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.

 whembly wrote:
I sorta disagree with this premise....sure, there are some who do treat 'em as toyz, but for many, it's a hobby.

Yes, that is exactly the problem. Instead of treating the dangerous, deadly weapons as dangerous deadly weapons, they treat them the same as they would a fething model airplane.

 agnosto wrote:
Actually, you don't need a machine shop. There are multiple solutions to give you either a full-auto experience or near to it. One that comes to mind is "Slide Fire" legal and requires no paperwork. The surprising thing with slide fire is you still have a great amount of control and accuracy (I wouldn't have thought so considering the mechanics).

Bump firing doesn't turn a semiautomatic into an automatic. It does use a semiautomatic's mechanics against it, though, to produce similar results. According to the government, it's legal.

Armor piercing rounds have one use in our society, killing cops.

I'll make myself more clear: which armor piercing rounds? Numerous commercially-available standard "non-military" rounds get through anything short of a plate carrier. That 30/06 you mentioned earlier, for example.

Really, the drum mag isn't a huge issue as it takes little time to swap mags anyway; however, I do believe that extended magazines have no real purpose for any legal activities. If you can't kill it or hit it with the first 2 shots, you should sell your firearm and at the gun range you have the leisure to change mags as often as you like.

How many high stress shootings have you been involved in, out of curiosity? Accuracy post adrenaline dump goes to hell for most people, especially with handguns. It's why NYPD routinely hits everything except the target. Two-way ranges are quite a bit different than plinking. All decent defensive schools teach you to shoot until the threat's neutralized. Two, check, follow up has long since gone out of vogue, especially given the average rounds to incapacity isn't under two for almost all handgun calibers.

I fail to see how advising someone to carry a smaller caliber weapon for personal protection is bad advice, especially when said person is licensed (and therefor trained) to do so. It would be better than seeing yahoos walking around with a .44 strapped to their hip or walking through a mall with an ar on their back (sorry personal pet-peeve).

Small caliber is fine, the caliber you mentioned is horrific.

I think you're taking the private warships out of context; read the constitution. Letters of Marque and Reprisal were placed in their for a reason.

I'm not talking solely about privateers. If you chose, you could build a 50-gun ship in 1780. You didn't need permission to do it, either.

I have no illusions. The AR was being used as an example because it's the context for the article in the OP but this could be applied to any firearm.

Then I honestly have no idea what you're advocating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I sorta disagree with this premise....sure, there are some who do treat 'em as toyz, but for many, it's a hobby.

Yes, that is exactly the problem. Instead of treating the dangerous, deadly weapons as dangerous deadly weapons, they treat them the same as they would a fething model airplane.

Lots of dangerous hobbies exist.

Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.

 Melissia wrote:
Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.

Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.

Extremely enertaining here

Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.

Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.

I can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of the information in this link, but I do think there is some truth to the idea that firearms are at least marketed to people as "toys for big boys", to quote another poster in another thread.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of the information in this link, but I do think there is some truth to the idea that firearms are at least marketed to people as "toys for big boys", to quote another poster in another thread.

A lot of products that are very far from anything resembling toys, many of them quite dangerous, are marketed in a manner that speaks less to their functional utility and more to their aesthetic appeal or cultural cache.

Either way, I was more taking issue with the "tools of mass murder" nonsense.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of the information in this link, but I do think there is some truth to the idea that firearms are at least marketed to people as "toys for big boys", to quote another poster in another thread.

A lot of products that are very far from anything resembling toys, many of them quite dangerous, are marketed in a manner that speaks less to their functional utility and more to their aesthetic appeal or cultural cache.

Either way, I was more taking issue with the "tools of mass murder" nonsense.

Could you give me an example of what some of these other products are? (I'm honestly curious)

But yeah, the "tools of mass murder", while technically correct sometimes, is a little disingenuous. I'm not going to consider letting rare incidents be the defining title of firearms.

Four wheelers.....

 azazel the cat wrote:
Could you give me an example of what some of these other products are? (I'm honestly curious)

Cars and alcohol, just off the top of my head.

Fair point about the cars and booze.

