Ignorance breeds stupidity, and there's a rash of stupidity around.

Burrito of Peace wrote on May 28, 2024, 12:18:
If you look at the most popular threads over the course of May, almost all of them are driven by argument and dissent. I acknowledge that I have contributed to that in the past but I no longer wish to do so nor participate in what has become an echo chamber of emotion. It's not just BN, either. It's everywhere the public gathers online. It's always emotions first, pathetic attempts at sarcasm to win points second, and actual details almost never.

But, it's always been like this on every internet forum everywhere.
Hell, Blue's used to be worse... political threads would stretch for hundreds upon hundreds of posts and the caliber of posts were way lower.
The (relatively) recent increase in moderation has done a really good job of cleaning things up in my opinion... but I can still count on this forum to serve as a bellwether to a variety of prevailing outlooks on events/topics.

Prez wrote on May 28, 2024, 14:10:
Likewise BoP. All you really need to know is that I know that you wanting to retain your constitutionally guaranteed right does not equal you being okay with children being slaughtered in senseless gun violence.

Bingo and thank you for understanding that.

Prez wrote on May 28, 2024, 14:10:
Oh, and as an aside, damn you for posting that link. I always say that I generally find the detailed specifics of firearms boring yet I have spent about 3 hours clicking on that guy's videos. 😁

You're welcome!

But on a serious note, I love Ian McCollum's videos. They are informative and engaging without politics or hyperbole. They're just factual information with history delivered in an interesting and understanding way.

What I think that people don't realize is that, functionally, the only difference between a standard issue M4-series rifle and an AR-series is that the civilian model has fire rate limits. The sad part is, despite being federally illegal, it's pretty damn easy to modify an AR to be effectively an M4 in all respects.

I don't think we need to repeal the entire 2A, but I do believe there needs to be a serious look at it with current modern technologies available. The stark difference between single-shot long rifles of the 1700s and the currently available modern equivalent is wider than the distance between the abacus and a modern computer.

Also, the biggest issue I have with the NRA/2A zealots is that they claim that AR-15s are fundamentally suited for hunting... if you need a weapon like that to hunt, you need to better train yourselves on firearms.

Likewise BoP. All you really need to know is that I know that you wanting to retain your constitutionally guaranteed right does not equal you being okay with children being slaughtered in senseless gun violence.

Oh, and as an aside, damn you for posting that link. I always say that I generally find the detailed specifics of firearms boring yet I have spent about 3 hours clicking on that guy's videos. 😁

This comment was edited on May 28, 2024, 14:20.

We'll just have to continue to worry if our children are going to come home from school every fucking day or if there is someone in the theater, church, grocery store, hotel balcony, business place, doctors' office etc. with an assault rifle, multiple magazines and a grudge against his fellow man.
Repeal the Second Amendment

Prez wrote on May 28, 2024, 10:38:
Thanks for your perspective BoP. Intricate (almost to the point of obsessing but I know that you're just a thorough and detail-oriented person.) and very informative.

Thank you. I am of the opinion that details matter because the details of something are often more important than the whole of a thing at first glance. If you ask me for my opinion or ask me a question, I want to provide all the details I can so that you get a whole and complete understanding of a topic from my point of view.

Prez wrote on May 28, 2024, 10:38:
As I expected, you brought up points that I hadn't considered - which used to be the actual point of a discussion board before bickering, grandstanding, and drawing lines in the sand that you must defend to the death became the norm.

It used to be and one of the reasons I decided to stop posting as much. If you look at the most popular threads over the course of May, almost all of them are driven by argument and dissent. I acknowledge that I have contributed to that in the past but I no longer wish to do so nor participate in what has become an echo chamber of emotion. It's not just BN, either. It's everywhere the public gathers online. It's always emotions first, pathetic attempts at sarcasm to win points second, and actual details almost never.

