Well said, thank you! 
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
The Gun Law Discussion
- Thread starter Speed Daemon
- Start date
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
Hopefully this thread does not get out of hand like the other one did. Before the other thread was closed there was a very good question asked about what the difference is between a civilian AR15 and the military M16. Since many people, especially the media who spread bad information, incorrectly think the AR15 is a military weapon it is important to know the difference.
First, AR does not stand for "assult rifle" it was named AR because it was developed by the Armalight Rifle Corp. The AR15 is a semi auto. The M16 is a select fire assault rifle. On the AR15 there is a switch on the side with 2 positions, fire and safe. The M16 has a 3 position switch with single shot (semi auto), burst (3 shots instead of 1) and full auto.
They use the same ammo, magazines, buffer tubes, grips, stock, etc. Everything inside is different though. The trigger group (multiple small pieces that are all of the moving parts in the lower receiver) has several different pieces that are machined differently and it is a felony to put an M16 trigger group in an AR15 if you could even find the right pieces. The upper portion contains the bolt carrier group and is different also. Basically on the outside they look the same but internally they are completely different weapons other than they shoot the same ammo. That even isn't entirely true. Some AR15's can not handle the higher pressure of the 5.56 NATO round and must shoot the .223 Remington round. They look almost identical but a 5.56 round will damage an AR15 if it is not properly chambered to handle the higher pressure.
Outside the guns look almost identical and they feel very similar. The reason each rifle is chosen is because of its reliability, ease of use, versatility, and easy to add accessories. Inside they are very different and operate differently.
First, AR does not stand for "assult rifle" it was named AR because it was developed by the Armalight Rifle Corp. The AR15 is a semi auto. The M16 is a select fire assault rifle. On the AR15 there is a switch on the side with 2 positions, fire and safe. The M16 has a 3 position switch with single shot (semi auto), burst (3 shots instead of 1) and full auto.
They use the same ammo, magazines, buffer tubes, grips, stock, etc. Everything inside is different though. The trigger group (multiple small pieces that are all of the moving parts in the lower receiver) has several different pieces that are machined differently and it is a felony to put an M16 trigger group in an AR15 if you could even find the right pieces. The upper portion contains the bolt carrier group and is different also. Basically on the outside they look the same but internally they are completely different weapons other than they shoot the same ammo. That even isn't entirely true. Some AR15's can not handle the higher pressure of the 5.56 NATO round and must shoot the .223 Remington round. They look almost identical but a 5.56 round will damage an AR15 if it is not properly chambered to handle the higher pressure.
Outside the guns look almost identical and they feel very similar. The reason each rifle is chosen is because of its reliability, ease of use, versatility, and easy to add accessories. Inside they are very different and operate differently.
copestag
Android Expert
or in other words........... the AR15 is basically a .22 sqirrel rifle with a different skin
most people dont even know what size round an AR15 uses......... its just a costume to make it look like a badass gun..... just like those old plastic toys that looked like an M60 and had the pull slide that made a vibrating sound to immitate firing werent an assaut weapon........ neither is an AR15 which fires a round essentially the same caliber as the most common gun recommended for beginners
you do realize a .22 (squirrrel rifle) is less than a pubic hair smaller than a .223 (an ar15)?
as for the other thread sorry earlymon...... try rereading your timeline and fix it tomorrow before someone needs to fix it for ya........ you clearly were aloof and acted inappropriately
if you need help on that feel free to PM I will guide you through it...... hate to see the good ones go
most people dont even know what size round an AR15 uses......... its just a costume to make it look like a badass gun..... just like those old plastic toys that looked like an M60 and had the pull slide that made a vibrating sound to immitate firing werent an assaut weapon........ neither is an AR15 which fires a round essentially the same caliber as the most common gun recommended for beginners
you do realize a .22 (squirrrel rifle) is less than a pubic hair smaller than a .223 (an ar15)?
as for the other thread sorry earlymon...... try rereading your timeline and fix it tomorrow before someone needs to fix it for ya........ you clearly were aloof and acted inappropriately
if you need help on that feel free to PM I will guide you through it...... hate to see the good ones go
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
If you disagree with a Moderator's action, please PM them directly. I really don't want to see another thread closed. I am trying to enlighten the less informed and can not do that if threads keep getting closed for one reason or another.
