[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Banana Kickaha, do you happen to have a source handy? I'd love to see that.

I knew I'd get asked that. I don't, but I can try and dig it up. It was ~2000, IIRC, and was just a cute blurb as a 'news of the weird' type item in the local news in NC. Stuck with me, but I probably shouldn't drag it out without a citation.

AHA! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

I <3 the googlebrane

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by kretara Just because it looks like an assault rifle does not make it an assault rifle.

Indeed, just as adding a fin to a Honda Civic does not make it an F-1.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Indeed, just as adding a fin to a Honda Civic does not make it an F-1.

What?

Oh, damn. After all the effort I put into my sweet ride!

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Indeed, just as adding a fin to a Honda Civic does not make it an F-1.

But according to Oregon's governor, it does!

Because obviously, banning all aftermarket car parts will stop street racing where things like increased enforcement failed... Oh, and obviously if you prevent people from modifying their cars, they will stop trying to drive them fast. And even though street racers specifically circumvent all traffic safety laws, they will most certainly respect the laws regarding aftermarket parts!

[Kickaha]

*facepalm*

Well at least they *look* like they're doing something, and let's face it, in politics that's more important than *actually* doing something, because frankly, the average voter is too dumb to know the difference.

(Why is it that so many people believe firmly that passing another law will deter those who are already breaking the law? Talk about the definition of insanity...)

Hmm. And now I've done my own part in derailing this thread badly. *sigh* Sorry turtle. :}

[kretara]

Originally Posted by Luca But according to Oregon's governor, it does! Because obviously, banning all aftermarket car parts will stop street racing where things like increased enforcement failed... Oh, and obviously if you prevent people from modifying their cars, they will stop trying to drive them fast. And even though street racers specifically circumvent all traffic safety laws, they will most certainly respect the laws regarding aftermarket parts!

WOW!! This is just as dumb as trying to ban so called 'Black Rifles'.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Luca Because obviously, banning all aftermarket car parts will stop street racing where things like increased enforcement failed... Oh, and obviously if you prevent people from modifying their cars, they will stop trying to drive them fast. And even though street racers specifically circumvent all traffic safety laws, they will most certainly respect the laws regarding aftermarket parts!

The bill seems to be more concerned about the environment then about street racing, but I agree that it's stupid. But I'm pretty sure it will never pass, just like 99% of the stupid bills that get proposed in congresses.

But you never know. It is illegal to pump your own gas here, so...

[709]

Originally Posted by Ryan You'd enjoy Texas.

The first time I encountered a "gun check" (that is, like a coat check, except for handguns) was at a bar in a little Texas town.

[turtle]

Mine actually is etched already in preps for going full auto. Of course, I haven't paid the fees to be able to legally go full auto and I don't have the parts. My selector switch can't go to the full auto position.


I'd consider it just because I could, but not at the level of crap and cost needed just to "say I could".

I actually knew of a family who moved to Kennesaw and bought a gun. I didn't mind them having guns at all either. Good family. I was surprised to hear about a town with that law though.

I'm actually surprised by the number of people I see walking around here with openly visible guns. I've seen at least three in the past two months with a pistol in a holster on the hip. I keep mine concealed.

[jcoley2]

Originally Posted by kretara People, this gun is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle has a select switch to fire semi-auto (which is what this rifle is) or auto. The AR-15 can fire semi-auto only (unless modded for auto which is VERY illegal).

Which people do all the time. Trust me . . . I have friends that have done so.

[Fooboy]

Originally Posted by Kickaha There was a small town in GA that passed a law *requiring* every household to be armed. Crime dropped to almost zero, even though it was an impossible law to enforce, and meant to simply send a message to the criminal population. It worked... although the crime rates in the surrounding towns spiked due to emigration. Random un-gun-educated untrained people with guns do worry me. A well-armed, well-trained populace? Not so much. I feel much safer in the midst of a bunch of folks who grew up around guns, use them regularly, and are carrying, than I do somewhere like NYC, where you can assume that the only firearms are being carried illegally, and almost certainly by folks who haven't been properly trained in their use. Once, again, as always, education is the key.

I saw this as well.

[Fooboy]

Originally Posted by jcoley2 Which people do all the time. Trust me . . . I have friends that have done so.

So - have you actually seen the weapon fire in full-auto? Or were your friends trying to be cool? I will wait for your reply, but I HIGHLY doubt it. People not familiar with gun terminology frequently mis-understand the jargon.

