• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Let's have a discussion: Gun control

Rudelord

Member
I heard today that AR-15s were wanted by the army even as early as the vietnam war because they would kill the opposition even better / faster than the m16s back then.

Crazy why crazy people can buy AR-15s so easily.
They're functionally identical aside from civvie ARs being locked to semi auto.
 

hoapres

Neophyte
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts". - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

That's a big part of the problem. Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the citizens FROM the government and not the other way around. If you accept that then you as an American citizen have the right to have the same standard issue firearm that the US military has being an M4.

With that out of the way, the FACTS are that an AR-15 is NOT an "assault rifle", "automatic weapon", etc.

The other fact is that for home invasion defense that the AR-15 really is the BEST possible weapon defense choice. If I am faced with an assault force of multiple invaders coming at me then an AR-15 beats hand down a shotgun. I get tired of all these people claiming that an AR-15 is not the best choice but everyone should just get a shotgun.

People that say this just think you can shoot a shotgun without aiming at the target and not miss. Sorry folks it doesn't work that way.

Someone who wants to commit mass murder is going to find a way to do it. Banning AR-15s won't solve the problem. There are so many illegal firearms on the street right now that if I want to buy an M-16 then I probably know how to get one. (It's not worth it to me.)

Don't kid yourself. First they will come for the AR-15, then they will come for something else.
 

hoapres

Neophyte
This thread has been fantastic, and a real insight into just why, in my opinion, nothing will ever change when it comes to US gun control.

The obvious solution would be stricter laws about who can own a gun, how many one can own, and the nature of the guns available given an individual’s justification for such firearms. Alongside this, mandatory health checks, both physical and mental, training and safety classes and annual check ups. You can’t ignore the healthcare aspect of this though, in that there needs to be better investment in mental health awareness and treatment.

The reality is, nothing will change. The politicians won’t vote for something that doesn’t suit their financial backers, and more importantly, the people they represent. Too many people are brainwashed into treating your Constitution as gospel, and until everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet, there’ll never be serious efforts made IMO.

It seems, from the outside admittedly, that the 2nd Ammendment is utterly redundant and a waste of time. It’s not relevant anymore; the right to bear arms....in a world where the US has the most well funded military, supplemented with drones, tanks, aircraft etc. You try and overthrow your government with what you can buy at your local gun store, and see what happens. Leaning on its existence to justify a culture that is obviously deeply flawed is just baffling.

It seems juvenile to demand the RIGHT to have a gun. The rest of the world just don’t get it. Port Arthur happened; Australia reacted. Dunblane happened; the UK reacted. Time and time again, there’s a needless loss of life, and the best people can manage is thoughts and prayers. Over and over again. The US will consume itself in a fire of God-fearing capitalism before their gun control laws are properly looked into.

OK

Then go out and amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

It may very well be juvenile to demand the RIGHT to have a gun but that is how the US is set up.
 

hoapres

Neophyte
What does a forum Q&A comparing the makeup of the guns have to do with my statement that as early as the Vietnam war, the army preferred the AR-15 over the M16? Why would they prefer one over the other if both were the same?

They didn't.

In fact the M16A1 had a litany of problems and those being in Vietnam War combat didn't like the weapon at all.

In many cases one tried to find almost any other firearm such as an M14 , thompson sub machine gun and maybe even a BAR if one could luck out and find one.

It wasn't until the M16A2 coming out in 1979 that a lot of the original problems were solved.
 

hoapres

Neophyte
They're functionally identical aside from civvie ARs being locked to semi auto.

Basically accurate. However there are many versions of AR-15 e.g. LWRC , Daniel Defense, etc. which have different features.

Like I said before, the statement is basically accurate.
 

hoapres

Neophyte

Bump stocks aren't very practical. There is a big myth that a bump stock "converts" a semi automatic into a "true" full automatic.

It doesn't.

