Kinja reply list

Read More
DolemiteSam Biddle
6/13/16 3:07pm
I always feel like this argument is a red herring. The shooter could have accomplished the same thing with semi-automatic handguns and extended magazines or smaller guns. We all get focused on something that looks scary, then fight for years, maybe get a ban on a gun or two, then declare “victory” because 1 gun design out of 10,000 is now illegal or regulated.
Reply
- Read More
  VoteyMcVotefaceThePartyVoteDriverDolemite
  6/13/16 3:08pm
  1 down, 9,999 to go.
  Reply
- Read More
  DolemiteVoteyMcVotefaceThePartyVoteDriver
  6/13/16 3:12pm
  Yeah, problem is, it took 1-2 years to get that one, and meanwhile 50 more designs/combinations have sprung up.
  Reply
Read More
kamla deviSam Biddle
6/13/16 3:17pm
Nobody who has a “varmint” problem goes out and buys one of these things. People who buy these things have an “ego” problem, or a “rage” problem, or a “desperate need to prove their manhood” problem, or a “yokel bling” problem.

Fuck the AR-15 and ban it for fucking ever.
Reply
- Read More
  Ole Slew Footkamla devi
  6/13/16 3:19pm
  What should I do about my varmit problem?
  Reply
- Read More
  kamla deviOle Slew Foot
  6/13/16 3:20pm
  buy some goddamn rat traps.
  Reply
Read More
Flying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)Sam Biddle
6/13/16 3:04pm
I’m sure some gun nerd can school me on this, but isn’t the main difference between a military AR-15 and a civilian one a small piece of 3-D printable plastic?
Reply
- Read More
  Lex Luthor's Saintly TwinFlying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)
  6/13/16 3:07pm
  I dunno about the 3-D part but one is a semi-automatic and the other can go full auto.
  Reply
- Read More
  Flying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)Lex Luthor's Saintly Twin
  6/13/16 3:07pm
  Right, and I believe the thing that makes it go full auto is a small piece of plastic.
  Reply
Read More
Low Information BoaterSam Biddle
6/13/16 3:13pm
The vilification of any particular firearm is always going to be counterproductive as it will inevitably devolve into a pedantic dissertation on the various data points and nomenclatures that you, a non-gun person, got wrong. Better to keep the discussion at a higher level. Most people shouldn't have access to any guns, constitutional issues aside.
Reply
- Read More
  the actual bajmahalLow Information Boater
  6/13/16 3:24pm
  Personally, I think that every American citizen should be able to own as many muskets, blunderbusses, and single shot dueling pistols as their hearts desire — just as the founding fathers intended.
  Reply
- Read More
  Carlos Danger is my spirit animalthe actual bajmahal
  6/13/16 3:27pm
  You should also take your free speech back to newspapers, books, posters tacked to the town hall door, and yelling on the town common - just as the founding fathers intended.
  Reply
Read More
Justice Rains From My ButtSam Biddle
6/13/16 3:06pm
As all the guns nuts come out to say “ACTUALLY HANDGUNS”

You’re absolutely right. We need a push to ban handguns as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sun…
Reply
- Read More
  istariJustice Rains From My Butt
  6/13/16 3:11pm
  as well
  
  (I want to make sure the message gets across)
  Reply
- Read More
  WowseyJustice Rains From My Butt
  6/13/16 3:18pm
  Not every gun owner is a gun nut. I love to shoot guns as a hobby. Not so much anymore due to a shoulder injury, but it can be a lot of fun.
  
  And truthfully, no “gun nut” makes any rational argument. That’s why they’re nuts. So when you call someone being rational a “gun nut”, it undermines your own valid arguments. Sweeping every gun owner under the rug as all being “gun nuts” is just silly.
  
  Most responsible gun owners have no issue with having much more strict policies for obtaining guns. The only gun owners against common sense gun control, are the ones who feel they still wouldn’t be able to obtain them due to their circumstance. Previous felon, mental health, living with a felon, etc... They have no idea how transparent they are.
  Reply
Read More
tito_swinefluSam Biddle
6/13/16 3:37pm
I hate this argument. I’m sick of hearing it. We need to ban all repeatable-shot guns or fuck off. The AR-15 is a gun for idiots, true, but the whole campaign against assault rifles just makes the gun-nuts dig in harder, makes us seem like we don’t know what we’re talking about. Meanwhile the savage toll of the 5,000-7,000 people murdered yearly with handguns goes on.

Take a look at this image. These two guns are basically the same fucking gun, but you’re going to ban only one of them? It’s transparently stupid and it feeds into the gun-nuts fantasies to do so. Ban all repeat shot weapons.

This happens every time there’s a mass shooting, but what about the thirteen or so people murdered every single day with a different gun? Do we not care about them? Ban all repeat shot weapons.

