All killing machines are ugly.

And nobody said you had to buy it.

I find it funny that the writer acts as if this is a surprise. Gun banners go after certain features so we follow the law and cut them off, but are vilified for it. Also you just have to love that comment about banning bayonet lugs and how many lives that will save, and how clueless many of the lawmakers are on what they actually voted on.

ALL killing machines are ugly.

What looks back at you is the ultimate killing machine.

Nice insult though. I can almost hear your celebratory gunfire. Yeeeeeeehawwwwww!!!!!11111

But at least you didn't ID me as "the enemy" like your fellow gun lover did. So thanks for that.

Humans are the ultimate killing machines, and since you are human you share that title.

And your stereotype of myself is a real insult.

Humans don't even come close.

It says much about you that when you speak about humans, you immediately invoke death.

So guns are really insignificant when you think about the real dangers based on death toll.

So you can see the soul of an inanimate object? You might want to talk with someone.

Take it up with the OP.

"I'm not talking about physical ugliness"

I said all killing machines are ugly things. They are.

so what nonphysical attribute do you choose to describe with the word ugly? what the hell are the nonphysical attributes of guns?
Why refer me to the Op rather than acknowledge your own post? Are you just making this up as you go along?

Hypothetically, in your ideal world, all funding would be cut off for this gallery, and all the ugly, horrid, nasty killing machines and accessories should be melted down, not sold of course. Right?

http://www.metmuseum.org/armsandarmor

Thanks for the great idea!

I'd go ahead and incorporate the buffer tube into a more traditional-looking and NY compliant stock. It would be awkward to shoot but with a bit of practice it would work fairly well. The M1 Garand doesn't have a pistol grip and it was highly effective in it's day. Still is.

Of course the prettiest ones in my collection aren't intended to save lives, but are instead hunting guns handed down from my Grandfathers, and Father.

I personally think some guns are quite beautiful. But again, it's a personal opinion.

too many semiautomatic handguns out there - banning the vast majority of guns sold in America is a non-starter.

AWBs were able to be passed because controllers made up a term - "assault weapon" and then demonized them as outside the mainstream of American gun history. Not going to work for semiautomatics in general.

The recalcitrance of the NRA and their shills is going to result in a backlash that will hurt us in the long run. Eventually, the laws will far overreach what is necessary and your single-shot .22 will get banned along with my Gov't Model 1911.

Granted it would be a destructive device under NFA, assuming you could afford the $1.5M per missile price tag not counting fire control system. It is also a logical fallacy called appeal to extremes.

...could you CC in AZ?

Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

DUer X_Digger pegged these types years ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#361915

Its the $200 Destructive Device tax stamp that puts it out of my financial range.

semiautomatic guns are.

The reason why there will be no backlash is the steadily declining rates of violence in America. Having cut our murder rate in half over the past 20 years, no one is going to buy your hysterical fear mongering. When two thirds of gun deaths are suicides, people will think of fixing mental health, not banning guns. The public is not stupid.

Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014, 04:47 AM - Edit history (1)

And what "us" did you have in mind?

Ah, never mind- it's obvious what you meant (at least to those with a few miles under their belts). For the disinterested reader:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#361915

That I didn't grow up squirrel hunting from the age of four? That I haven't been an avid deer hunter, and more avid duck hunter?

That I don't purchase a Conservation Patron license from my State every March?

That I don't still enjoy plinking and trap shooting?


Sorry, pal, if that's the case, you lose.

The first is found a little further down the linked thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x367600

The reason I ask is because if you limit a weapon's effectiveness for an attacker, you are necessarily doing so for a defender as well. You can argue that it's worth it, but that's a different argument, I think.

A combination of muzzle velocity, magazine capacity and rate-of-fire gained support as a reasonable way to measure firepower. Opinions about how much was too much varied widely, as you can imagine.

The issue of attacker vs defender strikes me as a wash. Right now it is equal, but at an arguably high "firepower" level, while any firepower limits imposed would again leave it equal, but less lethal.


I'd appreciate any thoughtful comments you might have on the topic.

Attackers benefit from three major advantages. First, they are willing to break the law, so they will always have at least equal firepower and most likely greater. Second, they know when and where the attack will take place. Third, they don't always have to operate under duress, whereas a defender, by definition, must always act under duress.

A good example of this is reloads. The shooter in Newtown was able to choose moments between engagements where he could reload without resistance. A defender would never have that luxury. I've been to a few shooting competitions, and I can assure you that reloads, even under the simulated stress of a timer, are much more difficult than when practiced at a static range.