This is a typical knee jerk reaction to a problem. Whether bump stocks should be banned or not is another issue, but the rational for banning them is because of a mass casualty. I don't even know if has been established that the mass murder in Las Vegas involved the use of bump stocks. Just because they were at the murder site doesn't mean they were used.
 

hoapres

Neophyte
No doubt. Just saying I have no issues with it.

The only issue that I have is the knee jerk reaction.

First they came for the AR-15, ...

Most of these liberals that want gun control really want all out gun confiscation and won't be satisfied until they get every gun.
 
Bump stocks aren't very practical. There is a big myth that a bump stock "converts" a semi automatic into a "true" full automatic.

It doesn't.

This is a typical knee jerk reaction to a problem. Whether bump stocks should be banned or not is another issue, but the rational for banning them is because of a mass casualty. I don't even know if has been established that the mass murder in Las Vegas involved the use of bump stocks. Just because they were at the murder site doesn't mean they were used.

Bump stock was used, but you're right that this is a knee-jerk reaction. Even the NRA backed it months ago because it's shallow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hoapres

Neophyte
Bump stock was used, but you're right that this is a knee-jerk reaction. Even the NRA backed it months ago because it's shallow.

Actually the NRA didn't support a bump stock ban. The NRA gave lip service to it as everyone or so it seemed said we need to do something. The NRA really doesn't believe in a bump stock ban. The NRA just want to kick the problem over to ATF which in the past said there wasn't legal grounds for a bump stock ban.

Bump stock was at the murder site but whether they were actually used is another matter. I will take your word for it that they were actually used. I have my doubts because bump stock fire isn't very accurate to put it mildly.
 

hoapres

Neophyte
Bump stock ban is just to make it look like they actually care. We all know they don't unfortunately.

Assuming full automatic fire is really that effective (it isn't by the way) then I am just going to convert my AR-15 into full auto. Sure it isn't legal but then what I am doing isn't legal either which is going to be a heck of lot more effective than a bump stock.

People who never shot firearms get into this "Evil AR-15" ... mindset. A Winchester 70 in the hands of a competent marksman can do a lot of damage. And it is single bolt.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Bump stocks aren't very practical. There is a big myth that a bump stock "converts" a semi automatic into a "true" full automatic.

It doesn't.

This is a typical knee jerk reaction to a problem. Whether bump stocks should be banned or not is another issue, but the rational for banning them is because of a mass casualty. I don't even know if has been established that the mass murder in Las Vegas involved the use of bump stocks. Just because they were at the murder site doesn't mean they were used.

For all intents and purposes, a "bumpstock" does make certain weapons full auto



This circumvents restrictions on fully automatic weapons. Is it as accurate as it's fully automatic counterpart? No, but volume of fire negates its accuracy.
 

hoapres

Neophyte
For all intents and purposes, a "bumpstock" does make certain weapons full auto



This circumvents restrictions on fully automatic weapons. Is it as accurate as it's fully automatic counterpart? No, but volume of fire negates its accuracy.


No it doesn't.

A "full auto" is a heck of a lot more accurate than a bump stock. There is a big myth out there that rapid fire e.g. full auto is really effective.

It isn't UNLESS you are extremely proficient with full automatic. With bump stocks, you can't be real accurate.

Having shot a bump stock, it wasn't worth it to me. It's fun to shoot once but it isn't comparable to the fun of shooting a full automatic.

You still actually have to aim at the target.

Full automatic (fun switch) is way OVERRATED. It's fun but it isn't as practical as you might think.
 

n0razi

Member
It almost feels like it is too late to do anything now. There seems to be so many guns in circulation that even if a ban was put in place or sale were restricted there are so many out there is wouldn't make a difference. Honestly have no idea what the solution is.


This, there is already 1 gun per person in the USA. A ban will not reduce that for a LOOOONG time. Maybe put a tax or restrictions on ammunition?
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
No it doesn't.

A "full auto" is a heck of a lot more accurate than a bump stock. There is a big myth out there that rapid fire e.g. full auto is really effective.

It isn't UNLESS you are extremely proficient with full automatic. With bump stocks, you can't be real accurate.

