What it's like to live in America where everybody can buy guns?

[drop bear]

All weapons involved required the trigger t. But then I would o be depressed for each round. No assault weapons were used in either attack.

Does semi auto vs auto make any real difference? Soldiers here never go full auto. It generally makes the gun less effective. (Also less accurate)

I mean if you have a machine gun and a belt they are devastating but the sort of guns these shooters use. Is in the same capacity as soldiers.

But my comparison was.

Semi auto high capacity rifle vs pistol? Vs revolver? I don't know what that guy went in with in the 4 dead shooting.

If we are doing simple equations based on these two incidents. Then there is more than one equation we could do. And it would not tell the whole story if these equations were left out.

 

[drop bear]

Where are we getting this definitive definition of an assault weapon by the way?

I know the term is in contention due to the implications of the idea it represents.

But it seems there is a dedicated effort to define the term in your own favor.


As a side note.
when we discuss martial arts and there is always that call to to have set definitions. This discussion always comes to mind as two vested interests are trying to take control of the language.

So dictionary on line.
the definition of assault rifle
Automatic fire. So the shooter did not use an assault weapon.

Wiki. Says semi auto.
Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops he did use one.

Oxford says auto.
assault rifle - definition of assault rifle in English from the Oxford dictionary

And so on.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Does semi auto vs auto make any real difference? Soldiers here never go full auto. It generally makes the gun less effective. (Also less accurate)

In a "target rich" environment (you know, the sort of crowded places terrorists and lunatics looking for their 10 minutes of fame prefer) accuracy is pretty much irrelevant. The "spray and pray" school of marksmanship is adequate, because they simply don't care who they hit or where they hit them.
So, yes. In that circumstance a weapon with full auto capability would likely increase the number of bodies.

What doesn't seem to really matter is the size of the magazine, despite the claims of the anti-gun lobby.

That video does an excellent job of showing why the "smaller magazine" laws don't work. It shows both an experienced and novice shooter running the same drills.

Also... you're using the term "high capacity" incorrectly. If the weapon was designed to use a 30 round magazine, then 30 round magazines are not high capacity. They're standard capacity, for that gun.
My Glock 17 was designed to hold 17 rounds in the standard magazine. My Glock 19 holds 15. The Glock 26 holds 10.
The magazines from the larger guns will fit the smaller just fine. So if I stick a 17 round magazine in my Glock 17, that's standard capacity. If I stick it in my G26, then it's reasonable to call it high capacity, since it is higher than the factory designed magazines.

Redefining terms to make them more scary (i.e. anything more than X rounds is "high capacity" and any rifle with Scary Black Plastic Bits is an "assault rifle" is a common tactic.

[Edit: removed comment that moved completely into the realm of politics.]

 

[Dirty Dog]

Where are we getting this definitive definition of an assault weapon by the way?

I know the term is in contention due to the implications of the idea it represents.

But it seems there is a dedicated effort to define the term in your own favor.

The term was "invented" by the military to describe a weapon with specific characteristics. Amoung them being the ability to fire multiple rounds each time the trigger is depressed.
The term has been hijacked by the anti-gun lobby and redefined.
You can put a Ferrari badge on your Yugo, but it won't change what it really is.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The home invader in the kitten suit had a lengthy rap sheet but was finally stopped by an armed home owner.

Considering the number of Tactical Assault Claws the home invader was carrying, it's a miracle the body count wasn't higher.

 

[drop bear]

The term was "invented" by the military to describe a weapon with specific characteristics. Amoung them being the ability to fire multiple rounds each time the trigger is depressed.
The term has been hijacked by the anti-gun lobby and redefined.
You can put a Ferrari badge on your Yugo, but it won't change what it really is.

That's strange because the assault rifle here at the time the military invented it was a semi auto only. The l1A1.

England had one as well.
Assault Rifles

Of course mabye there was a definitive definition America had that England and Australia didn't.

But then we would probably need to be more specific than the military. As definitive.

 

[Tez3]

That's strange because the assault rifle here at the time the military invented it was a semi auto only. The l1A1.

England had one as well.
Assault Rifles

Of course mabye there was a definitive definition America had that England and Australia didn't.

But then we would probably need to be more specific than the military. As definitive.

Oooo my lot (before I retired) gets a mention in there! On the other hand my other half, ex RAF Regiment was familiar with everything up to the SA60 which was issued after he retired.
Psst, a hint it's not 'England'... it's the UK (for the time being anyway)

 

[drop bear]

Oooo my lot (before I retired) gets a mention in there! On the other hand my other half, ex RAF Regiment was familiar with everything up to the SA60 which was issued after he retired.
Psst, a hint it's not 'England'... it's the UK (for the time being anyway)

You guys would have called the slr an assault rifle though?

 

[Tez3]

You guys would have called the slr an assault rifle though?

I risked getting a long lecture about weapons from husband, loves his weapons. I'm an SA80 person, didn't use SLR.