No one will be fixing that thread. There were sufficient deletions, and my call on the timeline was fine.
Thanks for your opinion though.
Thanks for your opinion though.
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
I carry a gun daily and hope I never have to use it. I don't carry it to kill someone, I carry it so that I can defend myself or my family in a life or death situation as a last resort. How many people are robbed at gunpoint everyday? Many times pulling your own gun will make the criminal run away when they know they don't have an easy victim without a single shot ever being fired. How high would the body count have been at the Oregon mall shooting last year if there hadn't been a legally armed citizen that drew a gun on the shooter (he didn't have to fire as the shooter took his own life when he was faced by armed opposition)? How many more people would have died a couple months ago in the San Antonio theater when again a shooter faced an armed citizen (this time the citizen did kill the shooter in defense of everyone in the theater)? It is not morally superior to be unprepared for the worst and become a victim. I do have sympathy for innocent people that are killed, regardless of how they are killed, be it a gun, knife, hammer, anything. That doesn't mean I will allow myself to be a victim if I am ever in that situation. Odds are I won't ever be, so hopefully I never have to use my weapon.
You are correct that from a distance it can be impossible to tell the difference. But, that doesn't mean that one of them needs to be banned. In fact a shotgun is much more effective at killing multiple people in a confined space than an AR15, but no one is talking about banning shotguns. That isn't even entirely true. My shotgun would have been banned had Feinsteins "AWB" passed because I put a different stock on it. Again, the only reason it would have been banned is because some people think it looks scarier.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
The police are under no legal obligation to help you. Most people do not understand this simple fact.
There are cases where people call the police and they either never show up, go to the wrong address or take twenty minutes (or more) to arrive.
So what good is a police officer if he or she never arrives or arrives after the fact?
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
They document your death or attack and then try to find the murderer/rapist/mugger/thief/etc... Doesn't help you much, but that is all they can do if you don't do anything to help yourself.
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
Thanks for the thanks! And thank you for making the tough decisions in closing threads that became more acrimonious and/or tedious than communal.Well said, thank you!
As a citizen of my nation I believe that it's a citizen's duty to get involved in our society and have discussions on serious and often divisive topics. As a citizen of Android Forums (which is a private forum) I like having the chaos and ill will turned down for me!
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
I'd like to point out that it's just common sense to have a healthy respect for anything that sends potentially lethal projectiles downrange, from an air gun to a mortar launcher. To make an analogy, we don't often step in front of speeding cars because they are technically "safer" to get hit by in comparison to speeding trains. IMO it's not a real issue. Every firearm is a potential danger, but that itself is not a valid excuse to ban certain ones. Sorry.
I'd also like to make a friendly reminder to please address the topic and not the other person. Those are the rules. For example, I have a warning because I made a friendly jibe at a friend in the wrong place. My friend got the joke, but that wasn't the point. This isn't the place to attack the person for any reason.
Getting back to the actual arguments. I'm reading a lot of stuff that waxes hypothetical, and implies a slippery slope. Sorry but made-up hypothetical situations mean nothing unless they can be tied to the real world.
If someone does support a theory that also has loads of hard evidence supporting it in a way that convinces me and others that it's really something that works, I'll be the first to sign up for that bandwagon. But without proof, there's nothing to get behind.
I'm still not seeing anything that recognizes that it just might be equally effective and even more humane to focus our attentions on providing help to the almost exclusively mentally ill people who are the ones who actually planned and executed the horrors that we're supposed to want to stop. Is it any less valid to give our brothers and sisters a decent level of health care? Health care that could heal the disturbed minds? Or is it too much work to bother with?
I really don't understand how I'm supposed to have unlimited empathy for the victims, but limit my sloution pool to flogging inanimate objects as punishment for past crimes. How about some forward thinking for a change?
I lived in the City of Chicago before and during Richard M. Daley's handgun ban there. I saw firsthand how it not only failed utterly, but how it fostered increased interest in the now-taboo objects, and a burgeoning illicit trade in them. Repeating that same mistake, with the rise in handgun murders that came as a direct result of the first bans would be like throwing gasoline on a fire! No, repeating the same failed bans is NOT a solution!