Honestly, I think my problem with that marketing (for firearms) is while things such as cars might be marketed as toys, their primary function is not to kill people; as such I don't find the marketing quite so problematic. I've said it in another thread: my issue is that I think the marketing of firearms as toys is detrimental to the level of care and respect the tools require, and unfortunately I think this marketing is designed to appeal to exactly the irresponsible and immature individual that I'm primarily concerned with obtaining the firearms. (again, I'm less concerned about the criminal with the gun than I am about the imbecile with the loaded god complex).

 Melissia wrote:
Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.

+1 that's pretty funny.

Seaward.

Bumpfire is one example; some older, less safe methods involved saving the firing pin or sear for some weapons which didn't require anything more technical than tools found around the house. Though technically not "auto" bumpfire produces something very, very close.

Many examples of either AP or just HV rounds are a danger and again, no reason to own any of them unless you're planning something other than an acceptable reason own a firearm anyway.

I don't see what's wrong with a .25? Even .22s are excellent weapons in trained hands because the rounds tend to penetrate without an exit and bounce around a bit; causing more internal damage. You, yourself give very good reasons not to have anything larger on your person because higher caliber rounds have a greater chance to harm bystanders or penetrate buildings/cover. The whole point of carrying a self-defense firearm is to 1)scare the attacker away 2)do the job of protecting yourself without hurting innocents. I can see no reason to carry a .44 as a self-defense weapon nor a rifle strapped to your back, in public. If you're going to conceal/carry, do so responsibly and be trained.

I've never been in a situation where I've been shot at or had to shoot at someone. I have killed a fair number of god's creatures but always with the intent to make use of their flesh for my own sustenance. Again, there are few acceptable reasons to own a firearm; it's not a toy, it's a tool that only has a few acceptable uses. Not treating a firearm as the weapon that was created to cause harm and death that it is, is the pinnacle of pointless stupidity.

I think you need to check again about privateers. Sanctioned privateers had the blessing of the govt. Unsanctioned privateers were called pirates and were the same as armed gangs running around doing drivebys. Yes, if you had the money, you could build a boat with cannon and rage hell on the high seas but there were only two ways to go about it; legally or not. Pull into a port and not carry a letter of marque and you could have found yourself arrested for piracy.

My point? I advocate sanity when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms. The constitution does not give us the right to possess WMDs, it gives us the right to protect ourselves, our neighbors and our country from the depredations of foreign powers. 99.9% of the people in this country should never own a firearm; they do not have the time or inclination to actually learn how to handle them properly or even respect them for what they are, a tool that was designed to kill. not hurt, not put holes in paper targets. kill. There is no other reason to own a firearm than to learn how to kill with it; to prepare yourself to kill with it and to kill with it. If all someone plans to do is take it out of the case and go down the street because it's fun to put holes in paper, they don't hunt to feed themselves, they don't carry it for protection or even have it readily available to protect their home; they have no business owning it to begin with.

My two cents. You, of course, are free to disagree with me.

Cheers.

So... how many deaths did A) caused compared to B)?

 whembly wrote:
So... how many deaths did A) caused compared to B)?

That's not a serious question and you know it. How many wars were fought with scissors?

Read the tag on B...

Do we need to start registering & licensing all scissors now? o.O

Either carry concealed scissors/hammers/whatever it stop pretending that a gun is a tool that can be replaced by whatever you want in order to hurt and/or kill people.

Or is everybody here to chicken to use their scicors to overthrow a tyranical government.

Guns are a tool designed to make it very easy to hurt and kill. That's a fact, simple as that. That's why we give them to soldiers and that is why we want to carry them. So we can kill people dead that try to hurt us.

Any gun owner that presents that guns are anything other than that is stupid and not worth listening to IMHO. They can be a hobby as well, hey can be art, but they are weapons designed to kill.

Back to the OP, I myself am saving up for a new AK in the near future. Not out of panic of a ban, but because like the AR-15, the prices have almost doubled on them in my area (a year ago it was around $400-500, now its upwards of $800). I'm slowly in the process of building an AR as well, but that has pretty much halted because the parts I want are almost always out of stock, or the prices have gone up.

Its not just people freaking because of the big bad government, it's also people freaking because dealers can put whatever they want on that price tag right now.