Anyway, he says no they wouldn't have called the SLR an 'assault' rifle, it was just a rifle. Before it was modified it could fire single rounds or automatic, it was decided that as the basic infantry weapon it should only fire automatic so the safety was changed so it could no longer fire single rounds. he says he would say it was too bulky for an assault weapon. For him they are also too bulky to be called assault weapons. As a general term he says here automatic weapons would be classed as 'assault' weapons, a rifle ( which the SLR was) isn't. That it was turned into an automatic weapon doesn't make a difference.

I'm going for a coffee now, just sat though a talk on how the safety was modified lol, cheers!

 

[Flying Crane]

In a "target rich" environment (you know, the sort of crowded places terrorists and lunatics looking for their 10 minutes of fame prefer) accuracy is pretty much irrelevant. The "spray and pray" school of marksmanship is adequate, because they simply don't care who they hit or where they hit them.
So, yes. In that circumstance a weapon with full auto capability would likely increase the number of bodies.

What doesn't seem to really matter is the size of the magazine, despite the claims of the anti-gun lobby.

That video does an excellent job of showing why the "smaller magazine" laws don't work. It shows both an experienced and novice shooter running the same drills.

Also... you're using the term "high capacity" incorrectly. If the weapon was designed to use a 30 round magazine, then 30 round magazines are not high capacity. They're standard capacity, for that gun.
My Glock 17 was designed to hold 17 rounds in the standard magazine. My Glock 19 holds 15. The Glock 26 holds 10.
The magazines from the larger guns will fit the smaller just fine. So if I stick a 17 round magazine in my Glock 17, that's standard capacity. If I stick it in my G26, then it's reasonable to call it high capacity, since it is higher than the factory designed magazines.

Redefining terms to make them more scary (i.e. anything more than X rounds is "high capacity" and any rifle with Scary Black Plastic Bits is an "assault rifle" is a common tactic.

[Edit: removed comment that moved completely into the realm of politics.]

I watched the video, please tell me you don't buy this as a valid study. This is a sterile and staged situation at a shooting range, with replacement magazines laid out on a table, ready for use and easy to grab. You can stage up anything, in that kind of setting.

In a real shooting situation, in a place like a nightclub, nothing will be so convenient. Yes, the need to reload will create gaps where people can escape, or possibly tackle the shooter.

This video is absolutely uncompelling.

It is nonsense to say a particular gun is meant to be used with a magazine capacity of X. Magazines come in many capacity variations, for the same gun make and model. Yes, there are higher and lower capacity magazines, plain and simple. It is simply about numbers.

 

[Flying Crane]

The term was "invented" by the military to describe a weapon with specific characteristics. Amoung them being the ability to fire multiple rounds each time the trigger is depressed.
The term has been hijacked by the anti-gun lobby and redefined.
You can put a Ferrari badge on your Yugo, but it won't change what it really is.

The term is meaningless. Getting hung up on a definition as a way of pretending that there ought to be no reasonable regulations is nonsense.

The truth is, as I have pointed out already, civilians are using guns that are designed to kill many people, exactly as they are designed, to kill many people. The label on the gun is irrelevant. Pretending otherwise is a smokescreen.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Where are we getting this definitive definition of an assault weapon by the way?

DD was spot on. I will expand if I may. An assault rifle (as stated earlier in the thread) is a rifle that fires intermediate cartridges on select fire. That is the definition used by the U.S government and also IIRC in the language of the 1934 Assault Weapons ban. So assault rifles have been 'banned' for over 80+ years. A citizen can only obtain an assault rifle with a class III license.

Knowing correct terminology is important. It prevents information being skewed by a biased media. I don't want my news source telling me what to believe, I want it to report facts and leave the critical thinking and decision making to me. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. High capacity magazines (as DD correctly explained) is a term used to intentionally mislead an uneducated public. I don't use the term 'uneducated' in a derogatory manner. Many people simply don't understand firearms. As an instructor I routinely educate both L.E. and private citizens in this area.

Common sense restrictions are already in place. They've been in place for decades. Saying we need gun control is like saying we need restraint systems in automobiles, we've had seat belts as standard for how long now? A very long time. So we've had common sense gun control measures in place for a very long time. The Orlando shooter was not an issue of gun control failure, the failure was from other entities that failed to properly follow up on new and additional information. At the time of purchase, he was not a felon, didn't have a domestic situation or any other area in which a firearm would have been denied. No form of 'control' will stop someone from purchasing a firearm now and then becoming a radical later. The tool isn't the problem, it's the person. And of course a person can always illegally purchase or steal a firearm. There is no other 'common sense' legislation that is needed. That is a media buzz word to divert attention from the real problem. Same with the 'gun show loop hole'. That's not accurate. Any dealer at a gun show runs a background check the same as if you were in his shop. I'm in L.E. and I still have to have a background check run when I purchase a firearm from a dealer. No big deal and I don't have an issue with it. So there is NO gun show loop hole. Same with purchasing a firearm from a company on the internet. The gun isn't shipped to your home, it is shipped to a dealer who runs a background check prior to taking possession. So when a politician says you can just 'buy a gun on the web' they aren't being honest. Now a private citizen can sell a firearm to another private citizen without a background check. But you'll notice that with almost every listing they sell only to those with CCW permits....which means they've already had a background check. Can any system of 'control' be compromised? Sure, but not like the media states. So again, correct knowledge and correct terminology gives you power to know the facts from the media-created fiction.

