[worry]

That's a good point, and the specific wording in their statement is "assault-style rifles" which in this case means semi-automatic rifles meant for civilians (including but not limited to AR-15s). Automatic weapons are already pretty decently regulated even in the U.S. (which, I mean, tells you something in itself), and I'm pretty positive Dick's never sold them.

But you'll still occasionally run across the argument that AR-15s don't meet the standard of assault rifle -- the anti-PC brigade gets curiously ardent about respecting nomenclature once you're talking about their niche interest -- and are essentially sports rifles dressed up as military weapons for aesthetic reasons. They'll trip over their combat-style civilian boots in their army green duffel bag rushing to tell you what AR really stands for, cite hunting and self-defense as these guns' primary uses, blah blah blah. As if any of that's compatible with the make-believe soldier aesthetic. Or even what people are concerned with. Everyone knows these aren't 'machine guns'.

The reason AR-15s and the like are so popular isn't sport, hunting, or self defense, it's because their bullets do more damage than the average gun (including many military grade weapons). They are tools of fast-paced slaughter, in manufacturer and user intent. LINK Their owners know this, and if they claim otherwise, they are lying to you.

[Silencer]

worry, on 01 March 2018 - 12:44 AM, said:

That's a good point, and the specific wording in their statement is "assault-style rifles" which in this case means semi-automatic rifles meant for civilians (including but not limited to AR-15s). Automatic weapons are already pretty decently regulated even in the U.S. (which, I mean, tells you something in itself), and I'm pretty positive Dick's never sold them.

But you'll still occasionally run across the argument that AR-15s don't meet the standard of assault rifle -- the anti-PC brigade gets curiously ardent about respecting nomenclature once you're talking about their niche interest -- and are essentially sports rifles dressed up as military weapons for aesthetic reasons. They'll trip over their combat-style civilian boots in their army green duffel bag rushing to tell you what AR really stands for, cite hunting and self-defense as these guns' primary uses, blah blah blah. As if any of that's compatible with the make-believe soldier aesthetic. Or even what people are concerned with. Everyone knows these aren't 'machine guns'.

The reason AR-15s and the like are so popular isn't sport, hunting, or self defense, it's because their bullets do more damage than the average gun (including many military grade weapons). They are tools of fast-paced slaughter, in manufacturer and user intent. LINK Their owners know this, and if they claim otherwise, they are lying to you.

Yeah, an AR-15 is what NZ would categorise as a "Military-Style Semi-Automatic", and getting a license to own one of those is the toughest to get, AND there are further restrictions on the types you can own. And rightly so. 5.56/.223 ammunition is nasty because it's designed to yaw and tumble inside the body, and can cause cavitation wounds as well. And it's kinda shit for hunting, too - and certainly not a noticeably better option than other calibers that weren't built to damage human tissue for warfare uses, either.

And let's be honest, it appeals to the nationalistic and power fantasy tendencies of a certain demographic of people, who like to think they're trained soldiers.

[Nicodimas]

worry, on 01 March 2018 - 12:44 AM, said:

The reason AR-15s and the like are so popular isn't sport, hunting, or self defense, it's because their bullets do more damage than the average gun (including many military grade weapons). They are tools of fast-paced slaughter, in manufacturer and user intent. LINK Their owners know this, and if they claim otherwise, they are lying to you.

What are you talking about?

How exactly does an AR, especially .223 caliber, do more damage then many military grade weapons???

I will wholeheartedly flip this thread into a thread about the various characteristics of gun platforms, the physics behind it, gun forums argue about this endlessly as is. There is a mindbendingly large amount of information gun people discuss and argue about just about everything.

As a note there exists about 500,000+ fully automatic In the hands of civilians. There’s exists about 8 million “tactical” black guns in America. There’s about 2 million destructive devices... there’s what 400 million .. 660 million total arms. And there will be more... as 2018 3D Metal printed guns now exist and the apps
In the wild now....




Can’t stop the signal.

[worry]

The link I included answers your question, but if you want more, including explanation from the AR-15's designer, here you go: https://www.theatlan...-lethal/545162/

The AR-15 was designed to cause more damage to a body than military weapons were doing, and was adapted into the M-16 to more effectively slaughter Vietnamese. But you already know this, so I don't know why you had me explain it. EDIT: I guess what I said could be read as "the AR-15 does more damage than the modern military rifles adapted from the AR-15," so sorry for the ambiguity.