I want my world to be safer than it is, just like anyone else. And that's why I do not want to return to the very same policies that have long records of miserable failure. Doing absolutely nothing would be better than that!
JohnLaird
Well-Known Member
I'm kind of surprised that no one that I can see mentioned restricting the flow of ammo in addition to controlling guns.
The gun range/shop that I use is totally out of 45ACP and Academy Sport/Outdoors is out of 9mm, 40 S&W and 45ACP. However, they DO have guns with those calibers for sale. You just can't shoot the damn things anymore because of all of the panic buying. Sort of ironic really...they haven't enacted any federal bans or bans in Texas but I still can't really go shooting at the range anymore until the madness going on in the rest of the country subsides and people stop hoarding.
The gun range/shop that I use is totally out of 45ACP and Academy Sport/Outdoors is out of 9mm, 40 S&W and 45ACP. However, they DO have guns with those calibers for sale. You just can't shoot the damn things anymore because of all of the panic buying. Sort of ironic really...they haven't enacted any federal bans or bans in Texas but I still can't really go shooting at the range anymore until the madness going on in the rest of the country subsides and people stop hoarding.
lightsleeper23
Android Enthusiast
I think I'll just leave this thread for the anti gun law people to tell each other they're right. It's apparent to me that any anti gun views are not welcome here because, unlike any other thread, anti gun opinions have been attacked with some sensible arguments but also a lot of rudeness and nonsense that's impossible to debate. I'll not minimize my own part in the increasing lack of civility that happened in the other thread, unlike others that mention it but leave themselves out like it was all other people. It was very difficult for me to argue my position when people would, instead of stating why they disagree, just start spewing stuff about "liberal medias lies", and"idiotic leftist ramblings", and comparisons to the Bush/Iraq situation etc. etc. So yeah that thread got out of hand. But it seems evident that no one is interested in hearing the other side of this argument, just vehemently defending their own position.
For one example, the U.S. hasn't ever had any really big nationwide gun bans, other than the machine gun ban, which did cut down on incidents from them during that time, so the only way to point to hard evidence for data would be to look at other countries that have banned certain guns. But no one wants to even entertain that. They just attack said country and say unproductive things like "well this is america! Things are different here, keep that stuff in that country and don't tell us how to run ours!" So yeah I think it's pretty pointless to attempt to debate this particular issue in this forum.
For one example, the U.S. hasn't ever had any really big nationwide gun bans, other than the machine gun ban, which did cut down on incidents from them during that time, so the only way to point to hard evidence for data would be to look at other countries that have banned certain guns. But no one wants to even entertain that. They just attack said country and say unproductive things like "well this is america! Things are different here, keep that stuff in that country and don't tell us how to run ours!" So yeah I think it's pretty pointless to attempt to debate this particular issue in this forum.
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
No matter what went on in the past, I think it's safe to say that from this day forward nobody will be getting away with piling on anyone else'e argument with ad hominem attacks and/or stereotyping. If the mods don't catch it, I'll bug them personally.
That runs both ways though, so please don't blame anonymous people if your argument fails to convince. Nobody ever said that a public debate would be easy, or that everyone would get to win. I can think of several options that so far nobody has tried. If I can think of them, anybody can.
That runs both ways though, so please don't blame anonymous people if your argument fails to convince. Nobody ever said that a public debate would be easy, or that everyone would get to win. I can think of several options that so far nobody has tried. If I can think of them, anybody can.
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
Ammunition bans would be very bad. That would only hurt the people that have the guns because they enjoy shooting or the people that buy bulk ammo to train with. When I can get enough I easily go through 500 rounds per gun at the range in 1 trip.
I know I personally have addressed bans in other countries using reason, statistics, and examples. Like countries with gun bans having the highest violent crime rates and the only reason mainland USA wasn't invaded by the Japanese in WW2 was because of our armed populace.
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
You bring up a very interesting point. I can't think of a single spree killer who was a serious gun owner, never mind one who would make his or her own ammunition. But after many of them had their homes searched, that search turned up "Doomsday Preppers" amounts of ammunition. Once we set aside hysteria and try not to see special meanings that others don't see, what we have is someone who bought way too much ammo for the act that made them infamous. That's a useful clue!
