Are attributes of different "assault weapons" merely cosmetic?

[jazzimov]

This is a standard tactic of anti-gun control: they like to claim that legal definitions of "assault weapons" only cover cosmetic features that serve no purpose other than to make the weapons more "scary-looking".

But are those "purely cosmetic features" actually useless? Or do they serve a purpose?

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon )

Attributes previously defined in Federal assault weapon legislation and their purposes:

Detachable magazines allow for fast reloading
Collapsible stocks allow for adjustment to the length of pull to the shooter's preference.
Folding stocks reducing the total length of the firearm, making it easier to transport. Critics maintain that it makes the weapon more concealable.
Pistol grips (on rifles) reduce the angle (and thus rotational strain) of the wrist when the rifle is shouldered
Bayonet mounts allow the mounting of a bayonet[13]
Flash suppressors reduce night vision degradation to a shooter's vision, as well as those beside or behind the user [57]
Threaded barrels allow for the mounting of flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brake
Barrel mounted grenade launcher mounts are concentric rings around the muzzle that facilitate attachment of rifle grenades
A barrel shroud is a tube around the barrel designed to limit transfer of heat from the barrel to the supporting hand, or to protect a shooter from being burned by accidental contact.[58]
Magazines greater than 10 rounds[13]
Semi-automatic, functionality meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[16]

It seems that those "cosmetic" features actually serve functional purposes, after all!

[Megalo_Man]

1. I've seen more of an issue with the term assault weapon being applied to a semi-auto.

Assault weapon used to mean a firearm capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. I've never seen anyone use assault-weapon and "semi-auto" interchangeably.

[gejohnston]

9. but they are

because full autos have been strictly regulated since 1934, and closed registry since 1986.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

[Gravitycollapse]

12. No they are not.

[gejohnston]

19. they are not what?

semi automatic?
then you are saying assault weapons are full auto which as I said, have been strictly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and no new ones can be registered since 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.html

Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms and weapons, and is a term that has differing meanings, usages and purposes.

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name.

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

[Gravitycollapse]

20. Semi-automatic and assault weapon are not interchangeable terms.

[gejohnston]

21. did you read the links?

I'm guessing not. I think you are confusing "assault weapon" with assault rifles.
If they are not interchangeable terms, then what is the point of an assault weapons ban, if they have already been banned?

[Gravitycollapse]

28. Yeah I did. And the links don't support your argument.

Assault weapons are semi-automatic. Not all semi-automatics are assault weapons.

Having definitions correct before these discussions is kind of important.

[gejohnston]

29. Then I misunderstood what you were talking about

It sounded like you thought "assault weapons" were full auto. I misunderstood. BTW, according to California Senate Bill 374 defines all semi autos, including .22 LR, as "assault weapons". Under CT law, and the first "AWB" the rife at Sandy Hook was not an "assault weapon." That is why it is an absurd term.

[Ghost in the Machine]

65. "Assault Weapon" is a made up term, to confuse with "Assault Rifle". Hell, your MOUTH can be an ....

.... "Assault Weapon", since you can be arrested for "assault" just for threatening someone and causing them fear. "Battery" is when you actually lay hands someone, hence the term "assault and battery". ANYTHING used to attack another person is, in reality, an "assault weapon" whether it be a stick, baseball bat, frying pan, brass knuckles, an umbrella, a cane, etc., etc.

Here is a basic Ruger 10/22, aptly named because it is a .22 cal rifle equiped with a 10 round detactable magazine (not shown, but look in front of the trigger guard and you can see a tab sticking down.. that's the magazine lock/release lever.



Now, here is the exact same rifle, but in a different stock, called an Archangel Kit. It functions exactly the same, still semi-auto: one shot per trigger pull, except this one has a 25 round magazine.



Now that's a "Big Black Scary Gun", isn't it?? Yet the only difference from the one pictured above is a larger magazine capacity.

Now go ahead and accuse me of using NRA talking points or being an NRA shill or whatever. I have NEVER belonged to the NRA, never read ANY of their publications, nor have I EVER sent them a single penny. This is just *my* observation, but it seems like the anti-gunners here know more about "NRA Talking Points" than most of the gun owners do. I find that rather..... odd.

