Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

21 - 31 of 31 Posts

·
RETIRED Super Stealth Moderator
Joined
·
27,899 Posts
I would absolutely support the 2nd amendment if it limited ownership! I'm an LEO, hunter and gun owner. I have four, a lever action, two shotguns and a 9mm handgun. I personally have never felt the need to own an assault rifle and don't agree with there ownership.
must be a record - 4 posts before this one found the Hole. at least he has a common sense approach, imho.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,046 Posts
Never had understood the whole assault rifle thing, what's available without a special federal permit is just a semi automatic rifle like most hunters use but with a pistol grip. If the real problem is the people attracted to the styling of them, they'll just find something different or mod a hunting rifle design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Discussion Starter #25 (Edited)
Explr1 said:
I personally have never felt the need to own an assault rifle and don't agree with there ownership.
The term "assault rifle" is a politically convenient lie told to the general, non-gun-owning populace. An "assault rifle" is a semi-automatic rifle that has a shape similar to those used by various military bodies. In reality, they are typically no more or less effective at killing than semi-automatic rifles that lack the quasi-militaristic shape.

This rifle is a Remington 742. It is semi-automatic, has a detachable magazine for quick reloading, and fires .30-06 bullets.


This rifle is a Bushmaster M4 A3 rifle based on the AR-15 platform. It is semi-automatic, has a detachable magazine, and fires 5.56 NATO bullets.


The Remington is rarely included in the "assault rifle" classification while the Bushmaster always is. The Remington one fires a bigger bullet at higher energies and greater killing power than the Bushmaster. The Bushmaster just looks scary owing to it's black color, comfortable pistol grip and otherwise general resemblance to the military M4 carbine and M16 rifle. The only actual technical advantage for the Bushmaster is that it can accept larger capacity magazines. While that is an advantage, I don't think it really puts it in a different class from the Remington.

Paradoxically, the overwhelming majority of "gun crime" in the US involves handguns. I don't have national statistics handy, but here's some from my hometown of Chicago:
2012 data: 2012: Assaults & Weapon Used | HeyJackass!
2013 data: 2013 Assault Totals | HeyJackass!
(Actually, that whole website is pretty awesome)

Yet despite this, the majority of hand guns are legal while the majority of rifles are still banned (generally, bolt-action and lever-action rifles are fine). Hell, they even banned the Kel Tec Sub-2000 which is a small rifle that shoots pistol rounds.

I'm behind on other stuff right now, so I don't have the time to lambaste the gun rights advocates with the same quality. Suffice it to say that they employ as much motivated reasoning as the gun control advocates and their arguments are usually just as stupid and nonsensical.

Extreme stupidity on all sides wrought by the polarized nature of "discourse" in this country and the ones to suffer are the moderate majority who don't get all worked up over nothing.
 

·
RETIRED Super Stealth Moderator
Joined
·
27,899 Posts
just some questions to help home in on the controversy, starting with the post above...

how many rounds can that 742 have ready for use at one time, in a single clip? how about the Bushmaster?

what's the recoil on the 742 vs the Bushmaster? can I fire the 742 held low and be reasonably accurate with it? how about the Bushmaster?

can I modify the Bushmaster to be fully automatic? how about the 742 - can I modify it to make it fully automatic?

which weapon is generally accepted to be close to US government issue for fighting wars? cuz you know, I'm a MURICAN, and I want to own what they use to fight wars with...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,348 Posts
therein lies the issue, the united states is literally filled with unregistered, unmarked, illegal, etc people, how does requiring people to register their guns help protect us against nutcases, when the nutcases aren't going to play by the rules? I think that is the differentiation people need to understand, gun laws will help track heat of the moments killers that purchased guns legally (after the fact), but it isn't going to stop (imo) pre meditated events.
edit^^^
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Discussion Starter #28 (Edited)
how many rounds can that 742 have ready for use at one time, in a single clip? how about the Bushmaster?
*cough*magazine*cough*
Near as I can tell, the 74x and derivatives (7400, etc) have 4- and 10-round magazines.
30-round mags are standard for the AR though there is a company that sells a 100-round magazine. That said, that 100-round mag is heavy, expensive and prone to jamming.

I can see where you're going here. Greater capacity = greater killing power and that makes sense. I would counter with the idea that carrying additional magazines is trivial. The majority of the mass and volume is dictated by the ammo itself so carrying 60 rounds in mags for the Remington isn't much different from carrying 60 rounds in mags for the Bushmaster. Swapping magazines is also trivial; I can do it pretty quickly with the 10-round mag in my Beretta Neos and I don't even practice it. It's sort of the point of a detachable magazine.

what's the recoil on the 742 vs the Bushmaster? can I fire the 742 held low and be reasonably accurate with it? how about the Bushmaster?
I'm not sure where you're going with this one. Are you referring to shooting from the hip versus from the shoulder? No firearm is accurate shooting from the hip; that's Hollywood crap. Unless, of course, you're a robot capable of hyper-accurate measurements of distance and angle and can do wicked fast trigonometric ("SOHCAHTOA") calculations.

can I modify the Bushmaster to be fully automatic? how about the 742 - can I modify it to make it fully automatic?
Disclosure: I've never seriously considered the idea of illegally converting a weapon based on an AR-15 to be capable of fully-automatic fire so some of this is speculation.
With enough time and money, most rifles can be made automatic. That said, it is likely easier to convert the AR-15. Based on what I've read in 5 minutes of Googling, you'd need access to decent milling or CNC equipment and have a fair bit of skill in order to make it happen. The firearms manufacturers have gone out of their way to make it difficult to do this conversion. This is actually one of those cases where it would probably be cheaper to buy one of the pre-1986, legal M16 rifles (roughly $16k) and deal with the tons of NFA paperwork with ATF (which may reject your application anyway).