Having shot a bump stock, it wasn't worth it to me. It's fun to shoot once but it isn't comparable to the fun of shooting a full automatic.

You still actually have to aim at the target.

Full automatic (fun switch) is way OVERRATED. It's fun but it isn't as practical as you might think.

Yes, it does. I just showed you proof.

This isn't a discussion about the merits of fully automatic vs semi automatic.

99% of shooters couldn't accurately fire any fully automatic weapon.

Zero percent of lunatics care when they are shooting into a crowd.

Allowing bump stocks because they aren't quite as accurate as fully automatic weapons is a patently absurd stance to hold.
 
Last edited:

hoapres

Neophyte
Yes, it does. I just showed you proof.

This isn't a discussion about the merits of fully automatic vs semi automatic.

99% of shooters couldn't accurately fire any fully automatic weapon.

Zero percent of lunatics care when they are shooting into a crowd.

Allowing bump stocks because they aren't quite as accurate as fully automatic weapons is a patently absurd stance to hold.

You haven't proved anything. It is a pretty straight forward matter to convert a semi automatic into a full automatic. Showing a picture with a lot of bullets being thrown in the air doesn't prove anything. Like I said before spraying a lot of lead randomly isn't as effective as you might think.

Actually I can still legally buy a full automatic with the exception of a couple of states. Having the FFL makes it a heck of a lot easier to be sure but it isn't necessary. You just need a big checkbook.

The Las Vegas lunatic would have created the same amount of havoc without a bump stock. Of course we can't say that for sure but it sure looks that way. You had the worse possible scenario with a shooter having an absolutely ideal shooting vantage point with a large number of people in an enclosed area.

Here is an idea. Let's just ban concerts next to a high rise hotel.
 

appaws

Banned
Contrary to popular belief the NRA does believe in gun control.

Criminals who use guns should be controlled.

Very true. I actually had an argument about this on old GAF. I was advocating harsher penalties for people who actually commit crimes with weapons instead of disarming those who followed the law.

The argument used against me was that increasing penalties for gun crimes would disproportionately target minorities.
 

BANGS

Banned
Very true. I actually had an argument about this on old GAF. I was advocating harsher penalties for people who actually commit crimes with weapons instead of disarming those who followed the law.

The argument used against me was that increasing penalties for gun crimes would disproportionately target minorities.
LMFAO I wish you were making this up but sadly I know you're not...
 

prag16

Banned
Very true. I actually had an argument about this on old GAF. I was advocating harsher penalties for people who actually commit crimes with weapons instead of disarming those who followed the law.

The argument used against me was that increasing penalties for gun crimes would disproportionately target minorities.
Indeed... you can't make this stuff up.

You know how it is. Everything is related to race (or some other oppressed group). Race Bait Incorporated. The stock is high.
 
Last edited:

pramod

Banned
What kind of new gun control law would have stopped the Florida shooting? I'm just curious.

He legally bought the guns and passed all FBI background checks.

Should we start checking a person's Twitter or social media accounts before selling him a gun? Actually in this case, people DID check his social media and he was already reported to the FBI. The FBI allowed him to buy a gun anyway.

So is that a failure of law, or failure of the FBI?
 
Last edited:
What kind of new gun control law would have stopped the Florida shooting? I'm just curious.

He legally bought the guns and passed all background checks.

Should we start checking a person's Twitter or social media accounts before selling him a gun?
well, people are made at the FBI for not following on that tip, so.......
 
What kind of new gun control law would have stopped the Florida shooting? I'm just curious.

He legally bought the guns and passed all FBI background checks.

Should we start checking a person's Twitter or social media accounts before selling him a gun? Actually in this case, people DID check his social media and he was already reported to the FBI. The FBI allowed him to buy a gun anyway.

So is that a failure of law, or failure of the FBI?
The FBI. Easy.

We talk a lot about the pro gun lobbies and pro gun groups. This time anti gun groups need to be talked about. Because they are ignoring the reality.
 
Top Bottom