Prez wrote on May 28, 2024, 10:38:
I have never handled or fired a bullpup. But comparatively it is more compact than most long guns so I see the sense in what you say. More to the point, I think two points got sort of intermixed - that the AR-15 is seemingly the current death device of choice in these horrific mass shootings and that the actual definition of what an assault rifle is and what is referred to as an "assault rifle" in everyday parlance differs. But I don't really want or need to add anything except to offer that everything is based on perspective. The perspective of a mother who had to bury her six-year-old son because he was shot and the perspective of someone looking at fundamental realities on a large scale and statistics is going potentially vary by a huge margin.

Perception is important when it comes to personal decision making, but I don't think it has any place in policy creation. This is where I fundamentally disagree with the popular need to "interpret" laws. The whole point of codifying something in to law is so that it is uniformly applied. If a law no longer serves its purpose, put it through the democratic process so it can be repealed, rewritten, or replaced entirely as needed. "But I feel..." should never be the start of a sentence when a discussion is being had about a policy creation or change that fundamentally alters the lives of 330+ million people.

Prez wrote on May 28, 2024, 10:38:
On an individual idealistic scale, any single life ever taken in an unjustified shooting is conceptually worth sacrificing any and all of rights of gun ownership. If you don't accept that then I wonder about someone's humanity. On a "needs of the many", larger scale that shows that the vast VAST majority of gun owners have never committed a single crime and won't in their lifetime, banning firearms seems like a token kneejerk reaction that makes some people feel better but doesn't address any real issues.

But then we need to codify what is considered "justified" and "unjustified" because what is just and ethical to me may not be so to you. There again we see the need for detail and data driven policy creation or modification so that what is "justified" and "unjustified" can be uniformly applied. If we're going to turn law in to an algebra equation, does that law actually have merit or standing at that point?

On an individual level, I vehemently reject the concept of sacrificing any right guaranteed by the Constitution. Be it the Second, the Eighth, the Ninth, the Fifteenth or any other you care to name.The reason the amendment process is so difficult and long is to ensure that changing the Constitution must be a well thought out and carefully considered action. It was to ensure that the Constitution was not subject to the whims or fancy by either one part of the populace or a single politician or judge. As you pointed out, the vast majority of firearms owners have never and will never use their firearm for an unlawful purpose so why are we intent on punishing them for .0001% of the people who do use their firearm unlawfully? To put it another way, would you be willing to sacrifice the 15th Amendment because a bunch of people vote for politicians and a party you do not like and consider harmful to the United States and its population as a whole? I am confident in saying that you would not because, as you said, doing so is a knee jerk reaction that doesn't address anything.

Prez wrote on May 28, 2024, 10:38:
Being a practical guy, and given that, practically speaking , there to my mind exists no realistic way to effect any ban that would actually be effective, I don't call for any bans. Controls, sure. They clearly aren't up to snuff. But a ban would solve almost nothing on anything other than the most individual level, and then only maybe. I don't agree with legislating for an entire nation on an individual maybe myself. A single person's perspective can and will change (I get told all the time that I only say that because I never lost a child in a mass shooting) based on events. But laws that govern a nation are not subject to change based on my or anyone else's individual perspective. A culmination of many similar individual perspectives in a democratic vote, but no one single view matters. In my view, you can be more idealistic and reject that, or more practical and accept it. Neither is wrong. But just to reiterate, I don't vote, I don't want to change anyone's mind, I no longer own any guns, and couldn't fire them even if I did. I'm not anyone's problem.

It is my opinion that when people call for an outright ban of the Second, they are reacting emotionally and irrationally. "But dead kids/people" is not a rational argument for stripping a Constitutionally protected right from 330+ million Americans whom have enjoyed that right for more than 200 years. Let's take the two largest mass civilian casualty events in US history: the bombing of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma and the destruction of the World Trade Towers. Not a single firearm was used in either. What was used was planning and motivation. One cannot legislate planning and motivation away. One might as well write in water and expect that writing to still be there come the next day. Because planning and motivation are abstract ideas, they don't fit in to the emotional narrative of "BAN THE THING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT MAKES ME FEEL SAD/BAD!" People are essentially stupid as a whole and want simple, concrete solutions to hard, complex problems and get incredibly agitated when they can't get them. In that way, we humans are a bunch of toddlers. It's a hard concept to grasp for most people that a motivated individual who seeks to achieve an objective will inevitably and invariably achieve that objective when they have the time and means to plan for it. Someone wants to drive a nail and hammers are banned? They'll find another tool. That next tool is banned? Then a third tool is found and on it goes. The removal of a tool does not resolve the root cause of the motivation.