Ghost

[Gravitycollapse]

72. I always find it funny that gun nuts immediately go to the .22LR.

Because it's easy to take an extremely low recoil round and talk down the advantages of pistol grips, hi-cap magazines and hand guards.

I've owned firearms chambered in everything from .22LR up to .308 and 12 gauge.

I've owned your run of the mill bolt action rifles as well as multiple assault weapons including an AR-15 and a Mini 14 with a modified tactical stock.

If you don't understand the advantages inherent in the design of assault weapons when compared to a standard rifle, then you've probably never fired one, let alone owned and maintained one.

[Ghost in the Machine]

108. I find it funny that anti-gunners go straight to name-calling, right anti-gun NUT??

If you don't understand the advantages inherent in the design of assault weapons when compared to a standard rifle, then you've probably never fired one, let alone owned and maintained one.

Now, put your money where your big mouth is and I'll prove you wrong. I got my first BB gun at 6 years old, my first .22 at 7 years old and my first high powered rifle, a sporterized 8mm Mauser, along with a 12 GA shotgun, when I was 16. I've owned more guns than I can count. My uncle was a gunsmith and owned a gun shop, a shop I just happened to work in for a couple of years. I buy, sell and trade them all the time, just on a whim, if someone has something I want, need, or just like better than what I have at the time.

You ready throw some money down, or are you one of those types who just lets an alligator mouth overload a canary ass?

On second thought, fuck your money, you probably need it more than I do, so I'll just say it: YOU LOSE!! Here's one of my latest acquisitions:



That's a 1956 Romanian SKS dropped in a TAPCO INTRAFUSE Stock System, with a 20 round magazine. I also have a Remington Model 742 WoodsMaster Semi-Auto 30-06, a Marlin Model 60 Stainless Steel .22LR and, get this, A Benjamin Model 342 Pump-up .22 cal PELLET rifle that's over 30 years old.

Now, in case you want to try to say I lifted the SKS pic off the internet, PM me a cell phone number and I'll send you a picture of me holding it right in front of this post. I'll do the same with the 30-06 and the pellet rifle, but can't with the Marlin .22 because I let my son-in-law borrow it for raccoon that keeps attacking his cats, plus it chased my 6 year old grandson across the yard in the daylight. That's a sign of a rabid 'coon, in case you didn't know that.

In closing, just let me say this: Don't you EVER presume to know ANYTHING about me, because you don't know jackshit about who I am, or what I used to be. BTW, as for your assertion that "If you don't understand the advantages inherent in the design of assault weapons when compared to a standard rifle"... #1. The ergonomics of the pistol grip is a lot easier on my wrist, as I have bi-lateral carpal tunnel syndrome, coupled with cubital tunnel syndrome (that's like carpal tunnel, but in the elbow). #2. The adjustable stock allows for safer handling with multiple users, which include me (at 6' 3" ), my better half (all of 4' 11" and 98lbs), my son (5' 11&quot , and my daughter (5' 2&quot . #3. The 20 round mag lets us all take turns shooting without having to reload, we shoot 5 shots each. Total cost for one loaded mag: 4.97 + tax at Walmart for some cheap 7.62x.39 rounds.. 20 shells per box.

Ghost

[Gravitycollapse]

109. Thank you. Because in your slightly disturbing level of rage you have proved my point.

That there are clear advantages inherent in the design of assault weapons. So in actuality, nothing I said is in anyway disproved by what you've admitted. And in actuality you have only furthered my point.

As a seasoned gun owner, you know the advantages.

Now if only you were as angered by gun violence as you were by people accusing you of not being obsessed with firearms. Hmmm...imagine the possibilities.

[Ghost in the Machine]

121. No rage at all, dude, I just don't like people, especially strangers, making assumptions about me...

as you have done again in this post. There are too many fucking idiots out there with guns, who have no business owning one. They give decent gun owners a bad name, just like (what I call) "slob hunters", who go out and leave their trash in the woods, don't clean up their camp sites if on a weekend hunt at a Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and make it look bad for everyone else. I don't even want to get started on poachers, but will say I DO NOT consider them "hunters" in any way, shape or form. I have turned a few in before, and will do it again in a heartbeat.