Ghost Gunner is a funny name, since it's a ghost hobby. Gun ownership is becoming more and more concentrated with each generation. I don't know if your numbers are right, as high quality surveys tend to show there's slightly more guns than there are adults in the U.S. But whatever. 3% of Americans own over half of them, and it's those same 3% who are even remotely interested in 3D printing them. https://www.theguard...wnership-survey

Nobody wants this garbage, and once you end manufacturing and criminalize ownership (with a turn-your-guns-in amnesty), the vast majority of these things will disappear. It won't solve everything, it won't create a 100% success rate, but I ain't worried about goofy dorks with 3D printers flooding the black market.

This post has been edited by worry: 01 March 2018 - 08:03 AM

[Gorefest]

Well, at least Trump seems in favour of tighter gun control. Good bloke, that president.

[Cause]

Gorefest, on 01 March 2018 - 09:30 AM, said:

Well, at least Trump seems in favour of tighter gun control. Good bloke, that president.

Someone will remind him what his 'base' expects and he will change track again.

[EmperorMagus]

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...chool-1.4555939

They haven't even implemented their genius plans yet ...

[Nicodimas]

Cause, on 01 March 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

Gorefest, on 01 March 2018 - 09:30 AM, said:

Well, at least Trump seems in favour of tighter gun control. Good bloke, that president.

Someone will remind him what his 'base' expects and he will change track again.

Trump is smart. A genius really. He talking about mental health here, but this idea especially with the line of sending military in nature armed police with no-knock warrants (SWAT) not likely to help someone mentally ill.......

President Trump: "I like taking the guns early ... Take the guns first, go through due process second.

I think he is ensnaring the left and this is political in nature. No one here and no way a judge would uphold due process after rights/property were stripped. This however gave Gun people a talking point and divided this debate further. It further leverages the argument that this is about political power and not safety.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 01 March 2018 - 05:39 PM

[Macros]

if be genius you mean moronic puppet of his handlers, then yes, I guess he is

[Gorefest]

Quote

The article is such a load of bullshit, it claims that arming teachers is the same as fire detection and suppression systems. Handing a teacher a Glock is the same as installing a sprinkler system.

But....but....surely it is obvious that introducing more guns into any environment will reduce gun violence? Just as introducing more flames into a building will reduce a fire. Just imagine the carnage if you wouldnt have any guns around. It would be a bloodbath.

[Macros]

I'm not really sure where to post this, the laugh while you cry thread in the inn? here? the us politics thread?

[Macros]

all the hallmarks of a genius though, spot on Nico

[worry]

From Scientific American: https://www.scientif...ra-conventions/

Quote

If guns were perfectly safe in the hands of trained NRA members, Jena and Olenski reasoned, they should have found no differences between gun injury rates on convention days versus other days. Yet injury rates were, on average, 20 percent lower on meeting days. “We believe this is due to brief reductions in gun use during the dates of these meetings,” Jena says. “The main implication is that guns carry inherent risk even among individuals who we might consider to be skilled and experienced in the use of firearms.” Importantly, they did not find any corresponding drop in firearm crime rates on convention days, which suggests NRA meeting attendees are not responsible for a large proportion of U.S. gun crimes—just gun injuries, many of which may be accidental. In 2015 the U.S. logged nearly 85,000 firearm injuries, of which 17,000 were unintentional.

Quote

Jena points out the 20 percent injury drop on convention days corresponds to a seemingly small absolute reduction in the nationwide gun injury rate—one fewer gun injury for every 300,000 Americans. But this difference is not trivial, he says, considering only about 80,000 Americans out of a gun-owning population of tens of millions attend each meeting. In other words, a group only slightly larger than the population of Camden, N.J., appears to nudge gun injury statistics down for a few days every spring. NRA meetings, the researchers contend, may influence gun use even among people who don’t attend. Hunting and shooting ranges around the country may close on convention days so that employees can go, and group outings may be postponed during the confab even if only one group member plans to attend. The design of this study only identifies associations, not precise cause-and-effect relationships, and so is unable to ascertain that the observed injury drop on convention days came about because NRA members are not using their weapons. But several study details support this explanation. First, injury rates on convention days dropped among men not women, consistent with the 85 percent of NRA meeting attendees who were male in 2017. The authors also found injury decreases were highest within the state hosting the convention, given that gun owners are more likely to attend meetings held close to home.

