Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
51 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Ted Cruz: Cooking bacon via an AR-15 because 'Merica rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: RSP_guns [+] [View All]
Matt Brown
United States
Okemos
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
#responsiblegunowner
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In an earlier funner time, I used to say that assault rifles were fun toys, and utterly mock people who thought they needed them for defense or anything serious.

In my defense, that was before the second, let alone the hundredth mass-shooting using assault rifles.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
In an earlier funner time, I used to say that assault rifles were fun toys, and utterly mock people who thought they needed them for defense or anything serious.

In my defense, that was before the second, let alone the hundredth mass-shooting using assault rifles.


What pray tell is an assault rifle?


Edit - oh and to the OP - while sort of humorous in a "hold my beer" fashion - this is the gun fetishing that many people complain about and does responsible gun ownership no favors.

Second edit - I really hate the "murdering children" approach taken by the tweet - again, makes having a rational discussion impossible. I get why it is done (demonize gun supporters) - but it is very much poisoning the well.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
windsagio wrote:
In an earlier funner time, I used to say that assault rifles were fun toys, and utterly mock people who thought they needed them for defense or anything serious.

In my defense, that was before the second, let alone the hundredth mass-shooting using assault rifles.


What pray tell is an assault rifle?


Edit - oh and to the OP - while sort of humerus in a "hold my beer" fashion - this is the gun fetishing that many people complain about and does responsible gun ownership no favors.



From Wikipeida at least;

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Further, regarding selective fire;

Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.[1] The modes are chosen by means of a selector which varies depending on the weapon's design.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
Utrecht wrote:
windsagio wrote:
In an earlier funner time, I used to say that assault rifles were fun toys, and utterly mock people who thought they needed them for defense or anything serious.

In my defense, that was before the second, let alone the hundredth mass-shooting using assault rifles.


What pray tell is an assault rifle?


Edit - oh and to the OP - while sort of humerus in a "hold my beer" fashion - this is the gun fetishing that many people complain about and does responsible gun ownership no favors.



From Wikipeida at least;

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).


About what I expected

Scroll down further in the Wikipedia article - the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle (nor any any of the other rifles commonly called "assault rifles" - they are not capable of selective fire (i.e. semi, burst and full auto)
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Elias Någonsson
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Does it really matter in this case though?

I definitely get that the definitions used are relevant when writing laws (e.g. banning "assault weapons" doesn't work because assault weapons aren't really a thing), but in a casual conversation like this, why would it matter?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Utrecht wrote:
windsagio wrote:
In an earlier funner time, I used to say that assault rifles were fun toys, and utterly mock people who thought they needed them for defense or anything serious.

In my defense, that was before the second, let alone the hundredth mass-shooting using assault rifles.


What pray tell is an assault rifle?


Edit - oh and to the OP - while sort of humerus in a "hold my beer" fashion - this is the gun fetishing that many people complain about and does responsible gun ownership no favors.



From Wikipeida at least;

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).


About what I expected

Scroll down further in the Wikipedia article - the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle (nor any any of the other rifles commonly called "assault rifles" - they are not capable of selective fire (i.e. semi, burst and full auto)


Seriously, in the overall context of it's killing capabilities, which have been well documented through numerous mass shootings, where it was used as the weapon of choice, does it truly matter what you call it? Call it an orange, the fact remains, it kills a large number of humans, in an insanely short period of time. Get over the semantics of what it's called, and recognize it for what it is; a killing machine.

And by the way, gun control legislation can be passed whee individual weapons can be placed on the ban (or not banned). Regardless of what particular class or weapon type it might fall under. Congress can be very flexible like that, if so desired.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Call me crazy, but I DO think it matters - using accurate terms is key when having a policy discussion. Accurate terms are less important (and could even be a hindrance) when having an emotional discussion.


Assault Weapon is a loaded term that implies things that the AR-15 and similar weapons are not capable of.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Elias Någonsson
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
Call me crazy, but I DO think it matters - using accurate terms is key when having a policy discussion. Accurate terms are less important (and could even be a hindrance) when having an emotional discussion.


In regards to "accurate terms", this certainly isn't a "policy discussion".
This is a discussion about using guns to cook bacon and the culture that's part of.

PS: What an "emotional discussion" is I don't even know, but the usage of it here just makes you look like you're trying to undermine the discussion with imverysmart-comments.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
Call me crazy, but I DO think it matters - using accurate terms is key when having a policy discussion. Accurate terms are less important (and could even be a hindrance) when having an emotional discussion.


Assault Weapon is a loaded term that implies things that the AR-15 and similar weapons are not capable of.