As for gun violence in general, a lot of it comes from punk kids as initiation into a gang, some is due to kids not being taught gun safety/education at young ages, so they don't know better than to pick up a gun they find laying around, pointing at someone, and pulling the trigger. They need to be taught that if they find a gun, DO NOT TOUCH IT!! GO FIND AN ADULT!! Another cause is drugs, and with that, gang turf wars. They need to end this failed "war on drugs", legalize drugs, and use the money for education and rehabilitation. This takes the profit motive out of drug-running, takes the money out of te hands of the gangs, and the cartels, and will end a lot of violence. Regulate and tax the drugs, just like they do alcohol and tobacco, and use the taxes to help with the deficit.

We have many "functional addicts", ones who go to work every day, pay taxes, contributr to society, etc., but they are afraid to seek help because of #1. the stigma involved, #2. afraid of losing their jobs and, #3. afraid of losing their families. Yes, meth, crack, powdered coke, and heroin can destroy families, but so does getting busted for having a little bit of marijuana. I've never seen a stoner go on a rampage, or rob & kill someone for their next "fix". The stigma of being arrested is what destroys the family of a pot smoker. Can't get a god job due to having an arrest record for a harmless green plant.

This would also free the police up to follow up on more serious crimes, and enforce the laws we already have. Hardened career criminals don't follow the law anyways, and the revolving doors of the "justice system" just allows them to keep on doing what they do.

Case in point: A friend of mine was sitting in a parking lot in his truck, minding his own business, waiting for his girlfriend to get off work. Suddenly, out of nowhere, someone jerked his drivers door open and 3 gangbangers pulled him out of his truck and started beating on him, trying to steal his wallet, then his truck. He was able to reach under his seat and grab his pistol.. and shot 2 of them point blank in the head. They dropped at his feet. The 3rd one started running toward a car, and my friend shot him in the back and killed him, too. The DA ruled the first two as justifiable homicide, but charged him with voluntary manslaugter for the 3rd one. They said he was retreating. My friend argued that he didn't know if perp #3 was going to the car for a gun or what. The PA said he should have waited to find out. He got 5 years for voluntary manslaugter, even though he took out 3 career criminals, all with rap sheets 2 miles long. He gets out next month. This whole event has been hell on him and his mind. Like 98% of the people who get a concealed carry permit, he hoped he never had to use it that way, but when it came down to a kill or be killed situation, he chose to not be a victim.

A lot of anti gunners think people who carry are just itching to play out some wild west fantasy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Taking another persons life can haunt some people until the day they die. Others can get past it. I speak from experience. Me and my whole family are only alive today because I used deadly force to stop a home invasion. It was ruled justifiable... and that's all I'm going to say on the matter now, and forever. Don't ask questions about it, because I won't answer them, and I won't mention it again.

I don't know what all the answers are to curbing gun violence, but banning because of cosmetic features that scare other people who don't know better, and already display an irrational fear of guns, ISN'T one of the answers...

Peace,

Ghost

[Gravitycollapse]

127. I know what anger looks like. And you are angry. Really over something completely trivial.

Like whether or not you are obsessed with guns. And I think we've established that you are. So you don't need to be angry anymore.

After all, gun violence isn't your problem. It's those punk kids and drug dealers.

I don't like scapegoating. And I don't like gun nuts with emotional hair triggers.

[Ghost in the Machine]

132. Awww, look!! Internet Psychology 101! Have you gotten to the chapter on "Projection" yet??

If not, I propose that skip forward to it, and you'll find yourself there as a classic case. YOU, my friend, are the one who is projecting anger. Perhaps because you were embarrassed by being proven wrong in your assertion that:

If you don't understand the advantages inherent in the design of assault weapons when compared to a standard rifle, then you've probably never fired one, let alone owned and maintained one.

I know that must have stung quite a bit, perhaps even leaving a mark, to be slapped in the face with a cold dose of realty. Then again, it was a much deserved smackdown, since it was YOU who brought up the issue of what I knew weapons, and if I had ever even fired one.

It shows even further, given the fact that all you've been able to do is offer some off-handed blithering about MY "obsession with guns" when, again, it was YOU who brought up your so very WRONG assertion that I knew nothing about them, and had "probably never fired one, let alone owned and maintained one". All I did was tell you of my experiences with owning/maintaining weapons, and in the process I showed you proof, offered to show you more proof, in case you thought I lifted an image off the internet, and most of all, smacked you down with the TRUTH and PROVED YOU WRONG! It must have really gotten under your skin, as you've offered nothing but inane blatherings since then.

Your only TRUE COURSE of action here would be to admit you were wrong, and to apologize, but I have the feeling you're not man enough to do so. You don't have the constitution, nor temerity, within yourself to admit you were wrong, isn't that right, Gravitycollapse?

I don't like scapegoating. And I don't like gun nuts with emotional hair triggers.

Well, I don't like anti-gun nuts with nothing intelligent to add to a discussion, and can't admit when they were wrong. Again, the only anger I see, is coming from YOU!

You would be a very lucky man if you were ever to achieve the inner peace, peace toward others and peace with the world that I have found. Learn a lesson here, kid. Take your Psychology 101 textbook and run that shit on someone else, but practice up on your debating skills first. Maybe by then you'll know when, and how, you lost that debate, you'll be man enough to admit defeat, and you'll know when to move along before you get embarrassed even further. The novelty has worn off, and I am done with you. Run along now, and find someone else to bore with your bullshit and psychobabble.

Thanks in advance...

Peace within, Peace between, Peace among....

Ghost

[Gravitycollapse]

133. No one who gloats about owning assault weapons cares about peace.

You subscribe to a violent ideology. Your inability to contain your frustration only furthers that point.

My advice: Sell your guns and send the money to charities dealing with victims of gun violence. After all, your support of the gun industry helped create the need for such charity.

The fact that you're proud of owning such disgusting tools of death is really quite sad.

[Ghost in the Machine]

137. Apparently reading comprehension isn't at the top of your skill set, just like debate tactics aren't

What part of "I'm DONE wth you" didn't you understand?? I've answered some of your questions about practical use vs. cosmetics of tactical stocks, or in ignorant anti-gun nut language, the made-up term "assault weapons", ie: pistol grips = more ergonomic, especially for those with handicaps or permanent injuries to their hands or wrists, the adjustable butt stock, to accommodate multiple users in a family, and hi capacity magazines for the same reason.

I've answered your questions about some causes of gun violence, and how to curb it, along with admitting that I don't know all the answers, but banning and confiscation isn't one of them.

Let this sink in your head: I live in a very rural area, in a small town, 15 miles from town in 3 directions, over 20 miles in the 4th, and the 4th smallest County in the State. I live on top of a hill, on 15 beautiful acres of mostly wooded land. There are 8 other houses up here, not including mine. Of those 8 home, I own 2 of them and rent them out, my oldest daughter owns one, my parents own one and my aunt & uncle own one. The other 3 are like family.. we all look out for each other, and EVERY home up here has someone who is current or former military... and we ALL own guns. The other homes up here range between 5 to 12 acres. Now, in this small town, IF there ever was a chance of confiscation, by the time the first house was hit, the news would be spread all over the county faster than they could hit the next house. People would be burying their guns on their property. There are plenty of farms around here that run between 40 to 1,000 acres. Notwithstanding the logistics of any door to door search, do you honestly think they'll go over every inch of land with metal detectors??

I've tried be nice, and reasonable, with you but even that doesn't work with anti-gun nuts. So, once again, I'll tell you to put your money where your mouth is. You don't like my gun? Send me $1000.00, go through a background check, find an FFL dealer in your area, and I'll send it to you from an FFL dealer in my area. Then you'll be free to do whatever you want to with it.

Oh, and BTW... YOU are the only one I see getting frustrated here, but please proceed with your ramblings, projection and false statements. I've been here for a long time, and I notice certain writing styles and comments... and you're starting to remind me of a recently tombstoned member. Keep on, and I'll nail you down. It won't be the first time I've done it... it's a gift

Have a nice day,

Ghost

[Lizzie Poppet]

123. Put anyone who indulges in that sort of juvenile nonsense on Ignore.

If they can't be bothered to eschew unsupportable broad-brush personal insults, then they're not worth your time (and very likely have nothing rational or useful to contribute, anyway...).