I think we are largely in agreement on this so I'll stop here. It was good to have a conversation with you, Prez.

Thanks for your perspective BoP. Intricate (almost to the point of obsessing but I know that you're just a thorough and detail-oriented person.) and very informative.

As I expected, you brought up points that I hadn't considered - which used to be the actual point of a discussion board before bickering, grandstanding, and drawing lines in the sand that you must defend to the death became the norm.

I have never handled or fired a bullpup. But comparatively it is more compact than most long guns so I see the sense in what you say. More to the point, I think two points got sort of intermixed - that the AR-15 is seemingly the current death device of choice in these horrific mass shootings and that the actual definition of what an assault rifle is and what is referred to as an "assault rifle" in everyday parlance differs. But I don't really want or need to add anything except to offer that everything is based on perspective. The perspective of a mother who had to bury her six-year-old son because he was shot and the perspective of someone looking at fundamental realities on a large scale and statistics is going potentially vary by a huge margin.

On an individual idealistic scale, any single life ever taken in an unjustified shooting is conceptually worth sacrificing any and all of rights of gun ownership. If you don't accept that then I wonder about someone's humanity. On a "needs of the many", larger scale that shows that the vast VAST majority of gun owners have never committed a single crime and won't in their lifetime, banning firearms seems like a token kneejerk reaction that makes some people feel better but doesn't address any real issues.

Being a practical guy, and given that, practically speaking , there to my mind exists no realistic way to effect any ban that would actually be effective, I don't call for any bans. Controls, sure. They clearly aren't up to snuff. But a ban would solve almost nothing on anything other than the most individual level, and then only maybe. I don't agree with legislating for an entire nation on an individual maybe myself. A single person's perspective can and will change (I get told all the time that I only say that because I never lost a child in a mass shooting) based on events. But laws that govern a nation are not subject to change based on my or anyone else's individual perspective. A culmination of many similar individual perspectives in a democratic vote, but no one single view matters. In my view, you can be more idealistic and reject that, or more practical and accept it. Neither is wrong. But just to reiterate, I don't vote, I don't want to change anyone's mind, I no longer own any guns, and couldn't fire them even if I did. I'm not anyone's problem.

This comment was edited on May 28, 2024, 11:16.

Prez wrote on May 26, 2024, 14:10:
This is a technicality, and I think BoP can make a better case for what would be more effective, but I don't think that the prevalence of what we civilians call 'Assault Rifles' is a driving factor. It's extremely easy to get any firearms in the USA. So if your stance is complete revocation of the right to own any firearms, this distinction won't matter to you. But in a situation that involves close quarters, an assault rifle is less effective than your average handgun. It's a disgusting thought, boiling down one of the most reprehensible acts imaginable to a "close quarters situation". My point is only to say that I don't see the situation getting any better if we reinstated an assault weapons ban. I was an extremely average shooter in the military, but in a room-to-room situation it is utterly sickening to think about the damage I could do with two pistols and several extra clips of ammunition in an enclosed building like a school, church, or office. AR-15's are just the popular gun in society. Banning them and all similar long guns would only shift the preferred death device to any one of the extremely powerful handguns.

What civilians like to call "assault rifles"...aren't. They're not even close. It's a populist phrase created by politicians in the 80s in an attempt to go "Ooga booga! Big scary black gun! Be afraid!" Ian McCollum provides a fantastic, apolitical explanation of what an assault rifle actually is over on YouTube here. It's short, too, at about 6 minutes.