The terminology is inacurrate because once defined ways to circumvent the definition are immedietely put into effect.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
Call me crazy, but I DO think it matters - using accurate terms is key when having a policy discussion. Accurate terms are less important (and could even be a hindrance) when having an emotional discussion.


Assault Weapon is a loaded term that implies things that the AR-15 and similar weapons are not capable of.


Legislation can read Ban any gun that is manufactured, sold, or labeled with the designation 'AR'. Case closed.

OR ban any gun that has a detachable clip. Although I am not a techie on guns, I find it hard to believe that legislation cannot be worked, that bans what we wish to ban, guns with a detachable magazine, or ones which can fire, above some proscribed rate. In other words, ones that kill alot of people, quickly. Surely you have to admit, that an AR-15, could probably kill more people, over a sustained period of time, than a 6 shot revolver, that requires reload after 6 shots?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:

Legislation can read Ban any gun that is manufactured, sold, or labeled with the designation 'AR'. Case closed.



Let me introduce our new model the AS-15. And since you closed the case, we won't be able to discuss limiting it.

Do you want to have a real conversation or just whine about guns?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Utrecht wrote:
windsagio wrote:
In an earlier funner time, I used to say that assault rifles were fun toys, and utterly mock people who thought they needed them for defense or anything serious.

In my defense, that was before the second, let alone the hundredth mass-shooting using assault rifles.


What pray tell is an assault rifle?


Edit - oh and to the OP - while sort of humerus in a "hold my beer" fashion - this is the gun fetishing that many people complain about and does responsible gun ownership no favors.



From Wikipeida at least;

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).


About what I expected

Scroll down further in the Wikipedia article - the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle (nor any any of the other rifles commonly called "assault rifles" - they are not capable of selective fire (i.e. semi, burst and full auto)


I had an AK-47 (generally considered an assault rifle). Which I got with a nominal "I'll sign this and you'll do a background check later" background check, and with a 30 and 40 round clip (which I don't think were legal per se, they had some out).

An AR-15 is probably about as much fun to shoot as an AK is so I think my story holds up, this particular quibble is pathetic.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice to see the usual bullshit misdirection about definitions of guns.
19 
 Thumb up
1.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:

Legislation can read Ban any gun that is manufactured, sold, or labeled with the designation 'AR'. Case closed.



Let me introduce our new model the AS-15. And since you closed the case, we won't be able to discuss limiting it.

Do you want to have a real conversation or just whine about guns?



The sign that you know you're right is when you constantly try to play the rules-lawyer.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PMC
United States
Milford
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Utrecht wrote:
Call me crazy, but I DO think it matters - using accurate terms is key when having a policy discussion. Accurate terms are less important (and could even be a hindrance) when having an emotional discussion.


Assault Weapon is a loaded term that implies things that the AR-15 and similar weapons are not capable of.


From:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-...

"What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns: They weren’t the first victims of a mass shooting the Florida radiologist had seen—but their wounds were radically different."
END quote

The idea that the ability to shoot full auto is the defining characteristic is manipulative. A round from an AR-15 is intended to maim and kill a human. It's not a hunting rifle. It's not a gun you carry for self defense. It's not a weapon you'd use to defend your home.

When I was in the Army we had it drilled into our heads about our M-16s: "One shot, one kill drill sergeant!" We were never trained for full auto because it was a waste of bullets. After the 3rd round you're off your target.

I've posted this all before.

True, the lack of precise terms muddies the waters. But the insistence on gun owners that "assault" means only fully automatic and excludes rifles that are solely designed to maim and kill humans is manipulation of the highest form. Anti-gun folks might be ignorant and naive, but I'll take that over outright lying about the intended purpose of a weapon - a purpose that is being utilized over and over to kill innocent civilians.
14 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Certainly, legislation can ban certain features (i.e. the Assault Weapon Ban from 94) or certain guns (that one seems more legally fraught).

But all of this comes back to - what is the specific issue/challenge you are wanting to address? Is it gun violence in general, is it school/mass shootings? Is it suicide by gun?


Then, would the proposal actually solve the the desired issue - if it does, then we can have the competing rights discussion.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What we want to address is evolving;

It used to be crime, thus the emphasis on handguns and concealed carry.

Now that mass shootings are a thing,we're looking at deadliness and rate of fire, which will push the emphasis towards rifles and semi/full auto weapons.

My goal target would be "weapons specifically designed to kill people". You can still kill a person with an old 30-30, bu that's not its purpose.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
Certainly, legislation can ban certain features (i.e. the Assault Weapon Ban from 94) or certain guns (that one seems more legally fraught).

