Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 agnosto wrote:

The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.

Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.

unfortunately, a little bit of knowledge or the wrong knowledge is often worse then at least knowing you know nothing. I do appreciate you being polite about it, so take this the nicest way possible

1: transferrable auto sears are class 3, and heavily regulated, and super expensive, IF you can even find one.
2: you cannot just drop them into a semi auto and convert it to full auto, you need a full auto lower, or do extensive machining to a semi lower as I have previously stated. If you have the tools/knowhow to conver SA lowers to FA lowers, you have the same tools/exp to make brand new FA firearms from solid blocks of aluminium.

This is what I mean when I say, and i mean this politely as I can, because you are a nice guy who is actually discussing the topic with me, which is appreciated

But you simply dont know what you are talking about, and simply GOOGLING this stuff will not help, as the internets are just full of total BS.

3: bump stocks do nothing more then pulling the trigger really, really fast, I can do the same thing without a bump stock. its less effective then full auto, or semi, as its harder to control.


4: I can shoot 30 rounds in ~ 20 seconds or less from a semi auto, I can shoot 30 rounds from a lever or bolt action in ~40 seconds. or less.. the difference is extremely small, and in the semi and lever's cases, the shots are actually aimed instead of sprayed. I can shoot 6 shots of 9mm pellets in .000001 seconds with a single shotgun pull.

In all these cases, it matters not how many shots you shoot, but how many times you hit, Full auto/bump fire shot at the rates you mention generally means you are missing with 28 out of the 30 shots at best. the semi/lever/shotgun will actually be aimed for each shot, and is far more deadly.



Again, I do appreciate that you are being appreciative of both sides here, I hope im not coming off as a jerk

 Frazzled wrote:
I've not heard of anyone converting their AR to select fire. Its a felony IIRC. Maybe the cartels do, but hey they have rocket launchers and armored vehicles now.

I've heard but never seen a bumpfire stock, but reviews are not good for it.

Admittedly I'm not a tacticool AR fan myself. My eyesight makes any rifle require a scope just slightly larger than the Hubble scope, so thats kinda meh for me. I have .22s with big scopes for plinking fun and Dad's M1, but otherwise its scattergun/pistol for me.

I likes me some shotgun though...

Yeah, I was into firearms when I was younger. I was on the shooting team for my Young Marines platoon and did quite a bit of hunting but I've never been a gun enthusiast. Being from Oklahoma, they were always around and I was educated to respect them and in safe use but never owned more than two at any given time. Personally, I don't fear assault weapons but I can understand those that do just as I can understand people who want absolute freedom to own any weapon they want. It's not the weapons or access to them that kills people, it's the idiots who are not gleaned from the gene-pool before they have an opportunity to go out and do harm. Darwinism is unfortunately well and truly dead.

Now that I'm old and crotchety, I'm with you, shotguns are the way to go.

 Frazzled wrote:
I avoid the issue by refusing to entertain thoughts.

It's still entertaining with the amount of mental ju-jitsu they go thru


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
There was a time Was a loop hole in the law. Where you can buy a lower assembly "kit" to to make a 16/4 into a full auto. Think it lasted three months before it was shut down by slapping a additional amendment to the law to cover that portion

Yup... now the workaround is buying the lower receiver unmilled.

You can have a milling pawty now!

 easysauce wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.

Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.

unfortunately, a little bit of knowledge or the wrong knowledge is often worse then at least knowing you know nothing. I do appreciate you being polite about it, so take this the nicest way possible

1: transferrable auto sears are class 3, and heavily regulated, and super expensive, IF you can even find one.
2: you cannot just drop them into a semi auto and convert it to full auto, you need a full auto lower, or do extensive machining to a semi lower as I have previously stated. If you have the tools/knowhow to conver SA lowers to FA lowers, you have the same tools/exp to make brand new FA firearms from solid blocks of aluminium.

This is what I mean when I say, and i mean this politely as I can, because you are a nice guy who is actually discussing the topic with me, which is appreciated

But you simply dont know what you are talking about, and simply GOOGLING this stuff will not help, as the internets are just full of total BS.

3: bump stocks do nothing more then pulling the trigger really, really fast, I can do the same thing without a bumb stock. its less effective then full auto, or semi, as its harder to control.


4: I can shoot 30 rounds in ~ 20 seconds from a semi auto, I can shoot 30 rounds from a lever or bolt action in ~40 seconds... the difference is extremely small, and in all cases of "how many bullets can I spray in the least amount of time" the shots will have no aim to them. I can shoot 6 shots of 9mm pellets in .000001 seconds with a single shotgun pull.

No offense taken. Like I said, it was just a throw-away comment and one that I don't hold an opinion on one way or the other. Thanks for the info!