So any time an official or a journalist say 'assault rifle' or call for 'common sense gun control' tor 'gun show loop holes' or 'high capacity magazines' they are either ignorant of the facts or they are lying. You'll have to determine which. And that's important because getting your information from a sound bite or headline isn't your best option.

 

[drop bear]

DD was spot on. I will expand if I may. An assault rifle (as stated earlier in the thread) is a rifle that fires intermediate cartridges on select fire. That is the definition used by the U.S government and also IIRC in the language of the 1934 Assault Weapons ban. So assault rifles have been 'banned' for over 80+ years. A citizen can only obtain an assault rifle with a class III license.

Knowing correct terminology is important. It prevents information being skewed by a biased media. I don't want my news source telling me what to believe, I want it to report facts and leave the critical thinking and decision making to me. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. High capacity magazines (as DD correctly explained) is a term used to intentionally mislead an uneducated public. I don't use the term 'uneducated' in a derogatory manner. Many people simply don't understand firearms. As an instructor I routinely educate both L.E. and private citizens in this area.

Common sense restrictions are already in place. They've been in place for decades. Saying we need gun control is like saying we need restraint systems in automobiles, we've had seat belts as standard for how long now? A very long time. So we've had common sense gun control measures in place for a very long time. The Orlando shooter was not an issue of gun control failure, the failure was from other entities that failed to properly follow up on new and additional information. At the time of purchase, he was not a felon, didn't have a domestic situation or any other area in which a firearm would have been denied. No form of 'control' will stop someone from purchasing a firearm now and then becoming a radical later. The tool isn't the problem, it's the person. And of course a person can always illegally purchase or steal a firearm. There is no other 'common sense' legislation that is needed. That is a media buzz word to divert attention from the real problem. Same with the 'gun show loop hole'. That's not accurate. Any dealer at a gun show runs a background check the same as if you were in his shop. I'm in L.E. and I still have to have a background check run when I purchase a firearm from a dealer. No big deal and I don't have an issue with it. So there is NO gun show loop hole. Same with purchasing a firearm from a company on the internet. The gun isn't shipped to your home, it is shipped to a dealer who runs a background check prior to taking possession. So when a politician says you can just 'buy a gun on the web' they aren't being honest. Now a private citizen can sell a firearm to another private citizen without a background check. But you'll notice that with almost every listing they sell only to those with CCW permits....which means they've already had a background check. Can any system of 'control' be compromised? Sure, but not like the media states. So again, correct knowledge and correct terminology gives you power to know the facts from the media-created fiction.

So any time an official or a journalist say 'assault rifle' or call for 'common sense gun control' tor 'gun show loop holes' or 'high capacity magazines' they are either ignorant of the facts or they are lying. You'll have to determine which. And that's important because getting your information from a sound bite or headline isn't your best option.

So the definition 1994 assault weapon ban dosent count?
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Detachable magazine.

The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:



There is more comprehensive car control than gun though.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

So the definition 1994 assault weapon ban dosent count?

No, not really. To begin with, the term assault rifle had already been defined by the government as stated several times in this thread. That definition came from the government as was used to define military grade weapons. The 1994 ban specifically targeted semi-automatic weapons. The ban didn't work and expired in 2004. Thus it is no longer an applicable term. So an assault rifle is simple a rifle that uses intermediate power cartridges on select fire. Semi-automatic rifles do not fit into that definition thus it is either an error or a lie to refer to one as an assault rifle.

 

[Tired_Yeti]

What a juvenile discussion.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

So the definition 1994 assault weapon ban dosent count?

No, it really doesn't. The term had already been defined for some 60 years. This was merely one of the early efforts to redefine the word to make guns that are, after all, standard semi-auto rifles modified with Scary Black Plastic Bits to look military seem more scary to the ignorant.

 

[drop bear]

No, it really doesn't. The term had already been defined for some 60 years. This was merely one of the early efforts to redefine the word to make guns that are, after all, standard semi-auto rifles modified with Scary Black Plastic Bits to look military seem more scary to the ignorant.

So a term defined by the government can't then be redefined by the government.

 

[Jaeimseu]

So a term defined by the government can't then be redefined by the government.

Certainly not if it goes against your position on an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

standard semi-auto rifles modified with Scary Black Plastic Bits

The early SA80s certainly had scary plastic bits.......they kept falling off. Very shoddy with a very long story of disasters behind it ( part of it being the US insistence that NATO use what they said) James Meek on the £470m rifle the British army hates. All that is why MoD police to get armour-piercing weapon. Much more fun.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

So a term defined by the government can't then be redefined by the government.

Sure. They tried. The attempt failed. The law, and the revised term expired.