Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Contrary to popular opinion, guns aren't complicated. Far less complicated than taking apart the typical car engine. The AR-15 in particular, if I'm to understand correctly was designed so that it could be produced by small shops without complicated mass production tools if necessary.

Is it something everyone can do? No, at least not without some practice and learning, but it's also not extremely difficult nor does it require specialized or hard to acquire tools either.

[Neonivek]

So come November 8 years of Trump...

And my Sister said something that I think was poignant: "And they will deserve it"

And... Yeah kind of. Trump kind of laid all his cards on the table.

[scriver]

Contrary to popular opinion, guns aren't complicated. Far less complicated than taking apart the typical car engine.

But cars are really fucking complicated!

[Loud Whispers]

Contrary to popular opinion, guns aren't complicated. Far less complicated than taking apart the typical car engine.

But cars are really fucking complicated!

Hahaha, very true
I suppose the difference is you have to learn how to take apart your gun for maintenance, whereas with an engine you have servicing available if you don't want to do it yourself

[Frumple]

... okay, having had a close family friend that was an actual small time gunsmith (until alzheimers got 'em, anyway; they're still alive, but yeah.), no, gunsmithing and whatnot (assembly, modification, etc.) is not some kind of impossible task. Hell, maintenance is usually pretty simple and only rarely really takes tools beyond what you might have around the house normally.

Doing anything precise with gunsmithing (y'know, that part that makes guns even remotely reliable), however (like, hey, doing anything even remotely resembling a substantial modification), is something that's significantly more difficult than a whole hell of a lot of things, and something that takes both a great deal of effort and no small skill. Extremely difficult may not be the word for it, but it's not some task that's even remotely easy, either.

 Don't underestimate how difficult it is to have a gun that's not complete shit without having both pretty good tools (not specialized, iirc, but it's not unlikely your average small shop just isn't going to have tools that are enough up to spec to let you do serious modification and still reliably prevent things like, y'know, the gun exploding) and a damn good idea of what you're doing, is what I'm saying.

If the gun's built to be easily modified it's one thing, but if it's not, stuff just got complicated. Not impossible, just like making an IED in your basement is not impossible, but complicated in a number of different ways.

E: All that said, do we actually have any news about the AR-15 being modified, yet? ATF's twitter's last statement is still just that it was legal.

E2: Ah, it apparently wasn't an AR-15 at all. Look downthread a little for a link.

[Sensei]

I feel you you kind of missed my point, which is that by and large making weapons illegal isn't going to stop them being used by criminals, especially in the US where getting rid of the weapons would mean taking countless items out of citizens' hands.

I feel obligated to say, there are a lot of people who are ignorant about how guns work offering their opinion, both on this forum and out in the public. I feel the need to remind you of the California gun law thread we had a while back, regarding a bill that would make pistol grips illegal on rifles for some reason. That thread was rife, rife I say, with people who thought that in the USA one could "hunt with a machine gun" or that an AR-15 was an automatic weapon, or who seemingly had the opinion that weapons with a "sporting use" were safe or not used by criminals. A lot of people ignored me after I explained this wasn't correct multiple times, I eventually had to make a post with huge pictures to get anyone to pay attention.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I suppose you could certainly need more than 10 rounds if you are a terrible hunter.

Also, for the record, even though it was linked earlier, it looks like we need the existing California assault weapons bill up again.

Notwithstanding Section 30510, "assault weapon" also
means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length
of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon
without burning the bearer's hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine.
( Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

The bits really relevant to Senate Bill 249 have been highlighted. Currently, people have been using "bullet buttons" to circumvent the detachable magazine bit, because it requires a "tool" to detach your magazine (just a bullet). Senate Bill 249 will simply outlaw bullet buttons. People will immediately use rifle grips on their AR-15's instead of pistol grips. They also can't have things like a foregrip or flash suppressor in California, pejoratively referred to by California gun enthusiasts as "evil parts", because they make your gun illegal without actually changing its functionality.

A standard AR-15: This one has a pistol grip


A California "Featureless" AR-15: I think this one actually has an "evil" flash suppressor, funny enough it's OK to have a rifle silencer though. But the important part is that the grip is different.


See for comparison the Ruger 10-22: This fires every time you squeeze the trigger just like the AR-15, it's functionally very similar* (IE; you only care the difference if you're actually using it, not if you're worried about being on the other end of it). It's fine because it has no "evil" features common to the AR-15 such as a pistol grip. If however you attached a foregrip to it, suddenly it becomes "evil" and illegal in California. But I digress.

(I'm pretty sure the Ruger shown here is not controversial because it is not colored black, frankly.)

Keep in mind, the "bullet button" AR-15's are considered fixed magazine and may only have 10 rounds. However, the funny-grip AR-15's have a detachable magazine which usually have 30 rounds- but if somebody invented a 100-round barrel mag for them, I'm pretty sure that would be legal too.

Now, think: Exactly what does SB249 accomplish? Certainly nothing to do with most of the debate going on in this thread.

*The Ruger pictured is actually a rimfire rifle, before someone calls me on it. There are centerfire rifles like it. I just fucking love my 10-22, I guess.

Anyway, the notion that a weapon can't be modified because it has a serial number is kind of ignorant of the fact that just anyone can buy a drill press, if they're so inclined. That said, I don't think most criminals bother- I'd be curious to know how many crimes have been committed with weapons that were, themselves, illegal, either due to violating the National Firearms Act or silly stuff like California's Assault Weapons Bill.

[Neonivek]

It is mostly because most Criminals don't really have an inkling to fire on a bunch of unarmed civilians

[Frumple]

Ah, for what it's worth, now that I actually look beyond ATF it looks like the most explicit statement about the firearm at the moment is coming out of Mother Jones. Semi-auto, 30 round magazine. No clue if it's actually accurate, but that's the clearest statement I've seen, yet.

E: Though it does look like some other sources seem to be saying the same thing, some of them before the MJ article, so it looks like there's a good chance it's accurate.

... basically, all this talk about modification is... probably kinda' pointless. Gun appears to have been more or less over the counter.

[Neonivek]

I wonder... If the NRA believe in guns as dissuasion so much.

Why don't we have a program specifically to ensure there are people walking around with highly visible firearms at all time? A Militia of some sort. A tax benefit for walking around with a gun.

Though there were programs to desensitize people to guns by specifically setting up for people to go into bars with highly visible guns... which did the opposite because they came off as psychotics.

---

Though I highly suspect they will have mandatory visible guns for teachers in the future. To Dissuade students and outside attackers.

[Orange Wizard]

Obviously the best way to reduce gun violence is with more guns

[Neonivek]

Obviously the best way to reduce gun violence is with more guns

That is one of the major beliefs of the NRA

Both in that guns increase home safety (which is... actually factual last I checked)

The other is that guns dissuade crimes (which so far... isn't factual)

[Frumple]

... we kinda' do, neo. They're called police. It's not uncommon for one to be on school campuses, these days.

And insofar as the NRA goes, they do seem to either actually believe the concept of dissuasion, or at least are being paid enough by firearms manufacturers to make a really good showing of it. There's a reason those polls and whatnot clinton's team made that snafu about exists, heh.

Though no, there's not going to be mandatory firearms for teachers at some point in the future. That would be completely goddamn bugnuts, and enough people know it it's not going to happen.

Also no, unless the numbers have massively reversed in the last few years, having firearms in the house does not improve home safety. At least statistically; there's always outliers where it does, but in general, it in fact increases the likelihood someone in your house is going to die or be injured fairly substantially. Not just in relation to a home invasion, mind, though those as well so far as I'm aware.

[Loud Whispers]

PEOPLE POST SOURCES FOR STATISTICAL CLAIMS
GOBLINS DON'T POST SOURCES FOR STATISTICAL CLAIMS

[Frumple]

They're upthread somewhere. Probably more than once. Go hunting, the headache is precluding it for me.

[Orange Wizard]

... we kinda' do, neo. They're called police.

I'm not buying this one. NZ and the UK both have unarmed police and their crime rates are no worse than similar countries with armed police.