From personal experience, there is a vast difference between the M16A2 and the M14 I trained with in the Navy and what I own today. Even my M1A (which is patterned after the M14) only has a semi-identical experience to the military issued M14. I legitimately wish the crybabies would stop pissing their panties and stop incorrectly using the phrase "assault rifle" when it is abundantly clear they have no idea what an actual, in service assault rifle is or what the actual definition of that phrase entails.

But on to your CQB statement. My answer is...it depends.

It depends on what my adversaries are armed with, if they're wearing body armor, what kind of cover they're behind, and what my objectives are. I can state with certainty that I would never select any AR patterned rifle if I have a choice. They're just too damn long and unwieldy. If we're talking home invasion and I am surprised from a dead sleep, then I'd pick my pistol on my nightstand. 18 rounds available to me and the average intruder is a soft target. By that I mean they are not wearing body armor of any kind. If it is multiple intruders, I'd probably elect to arm myself with my bullpup. All the power and accuracy of a 16" barreled rifle in a more compact package with far better balance. It's quick to maneuver and the .308 has better penetrating capabilities than the average 9mm pistol round. If I need to clear a structure? Bullpup. No question.

Then we get on to the mechanics of it all. You mentioned multiple magazines and their use. I'm pretty adept at fast reloading my pistol but I am still slower at loading a new magazine in it than I am my bullpup because the magazine for the pistol is fed in at an angle. It also requires two hands for an eject, load, and chamber cycle. The bullpup is a one handed operation because the bolt release is a rocker lever just behind the magazine well. So the cycle is insert fresh magazine, tap bolt release with the thumb on the reloading hand, and the rifle is hot and ready. In that regard, I think the bullpup is more effective, for me, when it comes to how fast I can reload and re-engage.

Weight is also a consideration. With a fully loaded, 20 round magazine in my bullpup, she weight about 10.5 pounds. To me, that isn't a lot of weight because I am used to hiking around with a backpack loaded with 30 pounds of weight. But over time, some people might experience arm, hand, and shoulder fatigue, even if they have a good sling that is appropriately fitted to their body. A pistol, on the other hand, is maybe a quarter of that weight. Maybe...and that is if you've loaded it down with optics and a light. So if weight is a consideration, the pistol wins that hands down.

But on to the last point. A ban on any type of weapon is not going to be the cureall that some people think it is going to be. That's short sighted thinking because it only addresses a symptom, not the root cause. If we look at the death toll of American civilian casualties from 1900 onward, the last ten years of "mass shootings" don't even make the top 10. But the US is never going to address the root cause and that is the aggressive, divisive rhetoric that is inherently baked in to the US culture. The baked in tribalism that we are all steeped in from birth. Politics, sports teams, entertainment choices, consumer purchase choices of literally any kind (Ford vs Chevy, domestic vs import, etc), life choices, sexual and/or gender orientation, and on and on the list goes of all the many, many ways we choose to have an "us vs them" attitude. It also does not help that we glorify and celebrate the United States' birth from violence and all of the many ways that we, as a nation, have used violence so quickly throughout our relatively short history. Case in point, as I am typing this it is Memorial Day where we honor all those who died in conflict at the behest of politicians. Outside of WW2 and the Civil War, can we ethically justify any of the armed conflicts we have engaged in that has created so many dead soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen? We cheerily call these people "heroes" but are they? Or are they victims of a nation laser focused on violence and money above all else? A sobering thought is that we are the only nation, in the history of mankind, that has successfully fought a two front war. You don't get to have peace at home or abroad when you're raising and indoctrinating your civilians from birth that they are always under threat and are a moment away from being attacked. That it is their deity-of-choice given right to resort to violence to "solve" every single problem. Because that is what their nation does. So, sure, remove a tool and watch people start learning how to make bombs from common, everyday items to achieve the same goals. That's actually easier than buying any firearm because it's just a trip to the grocery store, the local farm supply store, and the local hardware store away. No waiting period and no one at the checkout runs a background check.

