ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags assault weapons

Reply
Old 14th January 2019, 09:49 AM   #41
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,837
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Indeed .. is there even clearly stated reason why barrel shroud, collapsible stock, flash hider etc. are regulated ? Or even study they play any effect ?
Mags sure are far from perfect, as they are cheap and easy to stockpile, but it's something.
I suspect that it is to provide an easy way for people who are unfamiliar with firearms to differentiate a "allowable sporting rifle" from an "evil assault weapon".

The inclusion of the barrel shroud is particularly odd. A wood or plastic fore-end, which allows for grasping the weapon ahead of the receiver is part of the stock, and is Ok. A perforated metal shroud that does the same thing is not allowed. The difference is purely superficial.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 09:57 AM   #42
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,849
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
This thread is why it's better to go after magazine size. With an assault weapons ban, you just end up playing whack-a-mole with loopholes.
That's mainly because "assault weapon" is a political term with no practical meaning. They created the term and then started tacking on any "scary" gun feature and function they could think of. The whole thing is political theater, pandering to people who don't know and don't care how guns actually work, and who just want to feel like something is being done.

Hence, bayonet lugs are included in the ban on "assault weapons".

If they were serious, they'd use a well-defined industry standard term like "assault rifle". But even then they'd still have to figure out what set of features the military requires in an assault rifle, and then ban that set of features in other rifles as well.

Those features being basically: Detachable magazine, semi-automatic action, and barrel shroud or forestock/grip.

Right now, California's "assault weapon" ban covers AR-15s, which are semi-automatic variants of the AR-pattern assault rifles used by the US military. But the ban does not cover the Ruger Mini-14, which is the exact same rifle in every functional way. The main difference between the two is the minor ergonomic variation between pistol grip (AR-15) and the more 'traditional' buttstock grip (Mini-14). Which is a very minor difference.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 12:52 PM   #43
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,458
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Indeed .. is there even clearly stated reason why barrel shroud, collapsible stock, flash hider etc. are regulated ? Or even study they play any effect ?
Mags sure are far from perfect, as they are cheap and easy to stockpile, but it's something.
Back in the 1990's it was an attempt at increasing regulations on certain semi-auto firearms without affecting them all. It also revealed how little the sponsors of the new law understood American gun owners, gun culture or gun related crime.

The AWB of 1994 was called a ban when it was largely not a ban at all. The only real ban was on importation of a small list of guns. Everything else was grandfathered in. The rest of the domestic production made small modifications to remain legal; something that should have been obvious to anyone in Congress on on this forum. But I still see from time to time about how "those guys got around the law" by just eliminating the restricted features mentioned in the new law.

Another example of how naive the bill sponsors were is that they went after what was then the guns least used (other than NFA guns) in crime. The guns most often associated with violent crime if I remember correctly were the small handguns. The AWB94 regulated large handguns and semi-auto rifles that looked like military weapons as well as some shotguns.

What part of "nothing sells like something banned" did they not understand? They need to try it with books again to see how it works.

The only ones surprised at the ineffectiveness of AWB94 were those who supported it. Anyone who read the bill or understood how guns worked were for the most part not surprised. Unless the AWB supporters eventually wanted to work their way to cover virtually all guns in the USA, the AWB94 made no sense at all.

Here is an AR-15 stripped of all offending (now and in the future) features.


The only feature left to ban is the lower receiver which is the main element of the gun. This model will still sell in the USA. Various jurisdictions have banned the semi-auto feature, the detachable magazine feature and even the gas system as a whole. But this did not stop people from legally buying them. One country even says "it looks wrong" so the guns were confiscated.

The only thing that makes any sense is the slippery slope fallacy; and that doesn't hold water very well either. The AWB's I've seen only make sense if they're eventually going after all of the guns. And this is the one thing that most gun grabbers deny they support.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 12:59 PM   #44
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,458
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Why does having a recoil spring intended originally to be in a stock vs moving it to somewhere else make such a big deal in this class of handguns?
Turning a rifle into a handgun usually results in something that is very difficult to handle. Imagine this thing in the link below with sights or a red dot scope.
http://emptormaven.com/img/AR-15_Pistol.jpg

Eliminating the buffer tube and locating the operating rod above the action instead of to the rear makes it easier to shoot. But if the AR-15 pistol rates a 2 out of 10 for ease of operation, the models without the buffer tube are only a 3/10 in my opinion.

I would feel better armed with a P-22 in 22lr than with an ar-15 pistol in 223 Remington.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 01:28 PM   #45
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,458
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
They certainly were.
What I meant to say was that they were not mainstream but in fact a very tiny percentage of handguns.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 01:33 PM   #46
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,458
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
....Right now, California's "assault weapon" ban covers AR-15s, which are semi-automatic variants of the AR-pattern assault rifles used by the US military. But the ban does not cover the Ruger Mini-14, which is the exact same rifle in every functional way. The main difference between the two is the minor ergonomic variation between pistol grip (AR-15) and the more 'traditional' buttstock grip (Mini-14). Which is a very minor difference.
The AWB of 2019 is taking care of that for us.



The top two photos show that the angle of the pistol grip area has changed little on various guns since WWI. The Thordsen type pistol grip stock increases the grip area angle by about 10%. So is it the change in grip angle that offends some people so much or is it that it can be used on a rifle they want to ban?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 03:16 PM   #47
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,692
Btw. does anyone make some nice wooden stock for AR-15 ?
Dr.Sid is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 03:31 PM   #48
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,849
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Btw. does anyone make some nice wooden stock for AR-15 ?
I googled "AR-15 wood" and Google autocompleted with "furniture".

But sadly, even though it's apparently a popular search term, nobody actually makes AR-15 wood furniture.

Not these guys. Nor these guys.

Maybe you'll have better luck than I did, though.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 03:35 PM   #49
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,849
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The AWB of 2019 is taking care of that for us.

https://i.postimg.cc/1n25bP7x/pistol-grip-stock.jpg

The top two photos show that the angle of the pistol grip area has changed little on various guns since WWI. The Thordsen type pistol grip stock increases the grip area angle by about 10%. So is it the change in grip angle that offends some people so much or is it that it can be used on a rifle they want to ban?
I don't think even they know what it is that bothers them, exactly.

What I've always been curious about (but not very) is how big the ergonomic benefit actually is. Clearly the major militaries of the world see some value in having pistol-grip assault rifles rather than the older kind, but how much value, exactly?

Is it something that gives an individual spree shooter a major advantage? Or is it one of those economies-of-scale things? Like maybe it's cheaper/easier to indoctrinate hundreds of thousands of new recruits and gun amateurs if the rifle has a pistol grip, even though once they're sufficiently familiar with the weapon the exact style of grip doesn't make much difference to actual shooting performance?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 03:38 PM   #50
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,692
Hm .. shower thought .. maybe the idea is some guys buy ARs just to look cool. That a) is true for sure, at least in some cases b) would give sense to regulation of cosmetic features.
Dr.Sid is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 05:34 PM   #51
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,837
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Btw. does anyone make some nice wooden stock for AR-15 ?
Several companies do, for example:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg AR-15woodRRA.jpg (48.1 KB, 2 views)
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 09:22 PM   #52
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,458
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
....What I've always been curious about (but not very) is how big the ergonomic benefit actually is. Clearly the major militaries of the world see some value in having pistol-grip assault rifles rather than the older kind, but how much value, exactly?
Putting the pistol grip under the action instead of behind it makes the rifle a bit shorter. The bullpup style is much shorter still.

Quote:
Is it something that gives an individual spree shooter a major advantage?....
As far as I know it doesn't.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:24 AM   #53
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,864
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Turning a rifle into a handgun usually results in something that is very difficult to handle. Imagine this thing in the link below with sights or a red dot scope.
http://emptormaven.com/img/AR-15_Pistol.jpg

Eliminating the buffer tube and locating the operating rod above the action instead of to the rear makes it easier to shoot. But if the AR-15 pistol rates a 2 out of 10 for ease of operation, the models without the buffer tube are only a 3/10 in my opinion.

I would feel better armed with a P-22 in 22lr than with an ar-15 pistol in 223 Remington.
Oh 5.56mm is a poor choice for a pistol sure. It was just a weird focus on the location of the recoil spring, lots of assault rifles have recoil springs located in other areas, it lets them have fold out stocks instead of collapsing ones like the Ar15.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:57 AM   #54
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,311
Ban everything except muzzle loaders. Original intent and all that, or is that not a thing on this issue, just all the others?
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:14 AM   #55
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,458
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Oh 5.56mm is a poor choice for a pistol sure. It was just a weird focus on the location of the recoil spring, lots of assault rifles have recoil springs located in other areas, it lets them have fold out stocks instead of collapsing ones like the Ar15.
Most ar-15 pistols are merely the receiver with a short barrel and the rest of the usual parts attached without the stock. It's just something different that sells for some reason.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:18 AM   #56
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,458
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Ban everything except muzzle loaders. Original intent and all that, or is that not a thing on this issue, just all the others?
Original intent of the 2nd amendment was to only protect muzzle loading arms when breech loading arms were already invented and in use? Where did you get the notion that only muzzle loading arms were in existence then?

Do you also think most kinds of communication/speech/press/religion/assembly are not protected by the 1st amendment other than those you like?
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:29 AM   #57
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,376
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Ban everything except muzzle loaders. Original intent and all that, or is that not a thing on this issue, just all the others?
I wonder how the Founding Fathers would have written the Constitution and its amendments if they had thought about a future with more powerful guns and other issues such as TV, porn and women and black people eventually being able to vote.

I do not think we can use original intent, because they had no idea what was coming in the future in the next 250 plus years.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:28 AM   #58
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,466
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Original intent of the 2nd amendment was to only protect muzzle loading arms when breech loading arms were already invented and in use? Where did you get the notion that only muzzle loading arms were in existence then?

Do you also think most kinds of communication/speech/press/religion/assembly are not protected by the 1st amendment other than those you like?
We've had supreme court justices argue that the internet isn't protected like actual printed paper because it didn't exist back then. Scalia even said in an interview that women don't have equal rights because they didn't in the late 18th century. Constitutional literalism is stupid when either side does it.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:38 AM   #59
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,995
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
We've had supreme court justices argue that the internet isn't protected like actual printed paper because it didn't exist back then. Scalia even said in an interview that women don't have equal rights because they didn't in the late 18th century. Constitutional literalism is stupid when either side does it.
Pretty much. I mean, the other way to look at the original intent argument is that when the Constitution was written, it gave the people the right to the same arms the military carried.

So yeah, let's do that. I wanna get a Mark 19 mounted on my car. Let's see that jackwagon cut me off in rush hour again...

Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:44 AM   #60
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 19,420
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Btw. does anyone make some nice wooden stock for AR-15 ?
When I got drafted and was in Basic Training in 1971, some guys thought the M-16's they issued us weren't real weapons because of the plastic.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:07 AM   #61
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,864
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Original intent of the 2nd amendment was to only protect muzzle loading arms when breech loading arms were already invented and in use? Where did you get the notion that only muzzle loading arms were in existence then?
The original intent was to prevent a standing national army and only have state militias. But orrigionalists so rarely suggest disbanding the army.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:46 AM   #62
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,692
Now imagine if you could change 200 years old law ..
Dr.Sid is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:46 PM   #63
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,458
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The original intent was to prevent a standing national army and only have state militias. But orrigionalists so rarely suggest disbanding the army.
The point I was trying to make was that most of the people on this forum are not stupid enough to believe what Hlafordlaes said about original intent.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:18 PM   #64
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,328
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Would never call a semi-auto that, though. These were semi-auto.

Submachine guns and machine pistols are full auto.
Careful - I've been told on this very forum that making this distinction means you don't care about the lives of children.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.