[Nicodimas]

Macros, on 01 March 2018 - 08:09 PM, said:

all the hallmarks of a genius though, spot on Nico

I tried to make a judgeful post to explain.. but got lost on the way.

I laughed ..because it was just .. that.. sad.

@ Worry: Your point exactly? Falling into old Nico level habits there posting and dashing....

[Cause]

Macros, on 01 March 2018 - 08:09 PM, said:

I'm not really sure where to post this, the laugh while you cry thread in the inn? here? the us politics thread?

Whose that sitting on his left struggling to keep a straight face

[worry]

I bolded my point in the parts I excerpted. Do you take special delight in having me repeat myself?

Quote

“The main implication is that guns carry inherent risk even among individuals who we might consider to be skilled and experienced in the use of firearms.”

It wasn't in direct response to anything you said (you're so vain, you probably think this post is about you ), it's just more data on the thread subject. Like the general argument that more guns = more safety & the more specific argument made by our genius president and certain state legislatures that arming a select group of teachers will actually make kids safer.

[HoosierDaddy]

Cause, on 01 March 2018 - 11:00 PM, said:

Macros, on 01 March 2018 - 08:09 PM, said:

I'm not really sure where to post this, the laugh while you cry thread in the inn? here? the us politics thread?

Whose that sitting on his left struggling to keep a straight face

Diane Feinstein, Democratic Senator.

[Nicodimas]

Gorefest, on 01 March 2018 - 07:17 PM, said:

Quote

The article is such a load of bullshit, it claims that arming teachers is the same as fire detection and suppression systems. Handing a teacher a Glock is the same as installing a sprinkler system.

But....but....surely it is obvious that introducing more guns into any environment will reduce gun violence? Just as introducing more flames into a building will reduce a fire. Just imagine the carnage if you wouldnt have any guns around. It would be a bloodbath.

Let’s compare this to say Harry Potter for greater reference points, so maybe it might click on a different level:

Hogwarts was a open/concealed carry school!! Think about it..... they still had the power to kill, but let them have there wands. They all knew the words. They didn’t because they had *values* instilled by their society. Values!! (Think about how modern society glorifies killing as entertainment)

So who doesn’t obey these laws? Voldemort’s allies (evil folks)...why would they as they are trying to snatch rule over others....

You wouldn’t just have a bunch of defenseless kids at hogwarts.. Hogwarts actually teaches kids to defend themselves to the potentially big bad world. All the teachers have the ability to defend their kids as they are entrusted with other people’s freaking kids. That should be one of the teachers primary goals ... keep kids freaking safe (from Voldemort).

Note: This is a fictional world that has more sense than the modern world! This world is far more dangerous too. Of course teachers should be prepared for evil. Teachers should be willing to defend the people we entrust them too... are people totally mad? Why are we sending kids to places you couldn’t entrust them. A teacher should make it there priority to keep kids safe! The actual excuse is what it’s too hard? Well guess what the worlds been like this for a long damn time and grow up and adult. Go look at the last century ..

Geez the teachers who don’t want to use lethal , can use less than lethal...

Kids should also be prepared to defend themselves and know how to react too...

Note 1.5: ......You have to be prepared for these situations even if rare to mitigate the circumstances. These people go out and become adults and this would foster a community of people that look after each other! This is a good thing .. everyone has each other’s back. This would foster more intelligent and situationally aware people that might have a backbone sometime later in life.

Note2: if any of the above was somehow a Harry Potter spoiler ...I really ..really challenge your priorities in life.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 02 March 2018 - 03:57 AM

[Silencer]

Using Harry Potter as an analogy for guns in schools is about as valid as using Lord of the Flies to debate human morality. In others: it's not, because it's fictional and that's not how the world works at all.

[worry]

Let's compare it to every other developed country on Earth, and implement the effective measures they've already successfully implemented.