We already have laws on the books that restrict regular citizens to buying only a couple guns a month. Why not have similar limitations on how much ammunition they can purchase at a time? For those who believe that the end of the world is near, there could be some sort of check to ensure that they don't fit the profile of a spree killer before handing them ammo by the case. Perhaps requiring them to have an arms dealers' license is not unreasonable. The real doomsdayers shouldn''t care since when the government collapses, nobody will be enforcing that license anyway.
I've been at ranges that sell inexpensive reloads for target shooting. It might be a reasonable safeguard to allow shooters at the range as many "made for range" rounds as they can shoot in a visit, but limit sales of the precision ammo that's used for self-defense.
Frankly I think that now (maybe not right now, but after cooler heads emerge) might be a good time for the US as a nation to consider refining and replacing the Second Amendment with a new one that is a lot more specific. IMO it's a waste of time to enact laws that can't pass Constitutional muster. Those who want bans should "aim higher" (no pun intended) and those who want to keep their Second Amendment protections should enumerate precisely what they are going to be. IJS
Ridgerunner665
Well-Known Member
Its a double edged sword....opening the door to changing the Constitution...because when the door opens all sorts of unexpected consequences come rushing through.
Remember the last time?
A wise man once said....anybody who would give up liberty for safety doesn't deserve either one....I tend to agree with him.
Remember the last time?
A wise man once said....anybody who would give up liberty for safety doesn't deserve either one....I tend to agree with him.
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
We should change the First amendment too while we are at it. The media should have to report the truth and be held accountable when it doesn't and do it without bias. Stripping naked in an airport to protest the TSA shouldn't be protected as free speech. If a child wants to take a Bible to school it should be OK. There are many problems with the first too. Just saying. Want to rewrite one... Let's fix them all.
Ridgerunner665
Well-Known Member
In a nation this "divided"....its not possible to fix them....it would be a disaster and we would end up worse instead of better.
The Constitution was written to protect Freedom...not public safety...to rewrite it with safety as the top priority would be a massive mistake...because in doing so you would give Congress the power to decide what we could and could not do...
That's a very slippery slope...
You just can't have a utopian safe society and be free at the same time...its simply not possible.
I accept the risks that come with freedom much better than I could accept the restrictions that come with safety.
The problem its not guns...its people...there are just too many of us on this little chunk of rock.
The Constitution was written to protect Freedom...not public safety...to rewrite it with safety as the top priority would be a massive mistake...because in doing so you would give Congress the power to decide what we could and could not do...
That's a very slippery slope...
You just can't have a utopian safe society and be free at the same time...its simply not possible.
I accept the risks that come with freedom much better than I could accept the restrictions that come with safety.
The problem its not guns...its people...there are just too many of us on this little chunk of rock.
lightsleeper23
Android Enthusiast
Well people are violent, you can't stop people from being violent. This is a problem where mental health needs to come into play. There needs to be a serious focus on mental health. But people will always try to kill other people, that's a given. But we're talking about firearm homicide.
The fact is, countries with fewer guns, have fewer gun homicides. The only places where this isn't the case are violent, 3rd world countries. In the advanced, civilized countries, it's a fact that the less guns they have, the less gun homicides.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdExSbktqRWpLMjNUMkFGVk5VODRyTnc
This spreadsheet shows number of guns per capita, versus gun homicides per capita. It's important to focus on modernized countries: Sweden, Switzerland, Scotland, Ireland, etc.
It's not fair to focus on American cities like Chicago and D.C. that have large gang populations, and are surrounded by a country that is still filled with the most guns in the world. Of course they're still going to be able to get lots of guns in there.
lightsleeper23
Android Enthusiast
I think we should focus on the gun issue here, and let's not get into religion in schools. That's a whole other can of worms right there.
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
I didn't want to. My point was that there are problems with the first amendment in my eyes, the same as there are problems with the second amendment in others. I could have listed many more problems I have the first amendment and with other amendments. My only point was that once you get rid of one of the bill of rights to rewrite it, all other will come into question and be rewritten by whoever happens to be in power at the time.