Beamer wrote on May 26, 2024, 14:20:
Prez, I don't say "AR" as "assault rifle," I say it as ArmaLite AR-15 derivative rifle.

Its sales have been meteoric

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-25b820cc2709d489866ac798a5ed135e

Yes, that is what I assumed that you meant. I don't actually completely understand the distinction myself honestly. But I know the kind of guns affected by the assault rifle ban you mentioned. I question whether its removal is a driving factor in the utter insanity we have been witnessing. Obviously the ease of access of firearms in general is a driving factor, but realistically a full ban , even if it eventually becomes possible, will create more problems than it fixes. As a nation we are far past the point of that being realistic. That's just my opinion. If anyone thinks that I am nuts, that's fine. I'm not adding to the problem, so don't get your panties in a twist. 🙂

This is a good article, as well

Correlation isn't necessarily causation, as it explains, but it definitely enables the "mass" in "mass shootings" better than a hunting rifle

Prez, I don't say "AR" as "assault rifle," I say it as ArmaLite AR-15 derivative rifle.

Its sales have been meteoric

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-25b820cc2709d489866ac798a5ed135e

This is a technicality, and I think BoP can make a better case for what would be more effective, but I don't think that the prevalence of what we civilians call 'Assault Rifles' is a driving factor. It's extremely easy to get any firearms in the USA. So if your stance is complete revocation of the right to own any firearms, this distinction won't matter to you. But in a situation that involves close quarters, an assault rifle is less effective than your average handgun. It's a disgusting thought, boiling down one of the most reprehensible acts imaginable to a "close quarters situation". My point is only to say that I don't see the situation getting any better if we reinstated an assault weapons ban. I was an extremely average shooter in the military, but in a room-to-room situation it is utterly sickening to think about the damage I could do with two pistols and several extra clips of ammunition in an enclosed building like a school, church, or office. AR-15's are just the popular gun in society. Banning them and all similar long guns would only shift the preferred death device to any one of the extremely powerful handguns.

It would likely prevent another MGM Vegas-style bloodbath because handguns are far less effective at range, but you're not going to see a reduction in grieving parents because their school age child was murdered in math class. Sickening, I know, and I am not advocating for the removal of anyone's rights. I'm just saying that an Assault Weapons ban will likely not move the needle. I will leave the endless round-and-round bickering to others. I don't see any realistic way of fixing this.

Hopefully the families use any monies received from this tragedy for good, such as addressing mental health issues that result in people committing acts of evil such as this and not pushing for disarmament. I know that's the easy route but it ultimately won't solve anything. Evil will find a way where it wants to.

Beamer wrote on May 25, 2024, 08:19:

maddog wrote on May 25, 2024, 04:31:
removed

1) these shooters rarely come from liberal families

2) there's a direct correlation between the end of the Brady Bill legalizing ARs and the amount of randomized mass shootings we've been having


Facts don't care about your feelings

Thanks for a civil response to utter nonsense.
Dudes obviously been fed a fuck load of lies from far-right media.

Beamer wrote on May 25, 2024, 11:45:

Burrito of Peace wrote on May 25, 2024, 09:48:

Beamer wrote on May 25, 2024, 08:19:
2) there's a direct correlation between the end of the Brady Bill legalizing ARs and the amount of randomized mass shootings we've been having

A small point of order. The "Brady Bill" (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in its formal title) had no such provisions. It instituted waiting periods, universal background checks via the NICS, and limited whom could purchase handguns.

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, or the the "Assault Weapons Ban", is what you are looking to reference.

However, the RAND Corporation did a review in 2020 of five different studies that analyzed the effect of the ban and found that there wasn't conclusive evidence of any real effect on firearm homicides.

A couple of things. First, yeah, I know, the RAND Corporation. But it's the freshest data available. Second, there were previous studies done and all showed a negligible impact. We're talking single digit percentages.

But I know you know the old phrase "correlation does not equal causation".

Like I said, randomized shootings.