If you can’t hunt with a bolt action rifle, you’re a loser. Well, more of a loser than someone who thinks that hunting is a sport in the first place. The only thing you should be hunting with is a camera, but if you must shoot animals and you can’t do it with a bolt-action, too bad. Ban all repeat shot weapons.

Assault rifle bans are generally stupidly framed and allow all sorts of loopholes. Check out California’s which had no effect on violent crime or murder and allows assault weapons as long as they sort-of don’t look like assault weapons. (https://psmag.com/did-the-assaul…) Ban all repeat shot weapons.

What about the 300 million+ weapons out there? Well shit, it should at least be as hard to get a license to own them as it is to get a license to operate a car. Start with really strict requirements and take them away if people won’t take a complex test, take a test with an instructor trained by the state present, pay yearly licensing fees and pass physical and mental tests regularly.

However, don’t go down this stupid assault weapons ban, it doesn’t work and is actually counter-productive because it allows the enemy to discount our views.
Reply
- Read More
  brokenscopetito_swineflu
  6/13/16 4:01pm
  Please say semi-auto, not “repeat shot”.
  Reply
- Read More
  tito_swineflubrokenscope
  6/13/16 4:25pm
  A revolver isn’t semi-auto. It’s a gun that can be fired more than once without reloading. So is a pump-action shotgun.
  Reply
Read More
AnastraceSam Biddle
6/13/16 3:55pm
The rifle was a state of the art killing machine when it was introduced. It had a lot of problems because of humidity and dirt, but as it got refined it has become a very well regarded light rifle. It was a competitor to the Russian AK-47, which they later replaced with the AK-74 to compete with our lighter round carrying weapon. (5.56 vs 5.45) All three of these weapons are excellent for their intended purpose. Killing people, and quickly. None of these guns are designed for anything other than killing people. Neither Stoner nor Kalashnikov made these for hunting. Unless you are hunting for the most dangerous game.
Reply
- Read More
  theunseenoneAnastrace
  6/13/16 4:11pm
  The Mosin Nagant was made 100% for killing people as well, yet it is most commonly used today for hunting. Just because something was initially designed for one purpose doesn’t mean it can only be used for that, or that it defines what the consumers use it for. Saying “it was designed to kill!” runs directly contrary to what virtually every buyer uses and AR-15 for, and is a terrible argument for banning it.
  
  A better one would be the fact that it’s very easy to shoot and can be modified for a hair trigger with pseudo automatic fire. But the problem with that argument is that you just described virtually every semi-automatic rifle in existence.
  Reply
- Read More
  Subbacultcha3theunseenone
  6/13/16 5:08pm
  Ummm, no. There are much better calibers and much better platforms for any possible use, from target to varmint. The only reason to own an AR is for its intended purpose, which it is very good at. Mine’s a Bushmaster, built the flattop upper myself...
  Reply
Read More
Hollow_LogSam Biddle
6/13/16 3:09pm
Instead of arguing the need for assault rifles with assholes, why doesn’t the government just cover the cost for their penis enlargements?
Reply
- Read More
  IAMTHELASTONEHollow_Log
  6/13/16 3:12pm
  As far as guns go, the .223 round is hilariously small.
  Reply
- Read More
  kamla deviHollow_Log
  6/13/16 3:15pm
  Because that would be socialism (nationalized healthcare) and would take away our freedom to give all our extra money to health insurance companies! What kind of monster pinko terrorist scumbag are you?
  Reply
Read More
SplatworthySam Biddle
6/13/16 9:26pm
You seem to be missing an important angle here. One of the families of the victims at the Dark Night theater shooting sued the gun manufacturer. One of their specific grievances was that the AR-15 uses ammunition that was specifically designed to do as much damage once inside the human body as possible. The bullet tumbles end over end after initial impact. The 7.76mm bullet the 5.56mm replaced in the U.S. military was more powerful and more likely to go straight through a human body. That, at least, is what I understand is discussed in the lawsuit.
Reply
- Read More
  DufuskieSplatworthy
  6/13/16 10:47pm
  Unfortunately the lawsuit and Biddle have not kept up with technology. The 5.56 round and current rifling of the M4/M16 do not produce the same kind of wounds as the original. They have been altered over time.
  Reply
- Read More
  SplatworthyDufuskie
  6/13/16 10:57pm
  For clarity’s sake, are you saying that modern AR-15s are less likely to cause tumbling or more likely? And wouldn’t it be more effective as a military weapon with the tumbling effect intact? At a seminar on gun shot wounds sometime in the last 8-10 years an active duty ballistics expert described the same effect.
  Reply
Read More
ThenSASam Biddle
6/13/16 3:11pm
Yep.

Guns are designed for killing people.

Don’t let anybody fool you otherwise.

Pens are designed for writing. Cars are designed for driving. Guns are designed for killing people.
Reply
- Read More
  mrblergThenSA
  6/13/16 3:20pm
  Pretty much. That’s why the gun was invented. Its designed purpose is to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible.
  Reply

as well