I ended up selling my cheap ass AK for almost triple what I paid for it, and got myself an M1 Garand instead, I'll probably pick up an AR-15 in the near future just to make the scum bags in Denver mad.

As to this thread... wow guys. Just wow. Lot of stupid and willful misrepresentation at work here.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

As to this thread... wow guys. Just wow. Lot of stupid and willful misrepresentation at work here.

This thread was posted for the purpose of trolling, its not as if any gun thread is likely to be different from the dozens (and dozens) of others. Wilful misrepresentations are part and parcel of this process.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fair point about the cars and booze.

Honestly, I think my problem with that marketing (for firearms) is while things such as cars might be marketed as toys, their primary function is not to kill people; as such I don't find the marketing quite so problematic. I've said it in another thread: my issue is that I think the marketing of firearms as toys is detrimental to the level of care and respect the tools require, and unfortunately I think this marketing is designed to appeal to exactly the irresponsible and immature individual that I'm primarily concerned with obtaining the firearms. (again, I'm less concerned about the criminal with the gun than I am about the imbecile with the loaded god complex).

It may be fair to say that the marketing of firearms as 'toys' may be more troublesome than cars or alcohol as marketed 'toys'.

However, which of those three is the most deadly? And the second most?

Ok, I'm getting really sick of this "primary function is to kill people" crap.

In my life, I've held 4 fire arms that whose function was to kill people. All 4 of those were handed to me from a Security Forces Armory on a military base.

Now, the dozens of other fire arms that I've handled had absolutely zero function/design intent/purpose of killing people.

Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).

Saying that they do is just as dumb as Feinsteins comment saying that it's legal to hunt humans because we have 30 round magazines.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fair point about the cars and booze.

Honestly, I think my problem with that marketing (for firearms) is while things such as cars might be marketed as toys, their primary function is not to kill people; as such I don't find the marketing quite so problematic. I've said it in another thread: my issue is that I think the marketing of firearms as toys is detrimental to the level of care and respect the tools require, and unfortunately I think this marketing is designed to appeal to exactly the irresponsible and immature individual that I'm primarily concerned with obtaining the firearms. (again, I'm less concerned about the criminal with the gun than I am about the imbecile with the loaded god complex).

It may be fair to say that the marketing of firearms as 'toys' may be more troublesome than cars or alcohol as marketed 'toys'.

However, which of those three is the most deadly? And the second most?

Oh wait... what about accidental?

You use them for entertainment, that doesn't make them any less designed to inflict damage and death as efficiently as possible.

If you want to lie to yourself be my guest. But have the decency to quit pretending that the manufacturers of firearms are making sure to limit FTEs so we don't have to stop being entertained. And that bullet manufacturers do not design their bullets for maximum penetration and damage so that we can maximize our entertainment.

I'm not saying that weapons cannot be entertaining, or that they can be fun to collect, or valuable pieces of history, or wonderful pieces of art.

But they are weapons invented and designed for one purpose. To project a piece of metal at a lethal velocity to inflict maximum damage in the most reliable way possible.

That doesn't make them a bad thing; but it is the reason why we need do be responsible gun owners because that is their purpose. But it makes fun owners look stupid and like idiots who don't want to admit that our "toys/hobby/collection" are tools made to inflict injury.

Sorry that gets you butthurt.

 d-usa wrote:
You use them for entertainment, that doesn't make them any less designed to inflict damage and death as efficiently as possible.

If you want to lie to yourself be my guest. But have the decency to quit pretending that the manufacturers of firearms are making sure to limit FTEs so we don't have to stop being entertained. And that bullet manufacturers do not design their bullets for maximum penetration and damage so that we can maximize our entertainment.

I'm not saying that weapons cannot be entertaining, or that they can be fun to collect, or valuable pieces of history, or wonderful pieces of art.

But they are weapons invented and designed for one purpose. To project a piece of metal at a lethal velocity to inflict maximum damage in the most reliable way possible.

That doesn't make them a bad thing; but it is the reason why we need do be responsible gun owners because that is their purpose. But it makes fun owners look stupid and like idiots who don't want to admit that our "toys/hobby/collection" are tools made to inflict injury.

Sorry that gets you butthurt.

@d-usa... what are you really advocating for?

 djones520 wrote:
Ok, I'm getting really sick of this "primary function is to kill people" crap.