What I'm really interested in is what sane gun laws would look like. We don't want to restrict access to firearms by responsible people but then I don't think that everybody should just be able to walk into Academy and buy a semi-auto rifle and a crate of ammo (by crate I'm being hyperbolic but 500 round boxes...really?).

What do you think about requiring a safety course for firearm ownership ownership. We already have background checks. Most applicable states have course requirements for conceal-carry. And I had to take a hunter education course before I could apply for and receive a hunting license...

Maybe exceptions for shotguns or other hunting rifles. Which leads me to a question. I don't think it'd be ideal to hunt with an AR and I don't know anyone who would do so...my old 30-06 would have sufficed for deer and such.

Who cares? Why would anyone want a fully automatic weapon anyway? Your first and second rounds would hit your target but muzzle climb would make the rest of them miss by a country mile. And don't give me that's spiel about suppressing fire. You ain't doing that as part of home defense, much less doing it effectively by yourself.

 agnosto wrote:

Spoiler:

 easysauce wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.

Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.

unfortunately, a little bit of knowledge or the wrong knowledge is often worse then at least knowing you know nothing. I do appreciate you being polite about it, so take this the nicest way possible

1: transferrable auto sears are class 3, and heavily regulated, and super expensive, IF you can even find one.
2: you cannot just drop them into a semi auto and convert it to full auto, you need a full auto lower, or do extensive machining to a semi lower as I have previously stated. If you have the tools/knowhow to conver SA lowers to FA lowers, you have the same tools/exp to make brand new FA firearms from solid blocks of aluminium.

This is what I mean when I say, and i mean this politely as I can, because you are a nice guy who is actually discussing the topic with me, which is appreciated

But you simply dont know what you are talking about, and simply GOOGLING this stuff will not help, as the internets are just full of total BS.

3: bump stocks do nothing more then pulling the trigger really, really fast, I can do the same thing without a bumb stock. its less effective then full auto, or semi, as its harder to control.


4: I can shoot 30 rounds in ~ 20 seconds from a semi auto, I can shoot 30 rounds from a lever or bolt action in ~40 seconds... the difference is extremely small, and in all cases of "how many bullets can I spray in the least amount of time" the shots will have no aim to them. I can shoot 6 shots of 9mm pellets in .000001 seconds with a single shotgun pull.

No offense taken. Like I said, it was just a throw-away comment and one that I don't hold an opinion on one way or the other. Thanks for the info!

What I'm really interested in is what sane gun laws would look like. We don't want to restrict access to firearms by responsible people but then I don't think that everybody should just be able to walk into Academy and buy a semi-auto rifle and a crate of ammo (by crate I'm being hyperbolic but 500 round boxes...really?).

What do you think about requiring a safety course for firearm ownership ownership. We already have background checks. Most applicable states have course requirements for conceal-carry. And I had to take a hunter education course before I could apply for and receive a hunting license...

Maybe exceptions for shotguns or other hunting rifles. Which leads me to a question. I don't think it'd be ideal to hunt with an AR and I don't know anyone who would do so...my old 30-06 would have sufficed for deer and such.

well, I am from canuckistan, and here we are on the "way to harsh" side of gun control, but we do things that make a lot of sense,

IE; mandatory training for FA purchases, with more training required for certain guns, hey thats ok, as long as everyone has access to the training, and its strictly safty based criteria you have to meet, that shouldnt infringe on the 2nd IMO. Our background checks are also universal, regardless if its a private sale or not.

the tricky part is when you get into licensing and registraion, as those always lead to confiscation, even if promises are made that they will not. I was a supporter of those things here but then when they started banning/confiscating things using them, I realized why its not a good thing to have.

much better to have a registry of those NOT allowed to own Firearms, as its easier to maintain, and provides a much better filter for preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands.

 d-usa wrote:
If we are not careful the legislature will legislate themselves more legislators...

This has happened many times.

 Frazzled wrote:


This statement has almost nothing to do with a sane relationship with the Bill of Rights. Did you just fall out of bed and miss over 200 years of jurisdprudence?

The past 200 years of Jurisprudence agree with my interpretation. As D-USA points out;

Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.

Its funny how people change tune with the Constitution (wasn't I accused of that like, a page ago?). It is the law. The highest law of the land, given that the government can't not do what it says under normal circumstance. The flaw with too many Americans is they treat the Constitution like a Fundamentalist treats the Bible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If we are not careful the legislature will legislate themselves more legislators...

This has happened many times.

Didn't they legislate that they couldn't have anymore legislators because the House was becoming too big

 Frazzled wrote:
I've not heard of anyone converting their AR to select fire. Its a felony IIRC. Maybe the cartels do, but hey they have rocket launchers and armored vehicles now.

In this case rule 35 applies: if it can be done to a gun, it will be done to a gun.

