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.

Apologies for all the questions but I'm hoping to see what your understanding of firearms is, your frame of reference, and what your conclusions are based on.

 Asherian Command wrote:
But I think the problem lies with there being too many guns or no background checks or you know the mental health of the united states which is terribly affected.

No background checks? When did this happen?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Going door to door taking guns is not a great idea. What about: IF you want to help your community, sell your guns to the local government for a good cause! Or something like that would bring way more positive attention and would be more benefical in the long run.

They have taxes for that purpose

 Asherian Command wrote:
I mean the tool is being used irresponsibly

Accidental deaths by firearms are at at all time low. Deaths by firearm are at an all time low. Please give a citation that demonstrates that guns are a tool being used irresponsibly

 Asherian Command wrote:
there should be some cutbacks such as a ban on high powered weaponry

What is a "high powered" weapon?

 Asherian Command wrote:
weapons that are military grade should always be banned

Semi automatic pistols are used by the military, as are bolt action rifles, pump action shot guns, magazine fed rifles, etc. What would make a weapon military grade?

 Asherian Command wrote:
High powered meaning sniper rifles, anything that could be classified as paramilitary or police armament. High powered rifle is also armor piercing or copper tipped rounds (IE explosive or marker rounds).

9mm can penetrate body armour. Is that a high powered round?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Low powered usually means civilian armament, such as an AR Rifle, Shotguns, and Pistols. (As long as the fall into the category of civilian and not paramilitary or police armament.)

Or you can take this definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_power_rifle

You just said that an AR is not a high powred weapon, but you linked to a definition in a sports setting that claims it is high powered. Which is it?

 Asherian Command wrote:
AR-15s are not high powered rifles compared to the M16 or the standard issue of a military unit. AR-15s are civilian weapons. Though they sure as hell look like a high powered rifle.

AR15s fire the exact same round as the M16/M4. What makes one high powered and the other not?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Thats a trick question. Most of those were used by military units in some period or another.

But I am lacking education of this. So educate me. What the helk is a paramilitary weapon? `

I know submachine guns are banned, but from what I know automatic weapons are banned. Explosives etc.

I do think that automatic weaponry should not be accessible to civilians, ever.

I want to be educated so please educate me

Given that you want some knowledge;
1) I have no idea what a paramilitary weapon is. Where did you hear that?
2) Submachine guns are not a legal category of firearms. The closest you would get would be a short barreled rifle which requires a tax stamp and approval from the ATF
3) Fully automatic weapons are not illegal. But you do need the sign off from your local Chief of Police, a tax stamp, permission from the ATF, and a very large sum of money as automatic weapons are increadibly expensive because of their rarity
4) Why should civilians not have access to automatic weaponry?

 Frazzled wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
California, NY, Chicago.

Correct, those are all states in America.

Chicago is a city.

I don't know what you are talking about chicago is clearly the only thing important where that state is concerned.

That nutball blog got more mileage on Dakka than I expected.

 Asherian Command wrote:

AR-15s are not high powered rifles compared to the M16 or the standard issue of a military unit. AR-15s are civilian weapons. Though they sure as hell look like a high powered rifle.

Ok dude.

Do you know what the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 is? None. They are the same gun.

M-16 is what the military calls the select-fire AR-15s they purchased from Colt beginning in 1962. AR-15 is what the semi-auto version of the weapon is called when its sold to private buyers, though with the right paperwork and modifications you can get select-fire AR-15s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

They are the same weapon. The M-16 just has full auto capabilities(not useful outside of an actual warzone) and some extra external features that have no bearing on its lethality.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That 1% includes POTUS and Pelosi.

In what fantasy world does one have to live to believe that the President wants to ban all guns? I could use a good vacation.

Signing legislation that lets people carry guns in federal parks and in checked baggage on trains was only the first step to disarm America.

Because certain parties know that when you can't use religion to drum up the base, you can always just point a finger and scream "he tuk mah guunz!"

 Grey Templar wrote:


They are the same weapon. The M-16 just has full auto capabilities(not useful outside of an actual warzone) and some extra external features that have no bearing on its lethality.

What are these extra external features that M16's have that an AR15 doesn't?

Some rails and that handy dandy handle on top. Tacticool options basically. Things which you could put on any weapon really.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some rails and that handy dandy handle on top. Tacticool options basically.

