The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[EgonSpengler]

[...]a recent poll that found overwhelming support (almost 90% - even self-described Republicans and gun owners) for[..] expanding background checks

At this point I'd be happy with mandatory background checks which polls with massive approval.

And, as if on cue, I read this morning that the NRA says it will oppose any expansion of background checks. Because duh. Do I even need to be writing this?

 

[zxcvbob]

But no, don't be stupid. Everyone knows that higher-capacity magazines are better for killing oodles of people. There's literally a reason why magazines got bigger when it came to designing combat weapons.

Be careful with anything that "everybody knows", it's often wrong. You're not wrong here, but it's not a compelling argument either. Higher-capacity magazines are better, but only slightly, and they jam more frequently. And it doesn't take that long to load another magazine. I haven't had my coffee yet this morning so I can't recall the specifics, but I think at least one mass shooting was stopped when his huge magazine jammed, and at least one used oodles of 10-round magazines because they are more reliable.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, Bissonnette had higher capacity magazines, for example, and the massacre would probably have been worse if his gun hadn't jammed.

But if it's only slightly better, it seems very strange to me that you would weigh down soldiers with bigger and heavier things. Unless of course, nearly everyone involved thought that larger magazines were superior ...

Also, Commodore would be an idiot for recommending higher-capacity magazines when it comes to defending yourself. A guaranteed 10 shots is going to be much more useful than a higher chance of a weapon jam when you're being charged by a bear... And yet, he defends the idea of higher-capacity magazines when hiking. And when it comes to mowing down 50 - 80 wild hogs, you cannot afford a weapon malfunction! You be a moron to not have multiple small magazines

It's almost like he's taken great pains to explain why higher capacity magazines are better at killing. Especially in scenarios where a weapon jam is disastrous.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Pffffft! Magazines are for sissies, belt-fed ammunition with a 250-round belts is the way to go!
I wonder what kind of modifications an AR-15 style rifle would need to use belt-fed ammunition.

 

[Farm Boy]

Never seen a full machine gun conversion. Bolt mechanism is usually wrong, isn't it? Can't imagine many people would talk about making their gun federally illegal, particularly in a way more complicated than taking a hacksaw to a shotgun barrel.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Never seen a full machine gun conversion. Bolt mechanism is usually wrong, isn't it? Can't imagine many people would talk about making their gun federally illegal, particularly in a way more complicated than taking a hacksaw to a shotgun barrel.

Many years ago, I remember reading that the part that enabled an AR-15 to fire on full-auto was something you could legally buy in another country, get delivered in the mail, and then install yourself. I don't know if this was a tall tale, or whether, like a bumpstock, it was something so few people actually did that it was like worrying about being struck by lightning because it's cloudy outside.

 

[Farm Boy]

Even full auto it'd still be an assault rifle rather than a genuine machine gun. They get reclassified when they can feed from a belt I think. Honestly, I doubt the parts cool well enough on an AR-15 to go full machine, but I'm not particularly versed. Somebody could definitely correct me.

 

[Commodore]

Many years ago, I remember reading that the part that enabled an AR-15 to fire on full-auto was something you could legally buy in another country, get delivered in the mail, and then install yourself. I don't know if this was a tall tale, or whether, like a bumpstock, it was something so few people actually did that it was like worrying about being struck by lightning because it's cloudy outside.

It's a tall tale. Yeah, technically you can buy the parts needed, but before you make the purchase, you have to provide documentation proving you are legally allowed to manufacture machine guns.

Also, converting an AR-15 to full auto is extremely difficult anyway as versions made available to civilians are manufactured in such a way that it would require some serious machine work on your part to make it able to accept the necessary parts. Most people don't have the knowledge or willingness to go through the trouble.

 

[Hygro]

Pffffft! Magazines are for sissies, belt-fed ammunition with a 250-round belts is the way to go!
I wonder what kind of modifications an AR-15 style rifle would need to use belt-fed ammunition.

I'm into this

 

[EgonSpengler]

Even full auto it'd still be an assault rifle rather than a genuine machine gun. They get reclassified when they can feed from a belt I think. Honestly, I doubt the parts cool well enough on an AR-15 to go full machine, but I'm not particularly versed. Somebody could definitely correct me.

