Guns

[Touring Mars]

It seems a common logic to pro-gun people is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I counter that by stating that it would be much harder to commit a mass shooting with a screwdriver, wouldn't it?

It should really read, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people - but people with assault rifles find it a lot easier to kill a lot of people very quickly'.

This binary argument - guns are good v guns are bad - is really getting the country nowhere. Obviously, people will commit horrific offenses whether they have access to guns or not, but it's all too common in the US for dangerous people to acquire weapons that are capable of inflicting mass casualties in a short time. The fact that Republicans and the NRA oppose tighter restrictions that would make it harder for people on a terrorist watch list because 'some people might be on the list incorrectly, and that would be unfair' seems faintly ridiculous to me.

I accept that people can make guns, acquire them illegally and that being unable to own any guns in a country awash with guns is not a great idea, but when it comes to personal protection or the ability to take out a lone wolf terrorist or a high school shooter, is it really necessary for machine guns and assault rifles to be legally available to practically anyone, even people the government suspect (or even know) are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers?

 

[Michael88]

is it really necessary for machine guns and assault rifles to be legally available to practically anyone, even people the government suspect (or even know) are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers?

As long as those guns can be easily acquired illegally it makes no sense to ban this type of gun from legal ownership.

What would happen is criminals and terrorists would still be armed with evil black rifles because they care little about bans (killing people is against the law too) yet the law abiding citizen would be comparatively poorly armed with what they are allowed to have. If such guns are really that effective as the ban supporters claim -which would be the reason for the ban- the civilians would have little chance to defend themselves against such a superiorly armed attacker.

Also, a not insignificant amount of law abiding people would then arm themselves illegally with those guns only strengthening the black market and crime. That can't be good. Especially in the US the black market would EXPLODE.

Such ban sounds very appealing to a lot of people at first but the more you think about the more its clear this ban would cause a lot of harm in many different ways.
___________
* Also, machine guns and assault rifles are not free to own for civilians. Machine guns and assault rifles are rifles that fire as long as you keep the trigger pulled (till the magazine is empty), same with assault rifles. Military and a very few selected people own those kind of guns, civilians can only own semi automatic rifles which shoot a single round per pull of a trigger.

This may not sound like much of a difference for those who have little experience with weapons in general, but I have shot rifles for over a decade now and I did my time in the military service -I can tell you, it makes a LOT of difference.

** In Switzerland though you can own machine guns. I know several people who have fully automatic assault rifles and belt fed machine guns (MG42) in their collection. In the eyes of people who oppose civil gun ownership this is the most evil stuff known to mankind short of a thermo nuclear device. Yet nothing ever happens there. It might have something to do with high living standards, a good health care and sensible immigration laws.

 

[mustafur]

In Switzerland isn't the citizen considered part of the army though?

Not to mention they are trained in the usage of such weapons.

 

[Touring Mars]

As long as those guns can be easily acquired illegally it makes no sense to ban this type of gun from legal ownership.

That raises the question of how to tackle the illegal supply of guns - how many guns are acquired illegally but were originally sold legally in the US? Impossible to answer I guess, but as a matter of genuine interest, how much has the legal trade in firearms in the US contributed to the problem of illegal gun ownership and gun crime? My guess is probably quite a lot.

I agree that it doesn't sound like a great idea to stop law-abiding citizens from owning the same firepower as those who don't abide by the law anyway, but the solution to that problem is not necessarily to advocate arming everyone to the teeth, but tackling the issue of illegal gun ownership, the illegal trade in guns and ammunition, and how legally made, sold and owned guns end up in the hands of criminals.

If such guns are really that effective as the ban supporters claim -which would be the reason for the ban- the civilians would have little chance to defend themselves against such a superiorly armed attacker

The problem with using logic like this is that it inevitably ends up with absurd situations like that envisaged by Donald Trump and others who believe that people can only protect themselves from terrorist outrages such as those seen in Paris and Orlando by all civilians being at least as well armed as a potential attacker - but that is frankly ridiculous.

One may have the right to bear arms, but that ought not to mean that you must. Donald Trump and the NRA might think you'd be crazy to go to an Eagles of Death Metal concert or a gay nightclub without being armed with an AR-15 these days, but it is (and always should be) the norm to not be. As I said before, advocating such a thing is one possible solution but it is not the only solution - nor is it a reasonable or realistic one.

 

[Michael88]

Without wanting to attack you, I have to say you're using a lot of needless hyperbole here.

Nobody is talking about going to a gay club with a rifle, nor does anybody want to force people to carry guns, thats simply unpractical, nonsensical and ridiculous. Also, Trump is hyperbole and extremism personified so lets keep him out of sane discussions.

With the current laws you can indeed defend yourself in you home with (nearly) state of the art weaponry, and thats very good because an attacker might be very well armed too. Also I have no idea why you find this simple case of equality ridiculous or why people cannot defend themselves against armed attackers. I'd appreciate an explanation for that claim.

But I agree on the idea that there should be done more against the black market trading illegal firearms, unfortunately its never that easy. There is things that require more attention and resources like improving the health care system and fighting against drug crime. Those two things cause many, many more deaths each year and thus are much more important. Heck, even improving road safety would save more lives each year but nobody ever talks about that nor do I see it ever mentioned in media.
Lets ban assault rifles! Good! Lets fight for safer roads! What?

Bottom line is, making law abiding citizen less able to defend themselves against criminals makes no sense as illegal guns won't go away anytime soon - and the ''problem with assault rifles'' is a tiny speck of dust in the grand scheme of things that cause problems in the US which does not deserve the attention it is getting.

I really don't know what else there is to say about this issue.

 

[Rallywagon]

Without wanting to attack you, I have to say you're using a lot of needless hyperbole here.

Nobody is talking about going to a gay club with a rifle, nor does anybody want to force people to carry guns, thats simply unpractical, nonsensical and ridiculous. Also, Trump is hyperbole and extremism personified so lets keep him out of sane discussions.

With the current laws you can indeed defend yourself in you home with (nearly) state of the art weaponry, and thats very good because an attacker might be very well armed too. Also I have no idea why you find this simple case of equality ridiculous or why people cannot defend themselves against armed attackers. I'd appreciate an explanation for that claim.

But I agree on the idea that there should be done more against the black market trading illegal firearms, unfortunately its never that easy. There is things that require more attention and resources like improving the health care system and fighting against drug crime. Those two things cause many, many more deaths each year and thus are much more important. Heck, even improving road safety would save more lives each year but nobody ever talks about that nor do I see it ever mentioned in media.
Lets ban assault rifles! Good! Lets fight for safer roads! What?

Bottom line is, making law abiding citizen less able to defend themselves against criminals makes no sense as illegal guns won't go away anytime soon - and the ''problem with assault rifles'' is a tiny speck of dust in the grand scheme of things that cause problems in the US which does not deserve the attention it is getting.

I really don't know what else there is to say about this issue.

I think you just hyperbole yourself Michael. Perhaps not in your state? But I know for a fact that road conditions are a bigger issue than gun control in Michigan and that nation wide, our infrastructure as a whole is indeed a hot topic. Perhaps not so much as guns at the moment, but that's because the left and right biased media's instantly go into attack/defend modes when a mass shooting is perpetrated and both sides have no issues stretching the truth to strengthen their cases.
Switzerland further should not be used in any sort of comparisons with the US either. The US, and the American mentality is far from the Swisses. We Americans have huge social issues we need to solve as evident in the fact that nearly all of the mass killing and terror attacks are domestic. To pull Drumpf back into the picture for just a moment, he is prime proof that we have serious issues. I'd say the same with Clinton as well.
I personally am neither for, nor against guns. But two things to think about. Banning assault rifles did have an effect. And when that ban expired in 2004, there was undoubtly a surge in mass shootings. Causation and correlation are obviously not equal, and in this case it may not be, but it certainly stands to reason that if you ban the manufacture as sale of said weaponry, the black market will begin to dry up and the cost of purchasing will increase. This would make it harder for the average street thug to obtain. And this, of course, is glossing over the fact that most of the weapons used and the people perpetrating the attack could and did legally acquire their weapons.
The next thing, being a vet myself, don't you find it interesting that arguably the most trained gun users/owners in the US aren't allowed to carry on post? It's like the army knows something that the civilian world hasn't caught on to yet.

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

It's not true that nothing ever happen in switzerland lol, you just dont hear it lol. We had several case of people taking there military gun and shoot people in court or on the street. It's just very minimal.

Also a big part of our education on guns is made while we are doing the army. It's mandatory to do it in switzerland and it's pretty difficult to not go. Most of young men learn to shoot assault rifle (FAS90) and I personnaly had a shooting medal so I could shoot with a scope and with grenade launcher under it, it was awesome

During our military time (that usually go from 18 to 33) we have our rifle at home with live ammo (closed in a sealed box but still you can open it pretty easely, you get big problem after but you can open it). It's your weapon and you learn the responsability that you have having a gun. I think it's very good.

Now I'm done with that and I gave back my gun, I could have bought it but I dont have any interest in having a gun in my home. I can go buy any gun I want too in an armory as long as I provide a clean police sheet which I have. But yeah not interest, I have some airsoft guns tho but that's the highest I'm willing to go.

But like rallywagon said, mentality is very very very different in usa and in switzerland, it's like the opposite, we dont have gangs, I feels safe everywhere in my town (Geneva) and there's no place where you risk to get shoot. Sure there's some knife stabbing sometimes but that pretty much happening everywhere I'm guessing.

Personally I think in some state it's too easy to buy gun and you can't help but think that stuff like columbine could be avoid if there was a stricter control on guns. But again not my country, not my right, hard to judge really.

 

[Michael88]

I think you just hyperbole yourself Michael. Perhaps not in your state?

I'm an Austrian, living in Austria.

I personally am neither for, nor against guns. But two things to think about. Banning assault rifles did have an effect.

Assault rifles have always been banned, its semi automatic rifles, certain ones. The terminology ''assault rifle'' is wrongly used by politicians because it sounds so catchy and scary. Only the military uses assault rifles, and thats a fact like saaying the earth is a sphere. Every time Clinton and Obama say ''Assault Rifle'' they're plain and simply wrong.

I suspect that the presidents of the US are somewhat intelligent people who know a great deal about the subject so they are liars who simply use this terminology to inspire fear in the gullible masses.

As a person ''in the know'' in terms of guns the assault rifle ban was one crazy mess which made no sense whatsoever.
One of the major deciding factors for a ban of specific rifles was purely looks, not the way how it worked. Random guns were banned due to ludicrous reasons like its stock looked evil or it had a pistol grip. Many guns that worked the same were not banned because they had wooden stocks so they were ''hunting rifles''. Many older designs of firearms were not even looked at despite them being highly effective but having a classic look that did not trigger the people who were looking for those evil assault rifles.

This is what happens when emotional people with heart and no brain want laws. They look good to the average citizen but if you have knowledge about the topic you suddenly realize how hilarious those laws are. Realizing this gives one deep understanding of how politics and the world works, which is barely.

I absolutely and heavily suggest you get down and dirty and look up what mess the ''assault rifle ban'' really was. Go into detail. If you understand what this ban really was you'll laugh, trust me.

So saying this ban worked makes me even more laugh because its not possible. As Is aid, most rifles were banned due to cosmetics only and a lot of rifles who worked basically the same were not banned because they looked tame enough.

Of course, the politicians that enforced this law want to you to believe it worked and do everything in their considerable might and influence to make it appear as a complete success.
To look through the veil of lies, half-truths and incompetence that is politics you have to use logic.

 

[Rallywagon]

Your definition of assault rifle is vastly different than mine it would appear. An AR-15 is every bit the assault rifle that an M16 is. I mean, the parts are even interchangeable. Only the M16A1 and M4A1 are full auto. Every other variant is semi and three round burst. The only time I have ever fired, or anyone else I know of, three round burst was messing around, killing ammo at the range. Assault rifles are meant for accurate suppression. The spray and pray is for the SAW gunners.
I'm also not saying that the AR ban Clinton put into place was perfect. I'm just pointing out that mass shooting have certainly rose since the ban expired.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Your definition of assault rifle is vastly different than mine it would appear. An AR-15 is every bit the assault rifle that an M16 is. I mean, the parts are even interchangeable. Only the M16A1 and M4A1 are full auto. Every other variant is semi and three round burst. The only time I have ever fired, or anyone else I know of, three round burst was messing around, killing ammo at the range. Assault rifles are meant for accurate suppression. The spray and pray is for the SAW gunners.
I'm also not saying that the AR ban Clinton put into place was perfect. I'm just pointing out that mass shooting have certainly rose since the ban expired.

Clinton's AWB targeted Assault Rifle features and also the name AR15. These features were pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding or telescoping stocks, capability of having a detachable magazine etc. IIRC, you were allowed 1or 2 '"features" but not 3 or more. Manufacturers countered by making ones that were compliant, while still operating the same and looking the same. Also, the name AR15 was Armalite's name until they sold the design to Colt. So if AR15s were illegal, a manufacturer could call one an XYZ1234 and not be subject to a specific ban on AR15s. The AWB probably saved no lives. M16A1 was selective fire safe, semi and full auto. M16A2 are selective fire safe, semi, and 3 round burst. M4A1 also selective fire safe, semi or full auto. AR15 is safe and semi like most every other gun on the planet. Yes parts are mostly interchangeable but AR15s are missing a 3rd pin in the lower receiver that makes full auto or 3 round burst possible as well as a selector switch that is not capable of going to a 3rd setting (full auto or burst). These parts are regulated by the government and you cannot buy them without ATF approval, proof of ownership of an existing weapon (ATF approval, pay an excise tax to the government as with all items under NFA rules). An AR15 would be considered an assault rifle by legislators due to those features mentioned earlier. But not the true definition of an assault rifle.

I had a guy tell me the other day that if you took the disconnector off of an AR15 it would be fully automatic. This is possible but if there is nothing preventing the hammer from deploying when the gun isn't ready to fire it would fire without a round being in the chamber (out of battery fire) and the rifle would blow up in your hands or just catastrophic failure. Real full auto parts have safeguards that do not allow the hammer to fall unless the rifle is ready to fire (in battery). I have lots of experience with M16s, M4s and AR15s. I know how they operate. They are not the same. Anyone's definition of what a assault rifle is is a matter of opinion.

 

[Michael88]

Your definition of assault rifle is vastly different than mine it would appear.

There is no ''mine'' or ''your'' definition, its a general definition that relies on very specific features of the gun. If you call a civilian AR-15 an assault rifle you are plainly and simply wrong. As wrong as if you called a train a plane. They are two different things and there is nothing to argue about.

An AR-15 is every bit the assault rifle that an M16 is. I mean, the parts are even interchangeable. Only the M16A1 and M4A1 are full auto. Every other variant is semi and three round burst.

No, the AR-15 in the civilian market is semi-auto only. The ability to fire several rounds per single pull of the trigger makes the gun a fully automatic rifle, even if its a three round burst. Fully automatic rifles and parts that make guns fully automatic are very heavily restricted in the US and virtually un-obtainable for civilians. Legally that is.

The only time I have ever fired, or anyone else I know of, three round burst was messing around, killing ammo at the range.

Then please do not act like politicians and let those who have deep knowledge and experience in a topic do the judging. Half of what goes wrong in modern politics is caused by people with considerable power clouded by emotions judging things they know little or nothing about.
Thats a toxic combination for sane politics and freedom and currently its happening everywhere.

I'm also not saying that the AR ban Clinton put into place was perfect. I'm just pointing out that mass shooting have certainly rose since the ban expired.

Spurious relationship, which means there is no real connection. A lot of things improved and worsened after the Clinton gun ban which have no real connection to the ban. Fact is, the Clinton gun ban caused rifles to be banned for their looks, not their function. Many rifles that worked the same as an evil looking AR, but looked differently, remained obtainable. Basic logics dictates that the Clinton gun ban, which banned some rifles purely because of their looks, did not have any impact in gun crime.

Also, for every statistic you give me I can find one that says the opposite. We have a popular saying here in Austria: Glaube keiner Statistik die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast. Which means: Never trust any statistics that you didn't forge yourself. I know several people who worked on official statistics and you wouldn't believe how completely faked they are. I doubt its vastly different in the US.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Florida GOP candidate to give away semi-automatic rifle

'Merica.

 

[Rallywagon]

There is no ''mine'' or ''your'' definition, its a general definition that relies on very specific features of the gun. If you call a civilian AR-15 an assault rifle you are plainly and simply wrong. As wrong as if you called a train a plane. They are two different things and there is nothing to argue about.


No, the AR-15 in the civilian market is semi-auto only. The ability to fire several rounds per single pull of the trigger makes the gun a fully automatic rifle, even if its a three round burst. Fully automatic rifles and parts that make guns fully automatic are very heavily restricted in the US and virtually un-obtainable for civilians. Legally that is.


Then please do not act like politicians and let those who have deep knowledge and experience in a topic do the judging. Half of what goes wrong in modern politics is caused by people with considerable power clouded by emotions judging things they know little or nothing about.
Thats a toxic combination for sane politics and freedom and currently its happening everywhere.


Spurious relationship, which means there is no real connection. A lot of things improved and worsened after the Clinton gun ban which have no real connection to the ban. Fact is, the Clinton gun ban caused rifles to be banned for their looks, not their function. Many rifles that worked the same as an evil looking AR, but looked differently, remained obtainable. Basic logics dictates that the Clinton gun ban, which banned some rifles purely because of their looks, did not have any impact in gun crime.

Also, for every statistic you give me I can find one that says the opposite. We have a popular saying here in Austria: Glaube keiner Statistik die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast. Which means: Never trust any statistics that you didn't forge yourself. I know several people who worked on official statistics and you wouldn't believe how completely faked they are. I doubt its vastly different in the US.

I didn't give a statistic. I looked into the facts that I could find, gun violence, and violent crimes are all around on a decline, but mass shootings are on the rise. I never said that the correlation was causation, and even mentioned that fact in my first post today. There is, however, a correlation. In fact, most mass shootings in America are attributable to hand guns and not assault rifles. Btw, yes we do have different definitions. As far as I have ever known and been taught, an assault rifle is simply a rapid shooting, gas powered, medium caliber, magazine fed, shoulder fired rifle. The only functional difference between an an AR and an M16/4 is the trigger mechanism. I mean, quite literally the M16 was built off the AR15 platform when Armalite sold the design to Colt. An AR isn't an assault rifle simply in looks. Just because the ban didn't include other weapons of similar workings doesn't necessarily weigh on the fact that many of the weapons that were banned were in fact assault rifles.

 

[Michael88]

oops, wrong button!

 

[Michael88]

I mean, quite literally the M16 was built off the AR15 platform when Armalite sold the design to Colt. An AR isn't an assault rifle simply in looks. Just because the ban didn't include other weapons of similar workings doesn't necessarily weigh on the fact that many of the weapons that were banned were in fact assault rifles.

Its a fact that if its not a fully automatic rifle it is not and cannot be an assault rifle no matter what. This might seem like semantics to you but the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic is big, if you like to admit it or not.

The AR15 and rifles alike you are talking about are semi automatic rifles and their only difference to most rifles that are semi-auto but have no military counterpart is looks.

For example, this little rifle can do the same as an AR15 ''Assault rifle'':

It simply has a wooden stock, no pistol grip and the magazine is smaller (There are 30's available). The caliber is the same, it fires one round per pull of the trigger, its compact and short, it even even has an evil flash suppressor.
You never hear anybody calling this an assault rifle because it does not look evil enough. And thats exactly what the Clinton ban was about.

So the outcry to ban assault rifles is completely nonsensical made by emotional scared people.

 

[Rallywagon]

That's great, I still disagree. The only people I hear trying to make the full auto thing an assault rifle requirement is the gun fetish crowd. I'll stick to the definition the military taught me, as well as the definition on Webster, and just about every definition I've seen made that wasn't on a gun nutter website. But thanks anyway.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I have to have a laugh about the "definition the military taught me" comment. Not sure what branch you were in but it's sad to see Veterans with a lack of understanding of the real differences between black rifles that share the same look. What I gather from it is all magazine fed rifles are assault rifles so long as they have pistol grips. It's ok to be anti gun. It's ok to have an opinion. It's ok to have incorrect ideas of what makes something a certain type of rifle by broadly labeling anything that shares a certain look. The common theme of this thread is agree to disagree. We've come full circle.

 

[Rallywagon]

Again, his definition I've only seen regurgitated by the gun fanatics. 3 round burst is NOT full auto. It is 3 round burst. Full auto your squeeze the trigger and it fires ammo until the magazine is empty. So are the M16A2, A3, and A4 not assault rifles? None of them are full auto. I couldnt care less about what the ban labeled or didn't label as assault rifles. But to claim the weapon that the m16 is literally made from isn't, is laughable to me and not an opinion I subscribe to. But, let me entertain that notion for just a moment... Would an AR with a slide fire stock be considered an assault rifle? By definition, all one has to do is squeeze and hold the trigger and it will fire through a magazine. Does it get to be an assault rifle then? Or is that still a no go?

 

[Blood Eagle]

3 round burst isn't full auto but doesn't change the fact that one trigger pull = multiple rounds downrange. Once more than 1 round per trigger pull = NFA weapon. Slide fire or slam fire stock still = 1 round per trigger pull. So again, any rifle capable of firing a magazine = assault rifle? You could make a slide fire stock and attach it to a handgun and have the same effect but you can't convert handguns to shoulder fire without NFA rules applying because that would turn a handgun into a short barreled rifle. M4A1s also have a 14" barrel which would be illegal for civilians as the minimum barrel length allowed is 16". A selector switch mixed with other parts that changes the rate or fire per trigger pull is what makes something an assault weapon.

 

[Danoff]

3 round burst isn't full auto but doesn't change the fact that one trigger pull = miltiple rounds downrange.

Ok, but not really multiple targets - which I think is the major sticking point. Most people don't like the idea of guns that can be used to launch bullets into a crowd and kill lots of people quickly. A 3 round burst is a one-target per trigger pull option.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Ok, but not really multiple targets - which I think is the major sticking point. Most people don't like the idea of guns that can be used to launch bullets into a crowd and kill lots of people quickly. A 3 round burst is a one-target per trigger pull option.

3 round burst is illegal on a Federal level and subject to the National Firearms Act. All guns can launch bullets into a crowd and kill people quickly. I think most people who want ARs banned is because they look like something that is capable of fully automatic fire or a 3 round burst. But they are not.

 

[Kent]

I have to have a laugh about the "definition the military taught me" comment. Not sure what branch you were in but it's sad to see Veterans with a lack of understanding of the real differences between black rifles that share the same look. What I gather from it is all magazine fed rifles are assault rifles so long as they have pistol grips.

Almost thought you were being serious up to this point, then read this and realized you were just repeating what someone else said.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Almost thought you were being serious up to this point, then read this and realized you were just repeating what someone else said.