There is another caveat that non-shooters overlook, and that is one of reliability. There is absolutely nothing more important in a self-defense weapon than reliability, not even accuracy. As an example, my Glock 19 was designed with a 15 round magazine. This design was tested so rigorously that it has a reputation of absolute reliability. The 10 round magazines, while generally considered to be as good as any, do not have the same level of rigorous testing, and New York's ridiculous 7-round magazines don't even exist. Furthermore, when failure is the fault of a magazine, it is most often in the form of a type 3 malfunction, or double-feed. This is by far the worst type of malfunction, often taking better than 5 seconds to clear IF you are really good. In fact, most experts say it is better to go to a back up weapon than try to clear a type 3. Who is more likely to have a back up weapon, the armed citizen defending himself, or the attacker who has been planning months in advance? Look at the Aurora shooting where the shooters unreliable 100 round magazine malfunctioned, so what did he do? He switched to a back up shotgun and kept killing

Where's the parity?

ETA: Care to address the other points of my post?

Reduce the firepower limits and any attackers will be breaking the law at a lower threshold.

Reloading speed, clearing jams and reliability seem to be just red herrings. How do these issues have any impact on the discussion of limiting legal firepower?

What used to be an already unacceptable disadvantage is made worse by limiting the ability to defend oneself.

All of those things I mentioned are germane to that subject. Bombs, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the discussion. How would one employ a bomb in self-defense?

I've never been a great fisherman, but I can recognize a red herring when I see one.

Let's recap.

You say limiting firepower will make us safer. (Without providing any evidence to the truth of this claim)

Adrahil points out that any attempts to do so would also affect defenders, thus negating any increase in "safety"

You claim that the reduction in firepower will be equal between both parties.

I demonstrate that attackers already benefit from distinct advantages, and that those advantages are enhanced when firepower is limited (ie when reloads are made more frequent, it favors those who do not reload under duress).

You mistakenly call my arguments red herrings, and then present bombs as a counter example.

I point out that bombs have nothing to do with a discussion on limiting the firepower of guns (I'll add because they could not possibly be affected by limitations on caliber, ROF, mag capacity).

You post a picture of a CLAYMORE MINE as if it could be used in a manner analogous to a pistol, and then accuse me of disingenuity. Wow.

I was having an honest discussion of the unconsidered consequences of limiting firepower. You decided my conversation was dismissable with no more than "that's a red herring." I was fostering discussion, what were you doing?

I can tell you I do NOT want someone telling me I can only have 10 rounds, especially since I know a criminal wont be limited in such a way. In general, I'm not happy with other people telling me is adequate for self-defense, especially since MANY of those people have little or no experience or training with firearms.

People are trying to solve a problem with violence perpetrated using a gun by trying to limit to restrict the gun. That's treating a symptom, not the problem.

There are WAY too many guns in this country to address this problem form that end. The problem is the VIOLENCE, not the gun.

There are people who murder with a cheap .22 cal handgun, and people who own machine guns who NEVER murder anyone.

And rate of fire? I assume that's meant to target semi-autos? Short of repealing the 2nd A, I don't see how you do that, since semi autos are clearly the action of choice for a defensive weapon.

I still think we'd be better off fighting for economic justice and mental health services.

Is that it?

Of skirting the law and twisting its intent.

They've been using those same stocks for years in California.

the law is the law - it is legal or it is not. There are no grey areas.

simply complying with the letter of the law. What is the point of banning something based on cosmetics and is and used in fewer murders than baseball bats?

Law is black-and-white and these guns aren't "skirting" anything, they're in full compliance with the detailed regulations contained in the Consolidated Laws Of New York State.

Do those regulations not coincide with your feelings? Then propose a law that does that. If you want semi-automatic rifles banned, simply codify that. If you want rid of black guns, put that into law. If you don't like pistol grips, well, the law does have that covered.

please explain to us the intent of this law.

Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014, 04:48 AM - Edit history (1)

I'd like to think you lot would have learned by now not to assume your opponents are fools, but that
doesn't seem to be happening yet...

When there is irreconcilable disagreement about whether the spirit of a law is a good thing, then the people who consider it a bad thing will always yield only the letter of the law. Human nature...

or that he does, and is afraid to tell.

Because that rifle shown appears to be the same deadly piece of machinery as the old ones.

did you know that the rifle used by the Sandy Hook shooter was perfectly legal under CT's AWB? It was not legally an assault weapon.

is going to have essentially the same functionality. At worst you can make them slightly less convenient to use. Unless people are going to push for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, this kind of law just won't work.

I'm thinking no.

I think I would prefer the UK legal version.
http://www.southern-gun.co.uk/

I think we should ban things like a Barrel shroud. I'm not even sure what it is, I think its the shoulder thing that goes up, but lets ban it anyway.

Could just be the photo but it looks like it would be uncomfortable to shoot with for a prolonged period too.

Although it's been neutered with the mag limit it's nice to see this great piece of American history live on.

"I've gotta buy, Buy BUYYY!!!"