People, for statistics, lump in a husband murdering his wife with a hunting rifle and a man walking into a black church he'd never stepped foot in and shooting 20 partitioners.

One of those has increased exponentially since ARs became readily available. And they utilize AR style rifles more often than not.

The assault rifle is made for one thing, two if you count acting as a penis replacement for ammosexxuals.
They are designed to kill as many humans as possible in the shortest amount of time.
Ban them.

JTW wrote on May 25, 2024, 00:02:
All of the exposure to violence on TV and in games absolutely has an effect, but not the effect that they keep claiming it does. I'm a child of the 70s and 80s, back when the heroes were cowboys, the A-Team, Rambo, and GI Joe. We 'played guns' all the time.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree. I just want to note that one of the reasons my mom didn't mind us watching the A-Team at a young age was because it usually went out of it's way to show people never really got hurt too bad despite all the 'violence'. The A-Team didn't kill anyone and most of the crazy car crashes and sometimes helicopter, would show the people walking away with only some dirt on them. It is actually comical. Of course you could argue this is a bad image to portray, but I turned out fine... ish.

Burrito of Peace wrote on May 25, 2024, 09:48:

Beamer wrote on May 25, 2024, 08:19:
2) there's a direct correlation between the end of the Brady Bill legalizing ARs and the amount of randomized mass shootings we've been having

A small point of order. The "Brady Bill" (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in its formal title) had no such provisions. It instituted waiting periods, universal background checks via the NICS, and limited whom could purchase handguns.

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, or the the "Assault Weapons Ban", is what you are looking to reference.

However, the RAND Corporation did a review in 2020 of five different studies that analyzed the effect of the ban and found that there wasn't conclusive evidence of any real effect on firearm homicides.

A couple of things. First, yeah, I know, the RAND Corporation. But it's the freshest data available. Second, there were previous studies done and all showed a negligible impact. We're talking single digit percentages.

But I know you know the old phrase "correlation does not equal causation".

Like I said, randomized shootings.

People, for statistics, lump in a husband murdering his wife with a hunting rifle and a man walking into a black church he'd never stepped foot in and shooting 20 partitioners.

One of those has increased exponentially since ARs became readily available. And they utilize AR style rifles more often than not.

guyoninterwebs wrote on May 25, 2024, 07:52:
It seems a lot of people are debating the old "people saying videogames cause violence" debate, but just from glancing at the article description it looks like this is actually about questionable product placement. Those who are thinking "but there were guns in Doom!" are missing the point, there wasn't any branding or specific model numbers on the rocket launcher, pistol or chaingun.

For those unaware, it was revealed that last year Remington signed a product placement deal "as part of a marketing plan to reach young customers" in Modern Warfare 2:
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/remington-gun-call-of-duty-video-game-93059a66

This new lawsuit seems to be building upon that story from last year.

gun makers realized they could charge companies to use their names/designs, and not too many companies would say no to free money. That is why in many games familiar weapons have different but similar names. For product placement, I guess you play an entire game holding a weapon, how could it be worse than that.

Beamer wrote on May 25, 2024, 08:27:

guyoninterwebs wrote on May 25, 2024, 07:52:
It seems a lot of people are debating the old "people saying videogames cause violence" debate, but just from glancing at the article description it looks like this is actually about questionable product placement. Those who are thinking "but there were guns in Doom!" are missing the point, there wasn't any branding or specific model numbers on the rocket launcher, pistol or chaingun.

For those unaware, it was revealed that last year Remington signed a product placement deal "as part of a marketing plan to reach young customers" in Modern Warfare 2:
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/remington-gun-call-of-duty-video-game-93059a66

This new lawsuit seems to be building upon that story from last year.

It works. Would I have a P90 without games like MW2? Probably not

I've played every CoD, and MoH before that. It's not legal for me to own any guns (in practical terms) so I don't have one. We rarely get mass shootings here. There may well be more a correlation between gun ownership and people being shot, rather than people playing computer games where the guns are named and modelled after real ones.