Knights Armament RAS (standard M16/M4 rail) can be installed on AR15's and many flat-top models come with the carry handle (mine did).

As you say, they are identical weapon systems.

Yeah, just explaining what the M-16 actually means. Its really nothing more than part of the numbering system the US military uses on its equipment. If they begin buying some new equipment they'll give it a number. Just about every piece of military equipment had a different name before it was officially adopted.

If I invent an Assault Rifle and name it the GT-83. If the army then adopts it has some slight modifications to it they'll almost certainly give it their own designation, M-XX or something to that effect. But the GT-83 and M-XX will be the same piece of equipment.

 easysauce wrote:
So in order to prove that there are people working to ban or severely limit gun ownership said bans/limits must already be enacted....

Intentionally misrepresenting the point much?

With such strong support for guns within certain parts of government (or at least certain types of arms anyway...) backed up by a large proportion of the lobbying money (hmmm... I wonder if there is a connection?), even something apparently as powerful as the office of el-presidente apparently has zero scope to enact much in the way of meaningful gun control laws, much less start taking guns from the population.

It is a bit like complaining that someone left their fridge open to combat global warming and how soon we are all going to freeze to death because "they took away our CO2 coverage!"

 d-usa wrote:
And if someone wanted to decide that X ft/lb is the cutoff for "high power rounds" then that it something that can be easily measured.

I'd honestly love to see some Brady Campaigner try to work out a muzzle velocity ban. The hilarity of seeing 115 grain 9mm target ammo banned while .45 +P skates by would just be too much.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That 1% includes POTUS and Pelosi.

In what fantasy world does one have to live to believe that the President wants to ban all guns? I could use a good vacation.

I think Pelosi wants more regulation than I do, but that is also a far cry from banning all firearms.

He praises Australia's gun laws, thats why.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That 1% includes POTUS and Pelosi.

In what fantasy world does one have to live to believe that the President wants to ban all guns? I could use a good vacation.

Signing legislation that lets people carry guns in federal parks and in checked baggage on trains was only the first step to disarm America.

Signing legislation to allow the CMP to start selling military surplus 1911s to the public was clearly the next step towards the ultimate plan of gun confiscation. Welcome to Obama's America!

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
California, NY, Chicago.

Correct, those are all states in America.

Chicago is a city.

I don't know what you are talking about chicago is clearly the only thing important where that state is concerned.

Thats what they think. According to those I know outside of Chicago, the rest of the state thinks otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That 1% includes POTUS and Pelosi.

In what fantasy world does one have to live to believe that the President wants to ban all guns? I could use a good vacation.

Signing legislation that lets people carry guns in federal parks and in checked baggage on trains was only the first step to disarm America.

Because certain parties know that when you can't use religion to drum up the base, you can always just point a finger and scream "he tuk mah guunz!"

Or alternatively: "War on WIMMINZ!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alex C wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


They are the same weapon. The M-16 just has full auto capabilities(not useful outside of an actual warzone) and some extra external features that have no bearing on its lethality.

What are these extra external features that M16's have that an AR15 doesn't?

The "final" version (at the time) of both were identical. The only difference was select fire and military rounds were loaded with crappier powder.

The only difference between M4 and M16 is different makeup-stocks, and optics. Of course, they are quite a bit different than a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, but hey pal only what you see here...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And if someone wanted to decide that X ft/lb is the cutoff for "high power rounds" then that it something that can be easily measured.

I'd honestly love to see some Brady Campaigner try to work out a muzzle velocity ban. The hilarity of seeing 115 grain 9mm target ammo banned while .45 +P skates by would just be too much.

DOn't laugh. San Francisco banned evilz "cop killer" hollowpoints, and only permitted ball ammo.

Ball ammo in an urban environment. Its like their city council invented stupid.

(as a fact, ball ammo is just jacketed bullets, which generally penetrate things more-like walls, vs. hollowpoints whose tips expand and don't penetrate as well. Kind of the anti cop killer round if cops wear armor).

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
That 1% includes POTUS and Pelosi.

In what fantasy world does one have to live to believe that the President wants to ban all guns? I could use a good vacation.

I think Pelosi wants more regulation than I do, but that is also a far cry from banning all firearms.