The Firearms Act of 1934 defines a "machine gun" as any gun that fires on full auto, but the legal definition may have been changed since then. It wouldn't shock me if the military had a different definition, for its purposes, since the deployment and usage of, like, an M16 and an M240 are different.

It's a tall tale. Yeah, technically you can buy the parts needed, but before you make the purchase, you have to provide documentation proving you are legally allowed to manufacture machine guns.

Also, converting an AR-15 to full auto is extremely difficult anyway as versions made available to civilians are manufactured in such a way that it would require some serious machine work on your part to make it able to accept the necessary parts. Most people don't have the knowledge or willingness to go through the trouble.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. What I heard made it sound like any Tom, Dick or Harry could turn his AR-15 into an M16 by smiling at it and saying "pretty please."

 

[Farm Boy]

Huh. Dunno. I just thought those were automatic rifles, generally with a different bolt mechanism, as distinct from drum fed lights or belt fed mediums/heavies.

 

[Berzerker]

the gun in Predator when Jesse Ventura got killed was awesome

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Such is always the argument, unavoidably. Undeniably. Jackasses that drink, that ride motorcycles, that own pools, that go skydiving, that are overweight, that have unmedicated mental issues. Still seems like a supply issue to me, but even if we solved it, I'd put just about any money that the other hand would be entirely indifferent to the change.

Problem is that the supply issue can never be solved. Because...

This is only a problem because we force me to pay for someone else's ER bill. We are then left with an authoritarian conundrum, and the people who don't like authoritarianism recognize it. Socialized Healthcare is vastly more efficient, but once we socialized Healthcare we then have incentive to intrude on your life. Every step is logical, and that's what makes it a slippery slope.

Unfortunately, human nature interprets "socialized health care" as "unlimited health care." Ballpark rough estimate, over a period of about a decade and a half my mother received over two million dollars worth of health care that was either outright unnecessary or design inefficiency. This was a direct result of her not having to pay for it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Freakonomics had an idea awhile back, and presented it just to show how our intuitions worked.

We'd predict how much your treatment would cost, and then offer you 70% of that sum (to spend as you wished) to forgo treatment. The idea grates, but there are people who'd much rather forgo heroic measures just to placate their loved ones if it meant just helping their loved ones.

 

[Farm Boy]

Now that'd be interesting if you just took anticipated lifetime medical costs and applied it to anyone at any different time.

 

[Hygro]

Wear your seatbeeeeeeelt.

 

[zxcvbob]

Even full auto it'd still be an assault rifle rather than a genuine machine gun. They get reclassified when they can feed from a belt I think. Honestly, I doubt the parts cool well enough on an AR-15 to go full machine, but I'm not particularly versed. Somebody could definitely correct me.

No, an assault rifle (military definition) is a select-fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. There may be a little more to it than that, but I don't think so. 5.56 NATO (the M-16 and AR-15 cartridge) , 7.62x39 (AK-47), 5.45×39 (AK-74), and .30 Carbine are examples of intermediate cartridges. A select-fire .308 or .30-06 or .50 BMG is a machinegun but it's too big to be an assault rifle. The political definition is a little different and keeps changing.

The National Firearms Act (1934) says a machinegun is any weapon that fires more than once from a single pull of the trigger, or device that modifies a gun to do so. So technically an old double-barrel shotgun with external hammers and a single trigger is a machinegun if the trigger will fire both barrels at the same time. Just to make a point, somebody once registered a shoestring with a ring tied on the end as a machinegun. The Treasury Dept took his $200 and issued the stamp

 

[Broken_Erika]

I thought the select fire .308 .30-06 and other similar calibers were called "Battle-Rifles" like the M-14.

 

[El_Machinae]

Colloquial usage will differ slightly, and good job for any regions that have hard definitions. I have a hard time thinking of the FN SCAR as a 'machine gun'. It's very definitely a 'battle rifle' in my head. Though, I guess I could be wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

Now that'd be interesting if you just took anticipated lifetime medical costs and applied it to anyone at any different time.

Yeah, one of the rejections of the idea is that it's too easy to game in ways that lead to overwhelming horror. But people also balked at the idea of just 'paying' grandma for giving up chemo.