If cartels can do it, so can the "law abiding" citizens frequenting militia rallies.

 Ahtman wrote:
You can change attitudes toward the Second Amendment without amending it. We know this because it has happened over the last 200 years. This idea that things mean the exact same thing and have been interpreted the same throughout our history is just silly.

The OP article says as such (and I posted a short version in another gun thread a month ago) but as expected, no one cares Doesn't fit their personal narrative of freedom.

 LordofHats wrote:

Didn't they legislate that they couldn't have anymore legislators because the House was becoming too big

Did they? I've honestly never heard of this.

 agnosto wrote:

What I'm really interested in is what sane gun laws would look like. We don't want to restrict access to firearms by responsible people but then I don't think that everybody should just be able to walk into Academy and buy a semi-auto rifle and a crate of ammo (by crate I'm being hyperbolic but 500 round boxes...really?).

500 rounds in a rifle is a weekend of 3-gun. That's really not that much.

What do you think about requiring a safety course for firearm ownership ownership. We already have background checks. Most applicable states have course requirements for conceal-carry. And I had to take a hunter education course before I could apply for and receive a hunting license...

Is the state paying for it? If so, I'd be fine with it. Requiring classes for CCW is different because its not placing additional qualifications on owning the firearm, but simply how you can carry it. In my opinion, forcing someone to pay for a class to own a gun is no different than forcing someone to own a state issued ID to vote.

Maybe exceptions for shotguns or other hunting rifles. Which leads me to a question. I don't think it'd be ideal to hunt with an AR and I don't know anyone who would do so...my old 30-06 would have sufficed for deer and such.

Charles Whitmen only used hunting rifles and killed 12 people from the clock tower in Arlington and he killed another 3 people with a shotgun; so dis-including hunting rifles here is a bit silly. As to hunting with an AR: why not? They're plenty accurate and 5.56 is big enough to put down a deer or boar.

 cincydooley wrote:
In my opinion, forcing someone to pay for a class to own a gun is no different than forcing someone to own a state issued ID to vote.

The solution is simple: state IDs are free.

 cincydooley wrote:

Charles Whitmen only used hunting rifles and killed 12 people from the clock tower in Arlington and he killed another 3 people with a shotgun; so dis-including hunting rifles here is a bit silly. As to hunting with an AR: why not? They're plenty accurate and 5.56 is big enough to put down a deer or boar.

and you can just swap the upper out to any caliber you want from 308 to .50 too.

its one of the best hunting rifles there is... I hate how anything with a telescoping stock seems to be scoffed at for hunting... some of us dont fit the one size fits all solid stocks after all!

 easysauce wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Charles Whitmen only used hunting rifles and killed 12 people from the clock tower in Arlington and he killed another 3 people with a shotgun; so dis-including hunting rifles here is a bit silly. As to hunting with an AR: why not? They're plenty accurate and 5.56 is big enough to put down a deer or boar.

and you can just swap the upper out to any caliber you want from 308 to .50 too.

its one of the best hunting rifles there is... I hate how anything with a telescoping stock seems to be scoffed at for hunting... some of us dont fit the one size fits all solid stocks after all!

I use my AR-10 for big game. .308 round is one of the more accurate ones out there, and has all the stopping power you should ever need.

 Breotan wrote:
Who cares? Why would anyone want a fully automatic weapon anyway? Your first and second rounds would hit your target but muzzle climb would make the rest of them miss by a country mile. And don't give me that's spiel about suppressing fire. You ain't doing that as part of home defense, much less doing it effectively by yourself.

Depends on your set up, and shooting placement. Whenever I was rockin the 240 or 249 in the army, My groupings were almost perfectly circular (the "ice cream cone effect"


But yeah... Any more, even if it were 100% legal to own and shoot as I pleased, owning something like a BAR, 240, M60 or the like would be almost purely something that would be a wall decoration or similar.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Who cares? Why would anyone want a fully automatic weapon anyway? Your first and second rounds would hit your target but muzzle climb would make the rest of them miss by a country mile. And don't give me that's spiel about suppressing fire. You ain't doing that as part of home defense, much less doing it effectively by yourself.

Depends on your set up, and shooting placement. Whenever I was rockin the 240 or 249 in the army, My groupings were almost perfectly circular (the "ice cream cone effect"


But yeah... Any more, even if it were 100% legal to own and shoot as I pleased, owning something like a BAR, 240, M60 or the like would be almost purely something that would be a wall decoration or similar.

*shrugs* Things on the mexican border keep deteriorating, folks might want some of them.

Why would anyone want a fully automatic weapon anyway?

Why would anyone not?

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
In my opinion, forcing someone to pay for a class to own a gun is no different than forcing someone to own a state issued ID to vote.

The solution is simple: state IDs are free.

Did you conveniently forget the part of my quote where I said if it was free I'd be fine with it?