Not trolling. I'm a military man as well. That's why I said not sure which branch he was in because the military's version of an assault rifle (M16, M4) are either fully automatic or capable of burst fire. The Civilian AR variants are semi automatic and missing government regulated parts and pieces. So yes, saying the civilian AR is an assault weapon isn't quite true since there is nothing special about how they work compared to any other semi automatic, magazine fed rifle.

Edit - Nice edit.

 

[Danoff]

All guns can launch bullets into a crowd and kill people quickly. I think most people who want ARs banned is because they look like something that is capable of fully automatic fire or a 3 round burst. But they are not.

I doubt most people even know that 3 round bursts exist, most people are just worried about full-auto. I understand that all guns can kill lots of people quickly, I'm saying you can't spray a crowd with a 3-round burst. I think you understood that. Not sure why you felt the need to go with the platitude.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Democrats Stage Sit-In On House Floor Over Gun Bills

 

[Michael88]

I understand that all guns can kill lots of people quickly, I'm saying you can't spray a crowd with a 3-round burst. .

What exactly makes you think you can't spray multiple targets with a burst?

Also a little more education for those with strong opinions but little knowledge about guns.

Let me present you the Mondragon Rifle, this is said to be the first semi automatic rifle ever made, it was designed and put into service before the first World War. Is this an Assault Rifle? Does it look evil?

It can do the exact same thing as a civilian AR-15.

 

[Danoff]

What exactly makes you think you can't spray multiple targets with a burst?

Not really, no. Burst fire is for individual targets to increase your chances of hitting (multiple times) a single target. Swinging your rifle to try to spray multiple targets with a single burst would take longer and be less accurate. You'd be much more likely to miss everything trying to hit multiple with a single burst. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm sure it can, it's not just a good idea, or the point, or how it's going to be used.

Regardless, you can't spray a crowd with a 3-round burst, which is what I actually said.

 

[Kent]

Not trolling. I'm a military man as well. That's why I said not sure which branch he was in because the military's version of an assault rifle (M16, M4) are either fully automatic or capable of burst fire. The Civilian AR variants are semi automatic and missing government regulated parts and pieces. So yes, saying the civilian AR is an assault weapon isn't quite true since there is nothing special about how they work compared to any other semi automatic, magazine fed rifle.

Edit - Nice edit.

Yeah, I read through your first post and started a response and thought... No, that doesn't seem right so I read through it again and got a better idea of what you were saying.
That said, I agree with you and of course this is all still irrelevant since people usually don't want to hear the issues, they just want to hear someone agree with their own views. That of course, is a very dangerous way to approach this subject, and by dangerous I mean for everyone on both sides.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Yeah, I read through your first post and started a response and thought... No, that doesn't seem right so I read through it again and got a better idea of what you were saying.
That said, I agree with you and of course this is all still irrelevant since people usually don't want to hear the issues, they just want to hear someone agree with their own views. That of course, is a very dangerous way to approach this subject, and by dangerous I mean for everyone on both sides.

Fair enough. I think what scares me more is politicians spewing nonsense to the masses and the fact that these people are making the laws. Dianne Feinstein, probably the most anti gun politician on the planet, had a concealed weapons permit and was one of the only people ever allowed to carry a gun into a Federal building until pretty recently. It wouldn't seem her intentions were pure with things like the AWB of 1994 that she had a big hand in. Do as I say not as I do seems to be accepted mentality nowadays. I live in California, probably one of the most anti gun states outside New York and the like. I think many people's irrational fear of AR15s is based on likeness to M16s. California politicians are notoriously aggressive towards banning certain things and are able to sway popular opinion with misinformation. Sometimes they even get busted for ties to organized crime, corruption and gun running like Leland Yee. They don't really have a clear understanding of what it is they are banning. But people eat up that sort of thing.

 

[Michael88]

Regardless, you can't spray a crowd with a 3-round burst, which is what I actually said.

If you spam the trigger you can because it becomes pretty much full-auto. Ten quick 3-round bursts gives one the rough equivalent of full-auto. But I do not really see why we are discussing this because those kind of fire m odes are not allowed on civilian guns.