You're right they're also used for killing animals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You use them for entertainment, that doesn't make them any less designed to inflict damage and death as efficiently as possible.

If you want to lie to yourself be my guest. But have the decency to quit pretending that the manufacturers of firearms are making sure to limit FTEs so we don't have to stop being entertained. And that bullet manufacturers do not design their bullets for maximum penetration and damage so that we can maximize our entertainment.

I'm not saying that weapons cannot be entertaining, or that they can be fun to collect, or valuable pieces of history, or wonderful pieces of art.

But they are weapons invented and designed for one purpose. To project a piece of metal at a lethal velocity to inflict maximum damage in the most reliable way possible.

That doesn't make them a bad thing; but it is the reason why we need do be responsible gun owners because that is their purpose. But it makes fun owners look stupid and like idiots who don't want to admit that our "toys/hobby/collection" are tools made to inflict injury.

Sorry that gets you butthurt.

@d-usa... what are you really advocating for?

If I remember right, better and tighter gun regulations.

 Cheesecat wrote:

@d-usa... what are you really advocating for?

If I remember right, better and tighter gun regulations.

 djones520 wrote:
Ok, I'm getting really sick of this "primary function is to kill people" crap.

In my life, I've held 4 fire arms that whose function was to kill people. All 4 of those were handed to me from a Security Forces Armory on a military base.

Now, the dozens of other fire arms that I've handled had absolutely zero function/design intent/purpose of killing people.

Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).

Saying that they do is just as dumb as Feinsteins comment saying that it's legal to hunt humans because we have 30 round magazines.

I never said "kill people" (no sure if anyone else did), I said the primary purpose for a firearm is to kill. If you or anyone else derives enjoyment from putting holes in paper, good for you but that does not change the fact that "guns" were created to kill and for no other reason than to do that one thing and every firearm made since its inception has been designed to be better at that one thing than the previous version. You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".

Honestly, even with all the half-baked open/concealed carry laws going around the US right now it's really a good thing that most people don't feel the need to do this:


or this:


Because nothing says "self-defense" like a pink pistol strapped to your waist in suburbia when you go to Starbucks for coffee. Am I the only person that thinks this is stupid? She's just asking some bad person, who was denied ownership of a firearm for good reason, to go up and take it from her and kill her and a bunch of other people.

Aren't flamethrowers less regulated in America than Pot? Because a weapon that causes death so horrible that it's not considered Kosher by international law anymore is totally more acceptable than a mild drug more or less everyone's tried at least once.

That being said video games have taught me that watching flamethrower victims is funny, especially how they scream and flail.

 agnosto wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ok, I'm getting really sick of this "primary function is to kill people" crap.

In my life, I've held 4 fire arms that whose function was to kill people. All 4 of those were handed to me from a Security Forces Armory on a military base.

Now, the dozens of other fire arms that I've handled had absolutely zero function/design intent/purpose of killing people.

Firearms sold domestically do not serve a purpose of "killing people". Their purpose is to provide entertainment, to provide food, and to provide protection (which in some cases can result in dead people, but that is not due to the person using it for protection).

Saying that they do is just as dumb as Feinsteins comment saying that it's legal to hunt humans because we have 30 round magazines.

I never said "kill people" (no sure if anyone else did), I said the primary purpose for a firearm is to kill. If you or anyone else derives enjoyment from putting holes in paper, good for you but that does not change the fact that "guns" were created to kill and for no other reason than to do that one thing and every firearm made since its inception has been designed to be better at that one thing than the previous version. You could do the same thing with a BB gun or some other similar, non-lethal device that could just as easily put a hole in a paper target though without the added "boom".

Honestly, even with all the half-baked open/concealed carry laws going around the US right now it's really a good thing that most people don't feel the need to do this:

*snip*

Because nothing says "self-defense" like a pink pistol strapped to your waist in suburbia when you go to Starbucks for coffee. Am I the only person that thinks this is stupid? She's just asking some bad person, who was denied ownership of a firearm for good reason, to go up and take it from her and kill her and a bunch of other people.

Two others in this thread alone already have.

And despite all the cases of open carry that occur across this nation, I cannot recall ever hearing of a single case of someone doing what you postulated.