I think you did, silly.

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Didn't they legislate that they couldn't have anymore legislators because the House was becoming too big

Did they? I've honestly never heard of this.

Pretty sure. The Constitution calls for a Representative per a certain number of citizens. As time went on the House kept getting bigger and we set the House to a fixed number and began appropriating Reps by percentage of population instead.

Yeah, something like that; EDIT: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" The House was fixed to 435 in 1911.

 Breotan wrote:
Who cares? Why would anyone want a fully automatic weapon anyway? Your first and second rounds would hit your target but muzzle climb would make the rest of them miss by a country mile. And don't give me that's spiel about suppressing fire. You ain't doing that as part of home defense, much less doing it effectively by yourself.

My "hat in the ring" so to speak when it comes to the gun debate is as a WWII reenactor. We want automatic weapons so we can have a better experience. Sure, we can use bolt actions/semi autos but it isnt the same. We already have to get fake machine guns for the tanks and nothing is more awkward than when the thing inevitably breaks down in combat.

 agnosto wrote:


To someone like me who doesn't know a whole lot about guns, they're both pretty scarey if seen at a store or in a restaurant.

My wife's Japanese and I lived in S. Korea and Japan for over 7 years. During that time, a common question asked of me was if everybody in the US really carried guns in the open and just shot each other in the streets. Now, I know full well that no place in the world is entirely safe but I never had to worry about stray bullets walking through the seedier areas of Tokyo or Seoul. In fact, my wife has never gotten used to the idea that guns are so prevalent; she gets nervous around my neice's husband when he carries and he's a police officer.

It's not my intent to villify anyone. I believe in the basic right of Americans to own guns if they so choose but I also strongly believe in sensible restrictions for the public good. I don't know what the perfect solution is but I think that we, as a country, need to have a sane conversation rather than hiding behind old documents/out-dated concepts or hysterical, far left or right knee-jerk reactions.

To tell the truth, I am more worried about alcohol being involved somehow in the injury or death of a loved one or myself than a gun.

Some government statistics I like to point to when the subject of guns comes up:

The number of people murdered by guns during a year:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

the number of people in the U.S. who kill themselves with guns during a year:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

The number of people in the U.S. who die from alcohol related causes during a year:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

This is in addition to all the other negative effects alcohol has, as talked of by the CDC

The question I usually ask people that say guns are evil because they kill people is if they drink or distribute alcohol at parties, etc., since they are putting people more at risk than someone with a gun.

I know you're not directly saying that, but I am just putting this out for your consideration.

 cincydooley wrote:

Charles Whitmen only used hunting rifles and killed 12 people from the clock tower in Arlington and he killed another 3 people with a shotgun; so dis-including hunting rifles here is a bit silly. As to hunting with an AR: why not? They're plenty accurate and 5.56 is big enough to put down a deer or boar.

"And do you pukes know who taught him how to shoot?" "That's right, the United States Marine Corps"

(sorry, i do love me the beginning part of Full Metal Jacket )



I do agree that it is ludicrous to "force" people to attend a class simply to own a firearm. Carry/ concealed carry is a different matter though. And I agree that a simple State Issued ID card should be free*



*provided they are US citizens, or are permanent and legal alien/immigrant status.

You need a social contract to drive a car, so why not have one to own a weapon.

No need to run interpretations on a no longer relevant and archaic document

 44Ronin wrote:
You need a social contract to drive a car, so why not have one to own a weapon.

No need to run interpretations on a no longer relevant and archaic document

Because it's a right in the U.S.

The Bill of Rights is damn relevant.

 44Ronin wrote:
You need a social contract to drive a car, so why not have one to own a weapon.

No need to run interpretations on a no longer relevant and archaic document

The NICS background checks are basically that "social contract" for gun owners. getting a CCW license (where applicable) is much the same... Instead of working as a driving license does (which says, "I will not disobey traffic laws") it works from the opposite side (I have not broken laws that eliminate my right to arms)

 44Ronin wrote:
You need a social contract to drive a car, so why not have one to own a weapon.

No need to run interpretations on a no longer relevant and archaic document

We can just censor the media and install a state religion. No need to run interpretations on a no longer relevant and archaic document.

cwutididthar

Looks like we're going to have to look at banning cars if this takes off over here:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/22/deaths-injuries-reported-after-attack-in-capital-volatile-western-china-region/?intcmp=latestnews

One of the many rules in the Fight Club...of Dakka

Don't make fun of the US Constitution.
Being the US Constitution had a hand in saving Aussie's from Japan in the 40's

 Jihadin wrote:
One of the many rules in the Fight Club...of Dakka
Don't make fun of the US Constitution.

I don't make fun of the US Constitution.

I make fun of people who treat an ancient document as a quasi religious document.