They did not do very well at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #108)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:49 PM

243. And compare that can't-hit-squat hip shooting

to aimed fire from an ordinary 1970s vintage Beretta 9mm pistol:



Or aimed fire from a civilian AK (or other non-automatic rifle) from the shoulder, as designed:



Or, heck, compare it to aimed fire from 1860s-1870s vintage lever-actions, single-action revolvers, and pump shotguns with 2-round magazines:



Check out the rate of aimed fire of that lever-action rifle at 0:12...and consider that you could have anywhere from 15 to 34 rounds in the magazine. In 1873.

Yeah, hip shooting generally sucks, unless you are shooting a full-auto subgun that doesn't kick much (e.g. an actual Title 2 restricted PPSh or something along that line).

If AK-from-the-hip guy had been shooting against actual targets, he'd have been lucky to have gotten two or three of A-zone hits with an entire magazine.

To the skeptics: Find a USPSA or 3-gun match in your area and attend as a spectator. Observe whether people who are shooting actual targets against the clock hip-shoot or shoot from the shoulder. After all, if hip shooting were the fastest way to get hits, people would be doing it to win matches.



Edited to add:

You can hip-shoot a lever-action too, if you want to make noise fast and not hit anything, just like you can with a semiauto:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #108)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:19 PM

246. Actually, that's not hip firing...

 

It's sort of high-muffin-top firing....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #246)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:04 PM

247. Point of order

My hips are beneath my muffin top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #247)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 10:49 PM

248. My point exactly...

 

That was no-where near a hip...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:40 PM

113. I shot a muzzle loader for the first time last weeked (obviously, no pistol grip)...

 

to be honest, it's the first time I ever tried to shoot targets at long distance with a standard hunting stock - every other long range shooting I've done have been with pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, or pistol grip tactical stocks.

I must say that a standard stock is WAY inferior to controlling the recoil and aiming of the gun. Much less comfortable and feels very awkward. IMO. A pistol grip rifle MUCH more accurately fits the natural physiology of shouldering a rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:08 PM

122. I wish all criminals would always shoot from the hip

 

They'd hit a lot fewer people.

And here's another thumbhole gun, basically an enclosed pistol grip as noted, in a single-shot gun good for pretty much nothing but hunting:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissedByBush (Reply #122)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:07 PM

210. *dancing*

Check the profile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:01 PM

244. Isn't it great seeing fun guns being accepted by common shooters across America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread