What do gun enthusiasts say about assault weapons when speaking among themselves?

[DanTex]

So, we've all heard a thousand times now that the Assault Weapons ban would simply bans scary-looking guns, because the features like a pistol grip or a front grip or a folding stock which are covered by the law are purely "cosmetic". Right? This is something every gun enthusiast, from Wayne LaPierre on down to your local militia nut, agrees about.

But what to these same gun enthusiasts say when talking amongst themselves about these same features? When they are not arguing against an assault weapons ban, but rather discussing the pros and cons of different gun configurations?

A little googling will give us some answers:

For any situation when speed or handling are more important than accuracy, a vertical front grip is best. It's more comfortable, you have better latteral control over the gun and you can control recoil better. Also, there's much less heat conducted into your hand. For longer range shooting, don't use it though as more movement is transferred from your hand into the gun than when resting the gun on your hand, as you would with a standard fore end.

Advantages:

Quicker initial sight picture.
Faster followup shots. (If you have a good forend that you can grip easily this advantage disapears.)

Disadvantages:

More difficult to shoot prone. (Not a problem with a folding FPG.)
Less steady shooting offhand.
Can snag on stuff.
Make the gun front heavy. (Yes I know they make lightweight ones, but why hang more weight up front than you have too.)

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-212413.html

A pistol grip makes it easier for an operator to:

1)reload while retaining firing grip

2)clear malfunctions while retaining firing grip

3)transfer shoulders/hands

4)transition to HGN

5) Fire from awkward/atypical/bastardized firing positions i.e. SBS prone, supine, rollover prone, etc.

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?34080-No-pistol-grip-Tactical-disadvantage

And so on.

Don't get me wrong, there are some gun enthusiasts who don't like assault features like a pistol or front grip. But, a lot of these hard-core gun nuts are saying exactly the same things that gun control advocates say. That the assault features, while not useful for hunting or long-range accuracy, are helpful when it comes to stabilizing a gun and controlling recoil when firing a lot of shots quickly, and also make it easier to quickly reload while maintaing firing grip.

It's great when both sides agree on something!

[onehandle]

1. No way. It's just decoration. Like fins or flames on a car.

That's what Fox News tells me.

[SunSeeker]

2. K&R

[aikoaiko]

3. To some these features are cosmetic and to others ergonomic or functional.

Its not that complex.

[Hoyt]

75. It is very important for mass murderers like Lanza and Holmes to be comfortable with their weapons.

You are right, the attraction to these guns is not complex. They are designed and marketed to appeal to gun cultists' baser instincts. What's your favorite?

[raidert05]

85. Some of the things I find on google image searches...

[url=http://imgflip.com/i/u5tz][img][/img][/url][url=http://imgflip.com/memegenerator]

[upaloopa]

4. AR15 was patterned after the M16. The M16 was not ment

to be an accurate rifle. It was to be used more like a spray can.

[mwrguy]

5. actually, the AR15 came first

It was adopted by the military and turned into the M16.

[derby378]

6. Exactly

The "AR" in "AR-15" comes from ArmaLite, the company that originally designed the rifle.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

51. Or did the AR-10 come first?

and then get downsized?

It's all so confusing.

[slackmaster]

25. Wrong. M16 is the military designation for a selective-fire AR-15.

The rifle existed in the civilian world before it was adopted by the military.

The M16 was not ment... ...to be an accurate rifle.

Also wrong. A rifle that is not accurate is useless at all but very short ranges, which is not how things work in combat. Military people are trained to shoot up to 600 yards with the M16 rifle and variants.

[hack89]

7. So look at these two guns

and explain why one is significantly more lethal than the other. Same bullet, same rate of fire, same magazines.

[Crepuscular]

9. Clearly

Clearly, the flash suppressor makes the top one tremendously more lethal and ban worthy.

[DanTex]

11. Well, I'm no expert, but according to the guys at thehighroad.com and warriortalk.com...

...one of the guns is easier to keep stable under rapid fire, easier to control recoil and muzzle lift, and easier to reload quickly while keeping a firing grip.

[hack89]

13. So you would be perfectly comfortable if all rifles were like the bottom one?

it would eliminate mass shootings and make us all safer?

[DanTex]

20. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Precisely. Good job reading!

[hack89]

26. But isn't that the subject at hand?

the lethality of semiautomatic rifles and which ones civilians should be allowed to own? I keep hearing the AWB will significantly reduce mass shootings and save lives. So tell me - will a world full of the bottom rifle significantly reduce mass shootings and save lives?

[Progressive dog]

50. It probably will help

And a limit on magazine capacity will probably help more.
Might depend on the definition of significantly. When we're talking about murdered people, what is a significant number in your mind?

[Floyd_Gondolli]

62. You're debating a wall

Here's the deal with this lot:

1-Everyone should own a gun, no matter how fucked in the head you are.

2-All guns/firearms/cannons etc. should be legal. You want a bazooka? Have the fuck at it. And pick one up for me while you're at it!

3-Gun laws don't do anything. They just punish honest hard working folk. We should all just keep our mouths shut and these problems will go away.

4-Statistics, anecdotal evidence, facts, etc. are made up by the "gun grabbers" to take our guns.

5-They wouldn't give up their guns even if there was some way to ensure another Sandy Hook wouldn't happen. Their rights are more important than yours.

Rinse and repeat.

[Progressive dog]

68. I know you're right but

I can't help myself.
At least if we keep them occupied, they won't get in trouble with their guns.
Or failing that maybe we can keep them up at night worrying about someone coming to take their guns.

[raidert05]

74. oh noes

[lolly]

88. You forgot one

6--Since no gun law or regulation can absolutely prevent any gun deaths from ever happening anywhere ever, then gun laws are all useless.

[ManiacJoe]

16. You say that like it is a bad thing.

Anything that makes it easier to accurately hit your target is a good thing.

Of course, if the user has picked an inappropriate target, then no feature of the gun will make that any more or less inappropriate.

[DanTex]

23. Well, making it easier to hit targets under rapid fire and through reloads...

seems like a pretty good definition of "more lethal" to me. We can argue about whether permitting these features that make a gun more lethal is good or bad, but at least don't pretend that these features don't add to the lethality.

The pro-gunners usually argue that the features covered by AWB are cosmetic and don't affect functionality. If we can agree that they do affect functionality, we're getting somewhere.

[slackmaster]

28. Features that make a rifle easy to shoot rapidly also make it easy to shoot slowly

There is no difference at all.

[DanTex]

32. Again, I'm no expert, but that's not what I've read on the gun blogs...

Evidently, the pistol grip and forward grip are particularly useful when firing quickly. If you are only going to fire one round, then it's not as important to handle the recoil in order and keep the rifle pointed accurately for the next shot. But if you are firing a lot of shots quickly, then you need to keep the gun stable and avoid losing control or allowing the muzzle to lift up. And configurations that lend themselves to this combat-style rapid shooting are not the most comfortable or accurate for hunting scenarios. Which makes sense -- war zones and game reserves require different styles of guns.

Or at least that's what I've heard from hard-core gun enthusiasts posting on gun blogs. You might want to take it up with them.

[slackmaster]

40. Stability and control are just as important for slow shots as for quick ones

Accurate shooting involves sight picture, consistent grip, trigger control, and breath control. All are required for accuracy no matter how many round you shoot or how much time you allow between them.

But if you are firing a lot of shots quickly, then you need to keep the gun stable and avoid losing control or allowing the muzzle to lift up.

That is certainly true, but for safety it's always important to keep a solid grip on a weapon. Once in a while they malfunction and fire a round when you didn't intend to fire one, and a loaded firearm flying uncontrolled through the air is certainly a danger to everyone.

[ManiacJoe]

30. They do not affect the functionality of the gun.

However, they do improve the efficiency of the user. This often results is fewer rounds being fired since the first few rounds will have better odds at getting the job done.

[DanTex]

34. Depends what you mean by "functionality".

If the definition of "functionality" includes "the ability to shoot a lot of people in a small amount of time, all the while keeping the rifle stabilized and reloading quickly while maintaining a shooting grip" then, yes, it does affect the functionality.

[ManiacJoe]

39. You just described the functionality of the user, not the gun.

The aftermarket accessories do not change the abilities of the gun. They do change the abilities of the user.

[DanTex]

56. I have no idea what you mean.

What I'm saying is that the assault features make a gun more lethal. It makes it easier to commit mass murder. As long as we agree on that, I don't really care whether you think it's the "functionality of the gun" or the "functionality of the user" (whatever that means) that is being enhanced.

[ManiacJoe]

91. The lethality of a gun is what it is. Accessories do not change this.

The gun has a fixed accuracy, normally measured in minutes of angle.
The gun has a fixed rate of fire, as slow or fast as that might be.

The shape and size of the stock does not change this.
The shape of the grip does not change this.
Adding or removing accessories does not change this.

The shape of the grip can make the user more accurate with the gun.
The shape and/or size of the stock can make the user accurate with the gun.
After-market accessories can make the user accurate with the gun.
Any of these things can also make the user less accurate with the gun.

[Progressive dog]

64. So if the gun uses itself it won't be more functional

Did you even read what you wrote?

[ManiacJoe]

92. The important part is YOU should read it.

> So if the gun uses itself it won't be more functional

Objects do not "use themselves".


Please rephrase the question.

[Progressive dog]

100. That is pretty funny

Or did you forget your post already?

[quakerboy]

90. So, in essence

you are saying that they allow the user to shoot more rounds more efficiently (ie on target and faster).

Much akin to how a larger magazine effects things.

Imagine how efficient these items would allow a shooter to be when used in combination.



All of which is almost swept away by your distracting use of language to try and achieve some sort of semantic distinction that seems irrelevant to any part of this conversation.

Functionality: The purpose that something is designed or expected to fulfill.

[ManiacJoe]

94. You seem to be starting to understand.

> you are saying that they allow the user to shoot more rounds more efficiently (ie on target and faster).

Yes, and also fewer rounds more efficiently.

> Much akin to how a larger magazine effects things.

Not necessarily. After a point, larger magazines become less reliable as recent shootings have shown.

> Imagine how efficient these items would allow a shooter to be when used in combination.

I have no need to imagine. I know. An efficient shooter is a good thing; it prevents non-targets from getting shot. (The legality and morality of the user's choice of target is a separate topic unrelated to the efficiency of the user.)

> All of which is almost swept away by your distracting use of language to try and
> achieve some sort of semantic distinction that seems irrelevant to any part of this conversation.

Unfortunately, semantics is often very important, especially when discussing technical topics like firearms and their laws. Hopefully you will learn the difference and be able to contribute to the conversation.

[quakerboy]

97. And yet, you do not

>yes, and also fewer rounds more efficiently.

Just because an item permits something to operate faster with efficiency does not necessarily mean that it will also operate slower with greater efficiency. Many mechanical devices are tuned for ideal operation at a specific speed of operation and if used at another speed, be it higher or lower, and may actually cause a detriment to operational efficiency at other speeds.

>Not necessarily. After a point, larger magazines become less reliable as recent shootings have shown.

However, with the specific design functions as per the earlier discussion, faster shooting can be done more efficiently than otherwise, neutralizing any "advantage" of larger magazines. However, I think that your perception of larger magazines being less reliable is less than accurate. Changeover of magazines seems to be a main point of potential weakness, rather than the size of magazines

>I have no need to imagine. I know. An efficient shooter is a good thing; it prevents non-targets from getting shot. (The legality and >morality of the user's choice of target is a separate topic unrelated to the efficiency of the user.)

The legality and morality of the chosen target is not isolated from the "good" of a shooters efficiency. Things do not occur in a vacuum. An efficient school shooter is not a "good thing", no matter how much you may attempt to compartmentalize things.

>Unfortunately, semantics is often very important, especially when discussing technical topics like firearms and their laws. Hopefully you >will learn the difference and be able to contribute to the conversation.

Semantics are very important. And as far as I can tell you misused language to try and create an inapropriate semantic. As far as "functionality", I gave one definition earlier. Here is an alternate: having or serving a utilitarian purpose; capable of serving the purpose for which it was designed.

The gun is designed for a purpose. It has functionality. And specific additions or engineering such as a folding stock, a pistol grip, or a large magazine effect the functionality of the gun. Not the user.

[ManiacJoe]

98. You started well then we got that post.

Yes, some items are tuned to operate faster with efficiency. Some are not tuned that way. Are you suggesting that common "assault weapon" features are in the "tuned for faster" category?

> I think that your perception of larger magazines being less reliable is less than accurate.

While I readily admit to no first-hand knowledge of large capacity magazines, your perception is does not match media reports and many range reports.

> The legality and morality of the chosen target is not isolated from the "good" of a shooters efficiency.
> Things do not occur in a vacuum. An efficient school shooter is not a "good thing", no matter how
> much you may attempt to compartmentalize things.

An efficient shooter is always a good thing. It is always a good thing when no non-targets are shot.

Since a mass shooter never has any legal nor moral targets, this efficirelevantnot relavant since he is supposed to be shooting no targets. The reality is that for a mass shooter, efficiency is counter productive since his goal is to create as much damage/injuries as possible.

> Semantics are very impoHopefullyGood. Hopufully you are learning, but your posts are suggesting it is a slow process for you.

> The gun is designed for a purpose. It has functionality. And specific additions or engineering
> such as a folding stock, a pistol grip, or a large magazine effect the functionality of the gun.
> Not the user.

The purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets with repeatable accuracy. Obviously most things do not react well to having holes punched in them. The user'ssolelyce of targets is soley in the domain of the user.

The stock and grip and other stuff does not change the accuracy of the gun. However, they can have an affect on the accuracy of the user with the gun. The accuracy of the gun and the accuracy of the user are two different things, which you seem to be merging together. Granted the accuracy of the user is a more common and more interesting conversation since that is where most of the work needs to be done for most shooters.

[quakerboy]

111. Where to start.

>Yes, some items are tuned to operate faster with efficiency. Some are not tuned that way. Are you suggesting that common "assault >weapon" features are in the "tuned for faster" category?

Some are. I think a vertical front grip is. A large magazine almost certainly is. Not as sure about a pistol grip. Stock options seem to me more for either being able to conceal, or adjust for different size users than with shooting efficiency. Not sure what a bayonette lug has to do with anything, and a flash suppressor is again more about concealment than shooting efficiency.

In short, different features are designed to make a weapon more efficient in specific circumstances. For instance, a sling is handy for some standing shooting, but at a bench, they annoy the fuck out of me and get in my way. Ive never had any trouble with non pistol grip weapons firing inaccurately. At a steady and careful speed. And i've never needed to spray an area with suppression fire or pivot quickly from target to target, so I cant speak from personal experience as to what would would make a weapon more accurate for those circumstances, though I think i have just enough knowledge to speculate.

>While I readily admit to no first-hand knowledge of large capacity magazines, your perception is does not match media reports and >many range reports.

I guess it all depends on what you are doing and who you are listening to. And what large capacity means. I can usually put 25 shots in a small grouping on a target, basically ripping the center out of the paper, if I use one magazine. If I am using 10 round mags in the same gun, I usually end up with a few outside my grouping, as I am impatient, and I move as I swap out, and usually dont get back to exactly the same sight picture on the first shot. Of course, I am not an overly practiced or trained shooter, so I'm sure there are ways to replace magazines and stay on target. But I would suppose based on personal experience and observation that the vast majority of people benefit more in hitting targets from the continuity of not having to break for an activity other than shooting than any perceived "detriment" to a larger magazine. Though I admit to being at a loss as to what detriment there might be. Perhaps you can clarify that for me.

>An efficient shooter is always a good thing. It is always a good thing when no non-targets are shot.

Absolutely incorrect. I believe it would have been a very good thing if more desks, chairs, and walls were shot in newtown, as opposed to people.

>Since a mass shooter never has any legal nor moral targets, this efficirelevantnot relavant since he is supposed to be shooting no >targets. The reality is that for a mass shooter, efficiency is counter productive since his goal is to create as much damage/injuries as >possible.

I don't even know where to start. Increased efficiency allows a shooter to do exactly what you state. Increase the amount of damage and injuries.

Say you have 50 rounds to shoot. If you shoot efficiently, you can hit 50 targets. If you shoot inefficiently you hit 20 targets, and a bunch of non targets. If those targets are papers and you want to win, then inefficiency is bad. If those targets are children, efficiency is very BAD indeed. Not good. As stated above, I would far rather have had even 2 missed shots, two more windows shot out instead of two children in the Newtown shooting.

Efficiency does not occur in a moral vacuum. It boggles my mind that you would even attempt to state otherwise.

>The purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets with repeatable accuracy. Obviously most things do not react well to having holes punched in >them. The user'ssolelyce of targets is soley in the domain of the user.

Actually, the purpose of a gun is to shoot a projectile. Not all guns are intended for accuracy or repetition. "things" do not generally react well or poorly to anything. They are things. They react as physics dictate. To be semantic, and precise.

>The stock and grip and other stuff does not change the accuracy of the gun. However, they can have an affect on the accuracy of the >user with the gun.

Technically, they change the ability of the gun to be used accurately under specific circumstances. The functionality of the gun, if you want to be accurate in your use of language. Look it up. Or maybe we can find an English prof on DU who will weigh in. I'm fairly sure my use of language is in this case correct, and yours is incorrect.

[Ghost in the Machine]

73. *This* is a "vertical front grip"....

Because of the manner in which they position your support hand underneath the firearm, vertical foregrips typically provide minimal stability and inadequate recoil control. [font color="red"] <~~~~ This seems to be a direct contradiction to the OP, doesn't it?? [/font]

Do you see one on either rifle pictured??

When using a vertical foregrip, shooters typically wrap their thumb around it, placing the web of skin between their thumb and index finger behind it. This results in varying wrist pronation during shooting, which can lead to inadequate control and poor recoil management.

http://www.shootingillustrated.com/index.php/12874/magpul-angled-fore-grip-afg2/

[Paul E Ester]

18. The top one is a little more concealable.

By a few inches since it has a collapsable butt.

The top one has a Picatinny rail also known as a MIL-STD-1913 rail, STANAG 2324 rail, or tactical rail, it is a bracket used on some firearms in order to provide a standardized mounting platform for accessories and attachments, similar to the Weaver rail mount.

Those accessories include gun mounted lights and lasers for better target acquisition.

The Picatinny rail also allows you could install a 40MM Grenade Launcher Model M203



or even a fully automatic Glock 18



a deadly knife


Or in extreme cases a chainsaw.


The flash suppresser at the end makes it harder for counter snipers to see where your shooting from.

The black barrel makes it less of a target in a tactical situation.

The top one is a killing machine. The bottom one is a varmint gun or ranch rifle.

[ManiacJoe]

27. Those frankenguns are a riot!

For those with more disposable income than brains....

[tridim]

101. Moe was a pioneer in the field...

[DanTex]

29. Ooohh. Gun porn. Ohhhhhh! Yes! Yes! Yes!

[raidert05]

65. mmmm

she is hot...

[XRubicon]

79. Ok, ban both. nt

[LAGC]

83. What about "thumb-hole" stocks?

Are those banned under Feinstein's new AWB? I haven't delved into it in much detail, so I honestly don't know.

[ManiacJoe]

99. New to the 2013 AWB bill, in general thumbhole stocks are banned

as they are defined by the bill as a pistol grip. However, many rifles with thumbhole stocks are explicitly excepted from the ban.

[Fumesucker]

93. Neither, because neither one has a vertical front grip?

[MineralMan]

103. The top one is way more macho-looking.

That makes it easier for the owner to pretend he is a real soldier type at the militia gatherings and at the range. The bottom one is really just a toy, you know. It doesn't have that "tough guy" look that is so importing in firearms.

Further, the top one is equipped to attach many expensive accessories, available both online and at your friendly neighborhood gun shop. The ability to attach accessories is very important to firearms owners, and provides them a way to accessorize their weapon to produce the fashion effect they are looking for.

Appearances are everything, since there is no real civilian use for these firearms. A guy's gotta look the part. If he doesn't, how's he gonna hold his head erect?

[RC]

106. You said it far better than I have so far.

It IS the looks. Never mind if they can't hit the side of the barn from the inside, the looks, the intimidation factor is what is important.
They seem to be incapable of wrapping their heads around the psychology of the looks issue here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022538569#post367

[Crepuscular]

8. What do gun enthusiasts say about assault weapons when speaking among themselves?

I suspect they say that the presence or absence of a bayonet lug or flash suppressor or some other cosmetic feature would have no impact on the lethality of the weapon, when used in a mass killing scenario and that proposing to ban weapons based on cosmetic features instead of functionality is destined to fail as a meaningful attempt to curb gun violence. But that's just a guess.

[Progressive dog]

43. We know what they said

Why guess when you can look it up like DanTex did?
My guess is that your guess is way wrong.

[Hoyt]

76. it's really what they say to themselves and feel when posing in mirror that's a concern.

For chits and giggles, go to a gun store and watch the yahoos fondle and fantize while holding the friggin things.

[Aristus]

10. "Shame 'bout them kids. But that AR-15 sure is a beauty, ain't it?"

I'm just guessing...

[apocalypsehow]

15. +1. n/t.

[ManiacJoe]

19. Have you actually ever heard them referred to as beautiful?

In my experience, the more common comments talk about their ugliness.

[Aristus]

36. That would be more easy to believe if there weren't people who speak rhapsodically

about their guns, pose with them for pictures, even Christmas card photos, fetishize them, anthropomorphize them, and basically treat them as beautiful instead of ugly.

[XRubicon]

80. Good guess I'd say.

[ManiacJoe]

12. Ergonomics are a common discussion

for any equipment held during its use.

One of the advantages of the AR-15 platform is its ability to accept lots of after-market accessories like those mentioned in the OP.

[apocalypsehow]

14. It's amusing to see our "RKBA enthusiasts" (see sig line) huff n' puff about how the AWB won't

"do anything" yet insist the legislation should be defeated. My question always is: which is it?

If the AWB or any of it's state legislative equivalents "won't do anything" why are our "pro gun progressives"* so adamantly against it? To ask the question is to answer it, and you once again have to look here:

[ManiacJoe]

17. You misunderstand the argument.

It is not that the AWB will not do anything. It is that the AWB will not do anything good. It will do plenty of bad things.

[apocalypsehow]

24. I understand the argument, alright. I just reject it as NRA blarney - which it is. n/t.

[lolly]

89. ^^^^^^^^^^^^DOUBLE THIS!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If the changes are only "cosmetic," then why do people go ballistic about them?

[slackmaster]

21. We call them "modern sporting rifles" or just "rifles."

...the assault features, while not useful for hunting or long-range accuracy, are helpful when it comes to stabilizing a gun...

That is self-contradictory. Accuracy in hunting or any other situation depends strongly on the ability to stabilize the weapon.

[Paul E Ester]

33. "Black rifles" is pretty common term too..nt

[DanTex]

35. Ahh, the old out-of-context quote!

You, quoting me:

...the assault features, while not useful for hunting or long-range accuracy, are helpful when it comes to stabilizing a gun...

The original OP

the assault features, while not useful for hunting or long-range accuracy, are helpful when it comes to stabilizing a gun and controlling recoil when firing a lot of shots quickly

An oldie but a goodie!

[slackmaster]

42. The need to keep good control over a firearm applies even when you are shooting single shots

There is no difference to me; the qualifier "when firing a lot of shots quickly" is superfluous.

[DanTex]

48. You probably need to argue that point with the seasoned experts on the gun blogs.

From what I gather, shooting a lot of rounds quickly presents different challenges than firing one accurate shot. This is mainly because if you are just shooting one round, with a long pause afterwards, it doesn't matter much what happens to the gun after the shot is fired. But if you want to shoot again, say, a half second later, it matters a lot what happens right after the gun is fired, and this is where features like the pistol grip and forward grip become useful.

But, what do I know, I'm just a guy reading some gun forums...

[slackmaster]

55. "Seasoned experts" and "gun blogs" are almost mutually exclusive terms

Last edited Thu Mar 21, 2013, 09:03 AM - Edit history (1)

As is true of much of the online world, gun blogs have a lot of people who would be classified in Spanish as "habladores" - talkers.

This is mainly because if you are just shooting one round, with a long pause afterwards, it doesn't matter much what happens to the gun after the shot is fired.

It matters a lot. The farther off target you are, the longer it takes to re-acquire the target. We can split hairs about degrees of importance, but that would be pointless.

The fact that a feature isn't especially helpful in a particular situation doesn't mean that having that feature is a drawback. The only disadvantage I can see to having a pistol grip on a rifle is that it interferes with firing from a prone position, as noted in the OP. So does a magazine that protrudes from the bottom of the weapon.

[DonP]

109. FWIW, "rapid fire" and "slow fire" are existing segments in standard high power competition

At 200 and 600 yards you have a stage in your relay where you must fire 10 shots in 60 seconds offhand, e.g. standing unsupported, and another 10 rapid fire from prone, both must include a magazine change, or clip reload if you're using an '03 Springfield or Garand.

Then you have a 10 shot string slow fired in 10 minutes, where you can take as much time as needed in offhand, prone and sitting.

At Camp Perry Ohio (National Championships) there are still a few old timers that stick with their Garand, but the overwhelming choice for competitors for the last decade is the AR, usually with a Kreiger accuracy barrel added and improved iron sights.

With the rise of the AR platform, we have a growing number of young (15yo) women competing effectively at the national match level.

Several thousand competitors on the line all at once, with their evil black, "rapid fire" rifles. Amazing, but no injuries in over 100 years of competition, beyond a few Garand thumbs.

[apocalypsehow]

22. One other thing about your OP: those sources are all discussion boards that are openly pro-NRA

and gun lobby, i.e., right-wing. That is to be expected: the "RKBA enthusiast" and gun lobby cause is exclusively the preserve of the right wing. I've yet to meet a genuine progressive who was also a pro-NRA gun nut, though I have met some moderate Democrats who tend to favor expansive readings of the 2nd amendment.

Thing is, I don't begrudge them their forums and platforms to exercise their 1st amendment rights to pimp for more guns and peddle the NRA line: that's free speech in a free country. What gets laughable is the non-stop pretenses of those who bring the NRA line to a progressive discussion board and expect the rest of us to swallow it. You see some of it right here in this thread.

[Crepuscular]

31. Um....

Did you happen to notice who introduced those "NRA talking points" into this thread?

So you're saying that Dantex fits the profile of your sig?

[DanTex]

41. Umm... yeah you missed the whole point, didn't you...

The point is hard-core gun nuts, when speaking amongst themselves, in fact agree that these assault features affect the functionality of a gun in ways that facilitates rapid fire and quick reloading. But then the same gun nuts, when arguing against the assault weapons ban, will do an about face and insist that the features are purely cosmetic.

[Crepuscular]

49. Um...

I didn't miss the point, I think your buddy did, though, since he accused you of posting NRA talking points.

[DanTex]

52. Umm, no he didn't "accuse me" of anything.

He merely noted the fact that people who post on gun blogs tend to be right-wingers, thus further casting into doubt the claims of "pro-gun progressives" when they come here to troll DU.

[apocalypsehow]

44. Um....

"Did you happen to notice who introduced those "NRA talking points" into this thread?"

They were "introduced" in the OP to make a point about the AWB discussions here, as opposed to what the hardcore gun nuts are saying on their own boards, where they don't have to pretend to be "pro gun progressives"*.

But, then, you knew that.

"So you're saying that Dantex fits the profile of your sig?"

Of course I'm not, and the transition above from your Sentence A to Sentence B is just a rank non sequitur, without even a semblance of connective logic or justification between them.

But, then, you knew that.

, indeed.


*( )

[Progressive dog]

37. You don't think the ones on here will deny this

Thanks for trying, but these guys never deviate from their talking points.

[petronius]

38. The more important question is whether the presence or absence of any of

these features has had a meaningful impact on the outcome of any act of violence using so-called assault weapons. Is there any reason to believe that any past crime would have turned out differently if a flash suppressor, pistol grip, vertical foregrip, collapsible stock, or bayonet lug had not been available? Is there any reason to believe that any future crime will be averted or reduced in severity if these features become unavailable (singly or collectively)?

If the answer to those is generally "no" - and I believe it is - then it's irrelevant whether these features have ergonomic or functional purposes; the push to ban them is based largely on 'style' and appearance...

[DanTex]

47. I agree that it this is the important question.

However, in my experience, virtually all pro-gun advocates will summarily declare that the assault features are "cosmetic", something that is obviously and plainly false, even, as this OP illustrates, by their own words. Before we can even have a meaningful conversation about the effect of an Assault Weapons Ban, at a very minimum, we all need to agree that these features are very much functional. In my experience, very few pro-gunners are willing to recognize this fact.

As to the other question, if we agree that a pistol grip and a vertical forward grip do make it easy to get off a lot of rounds quickly without losing control, and also that a pistol grip allows for faster reloads while maintaining firing grip, thereby reducing the amount of time between the last round in the empty magazine and the first round in the new magazine, then I don't see how you can argue that banning these features would not have at least some impact in terms of reducing severity of mass shootings.

[petronius]

61. I don't think that a hypothetical "at least some impact" is a reasonable standard

for legislation, particularly when it's more likely than not that the extent of that impact would be merely something like a crime event stretched out to 181 seconds rather than 180 seconds (as a made-up example). What I would consider compelling is if a case could be made that the death and/or injury toll from shootings is likely to be meaningfully affected by the presence/absence of these features; I don't believe that case can be made for any event that has happened or is likely to happen.

I agree that most features on guns serve some sort of ergonomic or functional purpose, and anything that makes a firearm less comfortable, clunkier, or whatever will affect criminals right along with every other user. But it's not nearly enough cause to restrict something, merely on the hypothetical chance that it might be awkward for a criminal leading to the further (extremely slim) hypothetical that the awkwardness might decrease the likelihood of a death or injury. There has to be a stronger connection between the feature and the criminal misuse.

Absent that connection, restrictions on AWB features really are cosmetically motivated. (Or just an attempt to make guns less comfortable, which seems kind of petty.)

At best, it's a pointless nibbling at the edges. Where the emphasis needs to be is keeping that gun - any gun - out of the hands of the guy who wants to commit that mas shooting in the first place...

[DanTex]

71. Maybe not. But, the exact impact is hard to predict.

Realize, though, that slowing down a mass shooter is not just about giving victims a few more seconds of life, it is about giving the police more time to show up, and thus reducing the number of people killed. And it's not about "comfort", it's about control, which, in cases where a gun is pointed at a human, again translates into saved lives.

To me it's a cost-benefit thing. I don't see much benefit to assault weapons. In fact, ironically, I think the main benefits are cosmetic: people like the way they look. They feel like badasses shooting a scary looking gun, but the scenarios where the additional stability under rapid fire and reloading that assault features provide simply don't come up for law-abiding citizens (what that crazy woman in front of congress said about a mother protecting her children from 5 attackers is a fantasy).

Still, I agree that the AWB isn't going to save huge numbers of lives, mainly because most gun homicides are committed with handguns. The point of this OP is simply to refute the talking point that assault weapon features are "cosmetic", which is clearly not true.

[Hoyt]

77. If that is true, what does it say about the yahoos that covet them.

Sounds like designers and marketeers find a few losers in their 20s and market guns that appeal to them. Then a bunch of equally screwed up older folks want a couple too.

I'd love to hear what the gun marketeers think of the yahoos attracted to these things.

[Robb]

45. I expected more giggling, burping, and racial epithets.

Interesting nonetheless.

[Hoyt]

78. LMAO. That is exactly what sells the majority of these friggon guns. Just look a demographics

of those attracted to them.

[raidert05]

46. I'll just leave this here...

[Mojorabbit]

57. Hillarious! nt

[XRubicon]

82. Have you no shame.

[Niceguy1]

112. funny

And pretty accurate too lol

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. What's wrong with firing lots of shots quickly?

[raidert05]

54. Because you can kill lots of people fast that way...

That's why LEO and military need them, but not civilians.....you know like a human weed whacker....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. I seriously doubt any military uses a strictly semi-automatic weapon as their primary rifle

And the police use semi-auto rifles expecting the exact same threat the civilians would encounter -- except the police also have body armor, back-up, radios, etc. So what's wrong with a civilian, who doesn't have all those extras to at least have the same level of firepower as the police that have already failed to protect them?

[raidert05]

63. Every M16-M4..

I've carried since I've been in the military (8yrs and counting) has been select fire semi-burst-full auto and not one dam "cosmetic" "ergonomic" feature will help make you any deadlier when you are spraying bullets from 5-10 ft away.I don't call the 200 bullets shot in Newtown in those 10 mins or so, well placed follow up shots enhanced by a pistol grip he killed those kids by mowing them down defenselessly in a corner of a class however fast he could bring the gun up and pull the trigger.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. But that's 1 incident and the real point is he had 10 uinterrupted minutes

An AWB would no more have prevented this tragedy than the 1994 AWB did preventing Columbine.

[raidert05]

72. I don't disagree with your point

A lot of this AWB legislation doesn't limit LEO or military use of these weapons, most patrol vehicles now carry AR platform rifles in there vehicles replacing the shotgun of old. If the point is to get the "Weapons of War" off the streets, does just limiting civilian purchases and use of these weapons accomplish that or just trade off the balance of those who has access to these weapon readily available.

Does any civilian have a use for these guns...not in my opinion...do LEO'S....What for? If they are for War, what war are cops fighting? Do they need to be able to mow down as many people as possible with a high cap mag?

In my opinion you want to get these weapons off the street completely then no one other than military should have the ability to carry them on the range and on the battlefield.

If the gun control proponents truly want to see them off the streets lobby your Local, County, and state LEO associations and get them onboard with proposed legislation remember they don't make the laws, but the should enforce them and should abide by them.

[guardian]

86. So explain to me why

LEO needs them?

[JVS]

95. law enforcement isn't supposed to kill a lot of people

[slackmaster]

102. Thank you for pointing this out. That was my reaction as well.

Weapons carried by law enforcement people are generally for defensive use - To protect themselves while they are apprehending criminal suspects.

[talkingmime]

58. "MAN, dja feel the heat off that butt from the last 50 rounds?"

"I damn near had an orgasm or pissed my pants, not sure which. Grab me anothah Bud Lite. Let's shoot up some more toilet seats before chowen on them hog jowels."

[raidert05]

59. more like this...

[url=http://imgflip.com/i/u3pc][img][/img][/url][url=http://imgflip.com/memegenerator]

[talkingmime]

66. A) I seriously hope you just created that from my post; B) I dont' look like that.

[raidert05]

67. ..

A) Yes i did
B) Maybe I can find another picture, give me a few.

[raidert05]

70. how is this

[url=http://imgflip.com/i/u46a][img][/img][/url][url=http://imgflip.com/memegenerator]

[talkingmime]

108. I don't look like that either. I really hope we didn't just create a running gag.

[Gravitycollapse]

84. How would one feel heat off the butt of a gun from a hot barrel?

[ManiacJoe]

96. Please do not ruin a good laugh...

... by asking questions about real-world physics.

[talkingmime]

107. It's a joke. One of my son's video games has a character that says that.

I forget which one. He's in the Army and is constantly playing multi-player shoot-em-up Lara Croft-like games. Actually, one of them IS Lara Croft. In one of them a character uses that line, or at least something similar. He laughs every time. I honestly don't know if it's meant to be a joke in the game or not, but it sounds like one.

[rrneck]

81. I applaud your grasp of the obvious. ntt

[Llewlladdwr]

87. The important thing to remember here...

...is that neither a Federal "assault weapon" nor high capacity magazine ban are going to happen regardless of what gun enthusiasts say when speaking among themselves.

[AndyA]

104. If a person needs the ability to rapid fire to hit a target

They don't need access to rapid fire weapons, they need classes on shooting and gun safety.

There is no legitimate reason a citizen needs a rapid fire weapon, nor one that can fire a large number of bullets in a matter of seconds.

Gun rights advocates forget that there are other rights as well. Including the right to life. A lot of people have had their right to life cut short because of someone else's right to have a gun. The laws need to change, they aren't protecting people.

[Peter cotton]

105. How do you define a "rapid fire weapon"?

I presume you include any firearms that fires semiautomatically, but what about bolt actions?

Pump actions?

Revolvers?

Which of these (if any) would you restrict for civilian ownership?

[guardian]

110. You are using logic and reason.

The target audience of your post only uses emotion and fear. You'll never break through.

[LAGC]

113. That does it!

BAN THEM ALL!!!!!1!11!!!