[1-Old-Man]

6. That is sort of a confused definition.

Just because a weapon may shoot full automatic doesn't make it an assault weapon and then of course dam near no one owns a gun that shoots full automatic. To own one legally you have to sign away your first born to the ATF and there are simply not very many of them out there at all. Of course many actual military arms shoot full automatic, but the look-alikes that clowns on the streets, the same people who like to dress up like a bush (wear camouflage) like to tout as their assault weapons are really nothing but dressed up replicas of the real thing that for the most part aren't much good for anything. Its like young kids putting quasi race car parts on street cars thinking it makes them somehow better - idiots that do not understand that you can not drive a real race car on the street. The same thing applies to guns. You take a hunting rifle and make it look like a military firearm, but of course with out the firepower of full automatic capability that the real military firearm has, and what you end up with is a gun that is no longer very good for hunting and absolutely no good as military weapon. Fat tires on a Fiat.

[jazzimov]

10. A fully-auto weapon is a Type II weapon, which is

already strictly regulated.

A semi-auto fires as quickly as you can pull the trigger - which can be pretty quick.

[ManiacJoe]

17. Wrong term.

"Assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are two different things. The term "assault weapon" was chosen to purposely mislead people.

Assault rifle - a machine gun by federal law, a carbine that can fire one or more bullets at the user's choosing.

"Assault weapon" - by most definitions: semi-auto carbine with "scary looking features" that make it look like an assault rifle.

[jazzimov]

23. Actually, there is a lot of discussion about the origin

of the term. Some trace it back to Hitler.

But we are talking about definitions for legal terminology. And, as indicated by the OP, these "scary looking features" have real-world functions.

[ManiacJoe]

25. Wrong term here too?

"Assault rifle" is traced back to 1940's Germany. "Assault weapon" not so much.

As you confirmed in post #14, the "scary looking features" help the shooter, not the rifle. Helping the shooter is a good thing.

[ManiacJoe]

3. Previous thread from February:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022290285

[Gravitycollapse]

4. You are right. Those supposed cosmetic changes significantly alter the firearm's capability.

Maybe each alteration is small. But collectively they can have a huge change.

[Jenoch]

5. You missed the point.

There are many rifles that do not have those features that accept detachable magazines and have the same rate of fire that will not be banned. Why is that?

When was the last time you heard of someone being killed with a bayonet that was attached to a rifle?

[Gravitycollapse]

7. No, you missed the point.

Those features alter the performance of the firearm. If other firearms pose a similar risk without possessing some or all of those traits, then we need to enact legislation that deals with those firearms.

But what's important is addressing how firearms like the AR-15 are so prolific.

[ManiacJoe]

8. You have that wrong.

The cosmetic and ergonomic features have no affect on the rifle's performance. The rifle's accuracy and rate of fire remain unchanged.

The cosmetic and ergonomic features can have an (good) affect on the user of the rifle. This is normally considered a good thing.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. Wrong again.

These alterations absolutely change the capabilities of the firearm. Especially relating to accuracy, rate of fire and capacity.

To say otherwise indicates to me that you have either never used such a firearm or are motivated to spread fake talking points.

[ManiacJoe]

13. You are obviously confused about the subject at hand.

Feel free to ask questions or otherwise inform yourself. There are plenty of knowledgeable folks here who are happy to help educate you should you so desire it.

[jazzimov]

15. It would seem that you are the one confused about

"the subject at hand", which was the purpose of the post. I hope I have helped to clear up some of that confusion.

[ManiacJoe]

18. Gotta love the newbies.

[jazzimov]

22. Thanks! But I've been visiting this site

since the Kerry Election, so I'm hardly a "newbie" except for posting.

But I still appreciate the love!

[Gravitycollapse]

16. I know more than enough about the subject under discussion.

And the last thing I want is to have to listen to more NRA talking points.

[TnDem]

118. Question

How in the hell does a plastic $79 stock kit from Ebay alter the "rate of fire"?

Credibility= 0

[jazzimov]

14. Actually, many of the functions

can improve the accuracy of the shooter. And being semi-auto drastically improves the rate of fire. Removable magazines make for quick reloading, and large-capacity magazines reduces the need to re-load as often.

So, actually, these do affect the accuracy and rate of fire - greatly.

[Jenoch]

26. What about the rifles

that have the EXACT SAME RATE OF FIRE that would NOT have been banned under Feinstein's bill?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022094973#post8

[jazzimov]

30. That's the reason for limiting the magazine capacity,

and rate of fire means nothing if the shooter is inaccurate.

Personally, I'd like to see the elimination of semi-autos and removable mags, and limiting cartridge storage capacity to 3 cartridges. But that's me.

[Duckhunter935]

31. They never can

answer that question

[jazzimov]

34. I just did. nt

[Jenoch]

38. Huh?

You don't know why "firearms like the AR-15 are so prolific"?

The reason there are so many AR type rifles in circulation is because of the ten year AWB and talk of new 'bans'.

Diane Feinstein is mostly responsible for the millions of 'assault weapons' owned by Americans.

[Gravitycollapse]

43. Oh please, the gun industry and the NRA are responsible.

Spare me with the right wing talking points.

[Jenoch]

60. The gun industry is

fulfilling a demand, a demand that did not exist prior to the AWB passed in 1993. The demand was again given a huge push by the attenpt to 'ban' these guns again. Sure, there are other influences, but the political forces have been the primary cause. There is no denying that.

I have never been a member of rhe NRA. i disagree with much of their political agenda. I have never seen a list of 'NRA talking points'. As other on these threads have said, bringing up 'NRA talking points' is code for 'I have no argument'.

[Gravitycollapse]

66. They are NRA talking points regardless of whether or not you are conscious of that fact.

The demand for assault weapons was created by the gun industry and gun owners.

Blaming the proliferation of such weaponry on people like Diane Feinstein is at best ignorant and at worst a targeted attack against gun control advocates.

I hear enough NRA shills on a daily basis. The last thing I want is more of that horseshit when I get on DU.



Have you ever owned an assault weapon? Have you ever even fired one?

[Jenoch]

77. You have to explain to me

how a manufacturer is able to create demand so successfully. That needs to be replicated in every manufacturing undustry in the country. Imagine what hat would do for the economy.

I have never owned an 'assault weapon' nor have I shot one. I have shot many guns with the same rate of fire and also own several of them. Why is that pertinent?

[Gravitycollapse]

80. Are you joking? You've never even shot an assault weapon and you're on here lecturing...

About how they aren't any more effective.



Somehow I knew this was going to happen.

[Jenoch]

84. I have never fired an 'assault weapon'.

I have shot my brother's AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.

[Gravitycollapse]

85. What exactly did the AR-15 that you fired lack that would otherwise make it an assault weapon?

[Jenoch]

90. It was made during the AWB.

It lacked a pistol grip and flash suppressor, not to mention a bayonet lug.

[Gravitycollapse]

98. I've never seen an AR-15 that lacked a pistol grip. You sure it was an AR-15?

Or are you confusing it with the ocean of other .223 chambered semi-automatic rifles?

[X_Digger]

101. See post #100. There are alternatives to pistol grips. n/t

[Jenoch]

106. Are you not aware that there were

AR-15s made and sold during the AWB period that were legal?

[Gravitycollapse]

107. Are you not aware pistol grips were legal under the ban?

[Jenoch]

110. I am aware that there

were several features that were banned if the gun had more than two of them. The point is, I have fired many semi-auto guns with the same rate of fire of 'assault weapons'. My father has a mini-14 but because it isn't 'scary looking' it would not have been banned under the latest AWB legislation. It is mechanically no different than a Mini-14 that would be banned under such legislation.

[newmember]

91. I did last week if a AR10 is also considered one

It would be foolish of me to get into a debate with someone like you
that has owned assault rifles but I also think my points in this thread are valid.

Just in case you are wondering where I get my knowledge of guns . I'm not a gun owner

I own a bass boat and my fishing partners are all gun owners. A couple do own several AR15's among other rifles.
I just want to also add that they are also Democrats.

When the bite is slow they talk guns with me , especially this past year with everything going on.
These are my good friends and they finally convinced me to go shooting with them last week.

[Gravitycollapse]

94. An AR-10 is an assault weapon. It's just chambered in 7.62.

[Hoyt]

61. Actually it's because gun cultists are attracted tp the most lethal and menacing weapons

they can get their sick hands on. The mere fact people are attracted to these things, is reason enough to restrict them.