I'll confess, I've never fired either one specifically. In terms of long guns, I have fired (in Boy Scouts or with friends) a semi-auto AK-47, 12 ga and 410 ga shotguns, and a fully-auto Thompson submachine gun, so I do know a bit about recoil.

The AK-47 is about 7.7 lbs and fires a bullet with about 1900J of muzzle energy. The recoil is minimal. It's far less jarring than even a 410 ga shotgun and much easier to manage than a Walther PPQ .40 pistol (.40 pistols tend to be very "snappy" with a lot of muzzle flip for limp-wristed keyboard jockeys like me).

The Bushmaster weighs a little over 6 lbs and fires a bullet with about 1700J of muzzle energy. I would predict that it's roughly on-par with the AK-47. Slightly less weight, slightly less powerful bullet.

The Remington weights about 7.5 lbs and fires a bullet with just shy of 4000J of muzzle energy (on the low side, some ammo is "hotter"). Recoil will be higher but it's impossible to say how much.

The Thompson weighs about 10.5 lbs and fires .45 ACP pistol rounds with around 500J of muzzle energy (think: heavy and low-powered). Interestingly, it's a hot mess on full-auto. Even firing in 3-4 round bursts, I could rarely get more than 2 shots per burst on the paper at 5 yards. It was fun but if I were actually considering the horrifying idea of killing somebody, it would be last on my list.

which weapon is generally accepted to be close to US government issue for fighting wars? cuz you know, I'm a MURICAN, and I want to own what they use to fight wars with...
The AR-15 platform (receiver, trigger, gas-piston operated, etc) is directly adapted from the modern M16/M4 platform. Functionally, the AR-15 can be take as an M16 or M4 without select-fire capability. The main appeal among gun enthusiasts is that the AR-15 is a highly modular system. It's like macho, alpha-male, 2A-supporter Barbies or Cabbage Patch. Seriously, they love talking about this or that part that they've swapped out or customized. It's basically the same as being a car modder but with firearms.

The Remington looks closer to the old M1 Garand of WWII (wooden furniture, same bullet, etc) and probably has similar (i.e. limited) parts customizability.

Are you raising the idea that objects with a specific connotation influence human behavior?
 

·
Founder of the STFA
Joined
·
8,667 Posts
For some reason this debate always brings to mind the death penalty debate. Some are strictly for, or strictly against, but a large part of the ongoing debate and words written on the topic deal with the manner of killing the condemned. The whole cruel and unusual punishment tangent.

So if a gun can shoot more than one bullet per minute, like most anything past a muzzle loader, it can be a dangerous weapon capable of multiple attacks. Past that point, it's splitting hairs and is a race to insanity. The mass murders are so hard to fathom, we feel the weapon has to be the problem and we must do something about it. When a simple gun or other weapon is used to kill multiple people, thousand per year, those stories and gun arguments don't get picked up so fast. BUT IF WE COULD ONLY GET RID OF THOSE SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS! Then we'd be getting somewhere.

So again, same as why we really bother going to such great lengths to determine a manner of executing people. Try this. Do we have to spend all the time, money and resources to determine how we should....kill somebody? Are we doing it for the condemned, to preserve their rights or dignity, or just to make ourselves feel we're not basically savages that are.....killing somebody?

I have no problem with or without a death penalty. I don't think it's a deterrent any more than knowing you'll spend your remaining life in a cell is a deterrent. But why not just chop some heads or vaporize the condemned and be done with it?

BTW, I have a very nice condition '95 VR6 Wagon in the Classifieds that I'd really like to find a nice home. Toss me an offer and it could be yours! No trades for firearms please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
I agree. Focusing on the weapons is treating the symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. We are arguing about symptoms while the patient dies of the underlying cause.

Assuming we were to eliminate the 2nd Amendment AND assuming we were to eliminate all of the guns in the country: people are going to keep killing each other with knives, bats, pipes, cars, blowguns, their bare hands, etc. Sure, they may be a little less effective about it but it ignores the fact that there's a reason that this is happening.

If we eliminated all of the guns, sure, you'd see a reduction in fatalities.
But, if we worked to reduce the underlying cause of the gun violence, we'd see a reduction in fatalities AND many people in the lower income groups would have an improved quality of life. Odds are, they'd be more productive which would raise the GDP and revenues for everyone.

But nah, we're just going to keep railing on about the guns and not actually help the population that has been marginalized by past bad decisions.
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
Top