The constitution was written to limit the power of government, something that no one in govnment likes (except a few who actually care more about freedom than power).
Basically the whole issue comes down to there are crazy people that will always find a way to harm others. There are law abiding gun owners who will not ever hurt anyone. Why are the law abiding citizens being targeted instead of the problem?? Why is the focus on an object that on its own can neither do good nor evil, instead of the people using that object to do evil??
The answer.... It's easier to blame an object and focus on that than it is to focus on the more difficult and real problem of people. Because of this, law abiding citizens must suffer, lose rights, lose hobbies, and lose choices.
lightsleeper23
Android Enthusiast
But by that sane line of reasoning we should just allow people to own hand grenades, RPGs, cruise missiles, etc. Regulation doesn't mean abolishing the 2nd amendment. Is something that's already done, most people would just like to see it tightened up. Background checks and registration do not take away your hobby, they don't even really add any difficulty to it. Yeah, if AR15s were banned that would effect you a little since you like them. But what if they took that off the table, and it was only universal background checks and registration? You'd still be against it. Because the truth is you're not interested in a compromise, you want nothing done at all. Except enforcing current laws, which most people think is not enough.
The truth is there are all kinds of regulations on hobbies that are potentially dangerous, causing people that like then all kinds of annoyances and grief. But when it comes to guns, the gun folks don't want ANY compromise that causes them the slightest bit of annoyance. They want to pick up a 50 cal machine gun, thousands of rounds of ammo, go out and blow stuff to smithereens to their hearts content, any time they please, at the drop off a hat.
The truth is there are all kinds of regulations on hobbies that are potentially dangerous, causing people that like then all kinds of annoyances and grief. But when it comes to guns, the gun folks don't want ANY compromise that causes them the slightest bit of annoyance. They want to pick up a 50 cal machine gun, thousands of rounds of ammo, go out and blow stuff to smithereens to their hearts content, any time they please, at the drop off a hat.
chrlswltrs
Extreme Android User
That's just it. Most people do not want more regulations, only a slight majority do, and they only want more background checks. The majority of people do not want anything else banned. The first step should be enforcing current laws instead of adding more when the current ones aren't even enforced. How does it make any sense to make more laws when the ones we already have aren't even enforced? If that wasn't the case I would be more open to possibly having more gun regulations.
And your perception of the majority of gun owners couldn't be farther from the truth. You probably know many gun owners without even knowing they have guns. If you met me in real life I definitely do not fit your stereotype. I'm friendly, well educated, responsible, have a family, and have no desire to "go blow things to smithereens whenever and wherever I feel like it." I am like the majority of gun owners. Do you really think 100,000,000 people in America fit your description of a gun owner?
lightsleeper23
Android Enthusiast
OK true, I admit it I'm thinking more along the lines of that huge ass Ted Nugent. But even then, I'm not talking about all gun owners, just the extreme ones that want even less regulation. That's more who I was referring to with the blowing things to smithereens stuff. I didn't mean to offend you, you seem like a perfectly nice person.
I have another thought though: what about mandatory training? Like tiered training based on what you want to do. Basic firearm safety to own any gun, more advanced for carrying handguns, etc.
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
Well the way I see it, if enough Americans really and truly want to infringe on the existing Constitutional right to arms ownership, then they'd better be prepared to treat it like the Constitutional issue that it really is. Ignoring the Second Amendment altogether, or using weasel words to redefine it isn't enough to validate their cause.
If enough Americans really want a gun ban, then let them amend the Constitution to get it. If not, then they need to admit that they're the losing minority and move on.
Actually no. Since I'm not a member of Congress, I really don't care about when their raises take effect. :laugh:
But I sure do remember the one before, the one that lowered the voting age to 18, and thus having me participating in the 1980 Presidential election!
Actually it says "the illusion of safety". And I was mighty disappointed with my fellow Americans when they chose to give up liberty for that illusion after the 9-11 attacks! But I also recognize that I'm only one of millions. If enough Americans want to embrace this warmed-over version of what failed before as sub-Constitutional law, and change the Constitution to get it, I can't force them not to. It's supposed to be majority rule in the US...unless they want to change the Constitution about that as well.