But all of this comes back to - what is the specific issue/challenge you are wanting to address? Is it gun violence in general, is it school/mass shootings? Is it suicide by gun?


Then, would the proposal actually solve the the desired issue - if it does, then we can have the competing rights discussion.


4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
Nice to see the usual bullshit misdirection about definitions of guns.


Wendell,

but it is not a BS misdirection. This is a core point to the discussion. When someone says, we should ban AR-15s - that by extension targets a significant % of the currently legal guns in the US that share the same or similar features.

If that is their intent - then state that. But I am a firm believer in having a clear problem that should be addressed - and a solution that actually addresses that problem - and definitions are key to this.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
Certainly, legislation can ban certain features (i.e. the Assault Weapon Ban from 94) or certain guns (that one seems more legally fraught).

But all of this comes back to - what is the specific issue/challenge you are wanting to address? Is it gun violence in general, is it school/mass shootings? Is it suicide by gun?


Then, would the proposal actually solve the the desired issue - if it does, then we can have the competing rights discussion.


If you have to ask what specific issue or challenge that America faces, after Parkland (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Pulse, Vegas...insert any of dozens of names here)...where the body count was a dozen or more, then there is little hope of solving the issue. I am not sure why the gun type even relates to the fact that "mass numbers of people are killed within minutes". Any gun that has that capability, should be banned. It can be debated what weapons fall under that category, but i my opinion, it's any gun that doesn't have to be reloaded after 6 shots (ala Old West Revolver style). But that's just my personal opinion on what should be banned.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Utrecht wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Nice to see the usual bullshit misdirection about definitions of guns.


Wendell,

but it is not a BS misdirection. This is a core point to the discussion. When someone says, we should ban AR-15s - that by extension targets a significant % of the currently legal guns in the US that share the same or similar features.

If that is their intent - then state that. But I am a firm believer in having a clear problem that should be addressed - and a solution that actually addresses that problem - and definitions are key to this.


Let's assume if it ever got to writing legislation and regulation that lawyers and subject matter experts would make sure the words were right, mmkay?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
Utrecht wrote:
Certainly, legislation can ban certain features (i.e. the Assault Weapon Ban from 94) or certain guns (that one seems more legally fraught).

But all of this comes back to - what is the specific issue/challenge you are wanting to address? Is it gun violence in general, is it school/mass shootings? Is it suicide by gun?


Then, would the proposal actually solve the the desired issue - if it does, then we can have the competing rights discussion.


If you have to ask what specific issue or challenge that America faces, after Parkland (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Pulse, Vegas...insert any of dozens of names here)...where the body count was a dozen or more, then there is little hope of solving the issue. I am not sure why the gun type even relates to the fact that "mass numbers of people are killed within minutes". Any gun that has that capability, should be banned. It can be debated what weapons fall under that category, but i my opinion, it's any gun that doesn't have to be reloaded after 6 shots (ala Old West Revolver style). But that's just my personal opinion on what should be banned.


We have a ton of guidelines, many of which have been tried:

1) Large capacity
2) What the fetishists call "Stopping power"
3) High rate of fire

As I said, many of these things have been addressed at some point or another. I'm heading more and more towards the idea that the rule should be "Semiautomatic rifles"...

Which of course is pretty close to what the common (if not dictionary) meaning of 'assault rifles' is anyways.

Edit: Extended clip bans are good too, but those already exist and are way too easy to work around.

The place I bought my AK at in 2002 (as I mentioned) sold clips that fit it but 'weren't for use for it' and 'we won't actually call these full auto conversion' kits.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
What we want to address is evolving;

It used to be crime, thus the emphasis on handguns and concealed carry.

Now that mass shootings are a thing,we're looking at deadliness and rate of fire, which will push the emphasis towards rifles and semi/full auto weapons.

My goal target would be "weapons specifically designed to kill people". You can still kill a person with an old 30-30, bu that's not its purpose.



Fair enough - your definitions is a start - but one that is very hard to nail down. I can easily see a point around AR-15s meeting that definition - but I can also see counter arguments that the AR-15 is in fact not designed to kill people.

Some perspective.

There are somewhere around 8 million AR style weapons sold since 1994. They have been used in a very low % of gun crime (in the .012% range - the exact % is difficult to nail down). Given this, you can reasonable argue that the AR-15 primary purpose is for things like vermin hunting, sport shooting, collecting. So does that mean the 99.988% should be penalized?

Further, You can easily apply that same definition to handguns (say the Glock 19( - which are used in significantly more gun deaths than the AR-15.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.