Modifying a weapon to full auto is a 20 year felony. If your friends are stupid enough to ever use that weapon, even in a viable self-defense situation - the ATF/lawyers will destroy them.

____________

@ Turtle - that is just the selector - which is one part that is different in full auto and civicilian versions. There are other parts that are different as well ... mainly the sear and more robust bolt carrier group.





OR you can just go full auto with a light touch, bump firing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC8S...eature=related

ETA: that guy is a little creepy

[Maciej]

What about 3 round burst? Is that legal, or what? I don't know what kind of weapon is capable of that either, really.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Fooboy OR you can just go full auto with a light touch, bump firing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIC8S...eature=related ETA: that guy is a little creepy

LOL, you think he's creepy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBiFJ...eature=related

I think it's funny how he can use his enormous gut to absorb the recoil.

Originally Posted by Maciej What about 3 round burst? Is that legal, or what? I don't know what kind of weapon is capable of that either, really.

Anything other than one trigger pull = one round fired is considered fully automatic. So that includes anything with a 2- or 3-round burst fire.

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by Luca Anything other than one trigger pull = one round fired is considered fully automatic. So that includes anything with a 2- or 3-round burst fire.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks Luca.

[jcoley2]

Originally Posted by Luca http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBiFJ...eature=related

That's not what I was talking about. They have a device they modify in the trigger area that you put your full hand in and you go back and forth and each movement shoot a bullet. I guess technically it's not fully automatic but when I saw it demonstrated it was as fast as this bump YouTube video. So I guess that's not illegal.

My original point is these guns in the wrong hands are very, very deadly. I can see no good reason to have them for hunting. If people are keeping for fearing an uprising, then maybe I guess. Point is too many criminals and good-for-nothings have them too and we have seen just in the last 2 months several deadly outbursts including the deaths of three Pittsburgh policeman.

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 Mine actually is etched already in preps for going full auto.

I remember seeing a show on TV all about the M-16. They said it had a three position switch. The three positions were single-shot, three-shot, and continuous. Does yours have a setting for the three-shot? Is that considered full-auto? The guy on the show said that most military prefer the three-shot setting because you preserve ammo.

JTA

[Luca]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA I remember seeing a show on TV all about the M-16. They said it had a three position switch. The three positions were single-shot, three-shot, and continuous. Does yours have a setting for the three-shot? Is that considered full-auto? The guy on the show said that most military prefer the three-shot setting because you preserve ammo. JTA

Well, since three-shot or continuous fire both fall under the definition of "full auto," it is illegal for any new guns to be sold in the U.S. that have that capability. Only ones made before 1986 (and thus grandfathered in under the gun law that passed that year) are legal for civilians. So I'm quite sure turtle's new AR-15 is single-fire only. That extra position on the selector is only for show.

The other thing is that there are several variants of the M16, and as far as I know each one is either full auto OR three-shot burst, but not both. The original had a full auto mode, while the M16A2 replaced that with the burst fire in order to improve accuracy, conserve ammo, and prevent troops from simply holding down the trigger if they were panicked (which greatly increases the chances of you hitting absolutely nothing or perhaps one of your friends). The M16A3 was a limited variant that brought back full auto, and the M16A4 was three-round only again.

Wikipedia's page reveals that even the shortened version of the M16, the M4 carbine, comes in either full-auto or three-round variants, not both. I can't find many good sources for guns but the only one that I know has both a three-round burst AND a full-auto mode on the same weapon (in addition to single-fire and safety) would be certain variants of the HK MP5 submachine gun.

[AsLan^]

Originally Posted by kretara Just because it looks like an assault rifle does not make it an assault rifle.

Actually, the fact that it looks like an assault rifle is exactly why it is an assault rifle.

Assault rifles are designed for combat with humans, thus the pistol grip for firing from behind cover, the shortened barrel length and collapsible stock stops the gun from getting in your way while you're maneuvering. Firearms are designed with specific purposes in mind and how they look (that is, their form) is directly related to their intended function.

Whether people should be allowed to own assault rifles is a subject for another thread but I don't know why people continue to insist that a spade is not a spade when it obviously is.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by AsLan^ Actually, the fact that it looks like an assault rifle is exactly why it is an assault rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes).

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle: [..] It must be capable of selective fire;

For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s

So, strictly speaking, no, it is not an assault rifle. That it is intended for combat does not make it an assault rifle, as the term was specifically coined to refer to fully automatic rifles.

</semantics! woot!>

[AsLan^]

Yes, the wikipedian probably had a thing for the US legal definition of an assault rifle.

And actually, if you check out the discussion page on that wikipedia article you would see that particular definition is quite heavily debated.

Merriam Webster seems to agree with me.

"assault rifle" Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Moriarty You know what I mean by "assaulted"? Well, I mean assaulted!

Originally Posted by Oddball Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?

2:45 seconds in

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by chucker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle So, strictly speaking, no, it is not an assault rifle. That it is intended for combat does not make it an assault rifle, as the term was specifically coined to refer to fully automatic rifles. </semantics! woot!>

I guess you wrote that Wiki then huh?

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Roboman

As awesome as that rig is, I have believe that particular individual, did what he did out of sarcasm. No true fan of modding a POS Japanese compact car would weigh their speedster down with such a huge fin. Any rocket scientist knows that would cause too much drag, and is too heavy, thus decreasing their POS car's performance. Actually the color scheme suggests it might be Darth Kitteh who made this rig. So in that case, the failblog has in fact, failed.

[Banana]

I'd have to add I'd be kind of want to back up really far behind if I was driving behind that car. I mean, what if the fin rip off and come down rolling the highway?

[Luca]

Originally Posted by AsLan^ Actually, the fact that it looks like an assault rifle is exactly why it is an assault rifle. Assault rifles are designed for combat with humans, thus the pistol grip for firing from behind cover, the shortened barrel length and collapsible stock stops the gun from getting in your way while you're maneuvering. Firearms are designed with specific purposes in mind and how they look (that is, their form) is directly related to their intended function. Whether people should be allowed to own assault rifles is a subject for another thread but I don't know why people continue to insist that a spade is not a spade when it obviously is.

Well the problem here is not that you're arguing that AR-15s and similar weapons should be called assault rifles. It doesn't really matter what you call them. They probably should be classified in their own category anyway since they aren't really suitable hunting weapons (at least, some aren't).

The problem is attaching value judgments to them based primarily on their appearance or a few arbitrary things like the presence of a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, threaded barrel, folding stock, or pistol grip (five of the criteria for a gun to be considered an "assault rifle" under the assault weapons ban of the 90s). I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you say the pistol grip allows "firing from behind cover." I suppose you mean it allows you to fire it one-handed so you don't have to expose yourself in order to fire? I guess that's possible, but good luck hitting anything if you do that. What's so bad about the ability to do that anyway? I just don't get it.

Anyway, you can say the AR-15 is an assault rifle all you want and single it out because it looks scary, but what about, say, the Norinco SKS?



It has a 10-round internal magazine, not detachable, and it has no pistol grip or folding stock. Hell, look at it, it's made of wood! It must not be evil, right? It's in basically the same category as the Ruger Mini 14 and other semi-automatic rifles that don't look like military weapons.

All I'm really saying is that if you want to criticize weapons for looking a certain way, you're going to end up making some pretty weird judgments when it comes to guns that look more like hunting rifles but perform more like assault rifles. Australia decided to ban all semi-automatic weapons several years ago, so they're not singling out certain models just for the way they look. I don't agree with the decision but at least I can recognize that they're not playing favorites. But in my opinion, if you're going to allow semi-automatic hunting rifles because they're made of wood and look like something a hunter would use, you should also allow AR-15s and so on. They're basically the same thing.

While we're at it, what about WWII-era weapons like the M1 Garand? They've killed countless thousands of people... probably far more than the M16 ever did. But it's quite a popular rifle today.

[Swox]

All guns look scary to me, so I guess we'll just have to ban them all!

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Swox All guns look scary to me, so I guess we'll just have to ban them all!

Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't kidding when they say that. And I find that most of them have never fired one, held one, or been in the same room as one, and get all of their 'information' from movies and television.

Oddly enough, most of those folks who I have offered to take shooting, who have taken me up on it, have afterwards said that they don't fear guns as objects any more, which is nice to hear. It lets the discussion center around data and facts, instead of a gut fear response that is based on nothing more than a vacuum of ignorance.

It's a strange sort of animistic view point, that imbues inert objects with a life, morality, and intent all of their own to the point that they generate fear by just *being*, isn't it? So much for rationality.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Swox All guns look scary to me, so I guess we'll just have to ban them all!

Gnashing and weeping by children will be heard around the world as ATF agent run in raiding their house to consficate those:





Feel safer now, Swox?

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Kickaha It's a strange sort of animistic view point, that imbues inert objects with a life, morality, and intent all of their own to the point that they generate fear by just *being*, isn't it? So much for rationality.

An elegant weapon... not as clumsy or random as a blaster. Oh... sorry.