He praises Australia's gun laws, thats why.

Australia's gun laws...that didn't ban all guns?

Mmm yes the ones that permit double barreled shotguns.
If you want that hold a constitutional convention.

I'm not sure how praising a country not stricken with a 500% increase in spree shooters as a good model of gun 'control' automatically means someone wants to ban guns. Maybe they're wrong, and their opinion is stupid, but it seems a complete logical leap to assume that means he wants to ban guns.

WTF! It was like reading a crazy persons rant. First half, take guns and limit sales and rights. Second half, give some of those rights back and say so sorry. Really bad read.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm not sure how praising a country not stricken with a 500% increase in spree shooters as a good model of gun 'control' automatically means someone wants to ban guns. Maybe they're wrong, and their opinion is stupid, but it seems a complete logical leap to assume that means he wants to ban guns.

He praised their firearms laws. No leap involved.

And their fire arms laws don't ban guns. (not in the sense that seems to be implied, which is no guns ever). We already ban some guns. So Obama thinks we should ban some more? Oh what a crime against Americanness

To clarify, this is where the gun debate in the US starts to get stupid. Very few people really want to ban all guns, and very few people think there should be no gun control at all. The debate is not about guns or no guns. It's about which guns should and should not be privately owned, and that's a reasonable question. 'Obama wants to take our guns away' is not reasoned. It's as much a misrepresentation of the liberal position as the stereotype that red necks want to hunt deer with a 50 cal (or whatever stupid stereotype gets thrown around).

Obama doesn't want to ban guns. He wants tighter gun controls. The gun debate would be a lot less stupid if both sides dropped their penchant for hyperbolizing the other's positions.

 LordofHats wrote:
And their fire arms laws don't ban guns. (not in the sense that seems to be implied, which is no guns ever). We already ban some guns. So Obama thinks we should ban some more? Oh what a crime against Americanness

To clarify, this is where the gun debate in the US starts to get stupid. Very few people really want to ban all guns, and very few people think there should be no gun control at all. The debate is not about guns or no guns. It's about which guns should and should not be privately owned, and that's a reasonable question. 'Obama wants to take our guns away' is not reasoned. It's as much a misrepresentation of the liberal position as the stereotype that red necks want to hunt deer with a 50 cal (or whatever stupid stereotype gets thrown around).

Obama doesn't want to ban guns. He wants tighter gun controls. The gun debate would be a lot less stupid if both sides dropped their penchant for hyperbolizing the other's positions.

Common sense gun control per Obama
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Again, if you want to do that, change the Second Amendment. But you better do it quick, because if you re-open the Bill of Rights, the First and Fourth might go to.

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, if you want to do that, change the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already upheld the right of Federal and state governments to regulate gun ownership and purchase, short of a full weapons ban, which obviously Australia does not have..

We can either accept that the debate is about how much control is reasonable, or we can engage in hyperbolic nonsense. The former is a legitimate question to ask, and very much has no perfect answer. The later is little more that political grand standing.

But you better do it quick, because if you re-open the Bill of Rights, the First and Fourth might go to.

Got a big rock to slide down that slippery slope? Should be pretty cool when it hits the bottom

Really? You have Democrats wanting to prohibit persons from their rights under the Bill of Rights because they are on "a list." At the same time you have presidential candidates talking about investigating people based on their religion, and you think I'm talking about a slipper slope??? I am talking about Now.

And here's the problem. you have many shooters like myself who are supportive of some changes. but you lose us immediately the moment 99% of gun control proponents start talking.

Background checks-cool. I want more. I want more detailed back ground checks. I want state governments and psychiatrists forced to report medical incidents or incidents involving domestic violence. I also want a backtrack method so that if a person is cleared they get their firearms aback and they aren't seized by the government. I'd be ok with a conventional intensive background check even, done annually.

CHLs. Inversely I want an expansion of CHL rights and locations and rights to travel interstate with them. In turn I want more required training for them (heresy, I expect to be burned at the stake shortly).

I don't want limits on magazine capacity or type-thats just stupid feelgood nonsense that does absolutely nothing.

Straw purchases-go after them like Purvis after Dillinger.

I also want a massive overhaul of the mental health industry in this country. When you could buy MACHINE GUNS in the Sears catalog with no checks, we didn't have mass shooters like now. Mental health and a review of mental health drugs and their effects on personalities as well. There is growing evidence that some medicines can impact negatively on personalities. For those types of drugs, you have to temporarily give up your rights to own a firearm, just like you can't drive without corrective lenses if you have vision difficulties.

 Frazzled wrote:
The "final" version (at the time) of both were identical. The only difference was select fire and military rounds were loaded with crappier powder.

The only difference between M4 and M16 is different makeup-stocks, and optics. Of course, they are quite a bit different than a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, but hey pal only what you see here...

M4 has shorter barrel too.

I'm very familiar with the rifle, that's why I was confused about what these "extra external features" of an M16 were. Turns out they're nothing an AR15 couldn't have either, so no biggie.

Alex does it really have a shorter barrel? Thanks I did not know that. Admittedly I've only shot one M4 clone, while I've shot several ARs/M-16s, but I didn't notice the difference.

 Frazzled wrote:
Really?

Yes.

Conflating three different issues, which three different levels of legitimacy/insanity (and even complexity) is not an argument. Neither is twisting Obama's position into something it's not. Throwing it all together to make a really shallow argument about "we can't change one amendment, it could lead to all amendments being changed!" is a slippery slope argument.

 LordofHats wrote:
The Supreme Court already upheld the right of Federal and state governments to regulate gun ownership and purchase, short of a full weapons ban, which obviously Australia does not have..

We can either accept that the debate is about how much control is reasonable, or we can engage in hyperbolic nonsense. The former is a legitimate question to ask, and very much has no perfect answer. The later is little more that political grand standing.

The Supreme Court has also upheld the right of the individual citizen to own a handgun (in addition to any other weapon that might reasonably be considered useful and common to a militia), and the right of a citizen to be issued a concealed carry permit if states choose to enact laws requiring them. Let's not pretend anything close to Australia's gun laws would be permissible if coming under Supreme Court review.

 Frazzled wrote:
Alex does it really have a shorter barrel? Thanks I did not know that. Admittedly I've only shot one M4 clone, while I've shot several ARs/M-16s, but I didn't notice the difference.

M4 has a 14.5" barrel as per mil-spec, though civilian M4 clones usually have a 16" barrel to comply with minimum length laws and avoid having to file SBR paperwork. M16 has 20" barrel as standard.

 Alex C wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Alex does it really have a shorter barrel? Thanks I did not know that. Admittedly I've only shot one M4 clone, while I've shot several ARs/M-16s, but I didn't notice the difference.

M4 has a 14.5" barrel as per mil-spec, though civilian M4 clones usually have a 16" barrel to comply with minimum length laws and avoid having to file SBR paperwork. M16 has 20" barrel as standard.

Good to know. I'd rather the 20in barrel myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Really?

Yes.

Conflating three different issues, which three different levels of legitimacy/insanity (and even complexity) is not an argument. Neither is twisting Obama's position into something it's not. Throwing it all together to make a really shallow argument about "we can't change one amendment, it could lead to all amendments being changed!" is a slippery slope argument.

We'll see. We'll see.

With the rise of Trump (and the conditions wherein the big boys wouldn't address the issues he brings up) things I never dreamed of are possible, and not in a good way.

Seaward wrote:

The Supreme Court has also upheld the right of the individual citizen to own a handgun (in addition to any other weapon that might reasonably be considered useful and common to a militia), and the right of a citizen to be issued a concealed carry permit if states choose to enact laws requiring them. Let's not pretend anything close to Australia's gun laws would be permissible if coming under Supreme Court review.

Don't disagree;

Maybe they're wrong, and their opinion is stupid

My beef is not that Obama is right (I don't think he is). My beef is that the way people talk about guns in this country is brain dead on all sides of the political spectrum


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
With the rise of Trump (and the conditions wherein the big boys wouldn't address the issues he brings up) things I never dreamed of are possible, and not in a good way.

Possibly. Also possibly, Trump drags the far right so far right and so far into the open that my prediction of the collapse of the Republican party comes true in the next decade, and American Conservative politics will end up spending the decade after that putting their house in order. It happens frequently in American politics (in a long term sense). Trump could be a sign of a lasting trend, or he could just be a blip of madness that will die off as quickly as it rose.