[Gravitycollapse]

73. Have you ever seen people at the range with "zombie" AR-15s?

They have special receivers marked with phrases like "zombie hunter."

These idiots think they're in a movie. They have little or no regard for the safety of others.

[Hoyt]

76. There's a gun store in Georgia that does video ads about best guns for zombies and

"in case some brown person wonders across your lawn." They also feature pistols with confederate flags on the grips. I guess they have identified what makes their customers drool.

[Gravitycollapse]

78. Even when I was really into firearms, I always thought those people were dumbasses.

I wouldn't even bother mentioning them except for the fact that they were everywhere.

[Hoyt]

83. We are similar in that respect. Brought up around guns, but detested the yahoos

that make up majority of gun cultists.

[Abq_Sarah]

134. They don't alter the performance

It still takes a human finger to pull the trigger each time for each shot. I've shot a regular 10/22 and a tricked out 10/22 like the one with the Archangel stock and it made absolutely no difference... except to show me I really preferred the stock version.

[Gravitycollapse]

135. I've already the ".22 argument" up thread.

Of course, you pick an extremely low recoil firearm for your example. Go figure.

[Abq_Sarah]

136. Okay...

I've shot a Kel-Tec SU16 and my Husband's Bushmaster M4 with the collapsible stock, forward grip, flash suppressor, etc... and guess what... they are both low recoil and the extra stuff on the Bushmaster didn't make a difference as far as my accuracy is concerned. The Kel-Tec without the bells and whistles was actually easier for me to shoot because it's a lower weight receiver. Go figure.

[petronius]

24. I would say the answer is both 'yes' and 'no'

Most attributes of firearms serve some sort of functional purpose. Often, that purpose is to make a gun safer, more comfortable, or more accurate. And, the features that make a gun a 'good' gun will benefit to some degree every user of that firearm, whether they use it for legal or criminal purposes.

But, most of the attributes addressed by AW bans do not have any clear connection to criminal use or public safety to any significantly greater degree than those features relate to non-criminal use. They're simply attributes that make a gun better, safer, or more interesting. It's not logical to say that, just because every user of a gun might benefit from a specific feature, that feature relates to public safety. The trick is to identify features that disproportionately affect criminal usage, relative to their role in ordinary use.

However, most of the features addressed by AWBs are identified as being 'military style', but without any clearly specified and significant connection to criminal use. They're aspects that are scary looking, rather than dangerous. To that extent, AW definitions very often are cosmetic in nature, regardless of the functionality of the features being described...

[FarCenter]

27. Magazine capacity may depend on the length of the cartridge

The Marlin 39A lever action .22 caliber rifle has a tubular magazine which "holds 26 Short, 21 Long or 19 Long Rifle Cartridges."

http://www.marlinfirearms.com/firearms/22rifle/golden39a.asp

[aikoaiko]

32. The Sandy Hook rifle was approved for ownership under the 1994 AWB ban

That's how meaningless that ban was. We know this because law enforcement has said the rifle was legal to own and the CT AWB mirrored the national AWB that sunset.

The same rifle would have been approved for ownership under the proposed 2013 AWB with a different grip already on the market.

AWB by feature is a truly ineffective way to reduce gun violence.

[HooptieWagon]

33. This is true.

Even if there were an effective way of banning AW separate from common semi-auto hunting rifles, very few homicides are committed using AW, so the effect on gun deaths would be practically nil.

IMO, the whole AW issue is pretty stupid. The "gun nuts" buy them largely in part to piss off liberals they hate. And the banners want to ban them because they hate the "gun nuts". All in all, just a self-perpetuating petty fued that will have no effect on gun deaths no matter which way it's settled. And the reason I put gun nuts in parenthesis, is because the banners on DU lump all gun owners into a category of being uneducated, rural, 4x4 driving, Bud-swilling yahoos...which simply isn't the case, much to their dismay.

[jazzimov]

36. Uh, no. It was an AR-15 which was specifically banned.

You're thinking of the CT ban, under which it was legal. Further, it wasn't properly secured which shows how important that legislation is.
And although it is true that most gun crimes do not involve AW's, the point is to make mass shootings more difficult and less lethal.

[aikoaiko]

40. By name AR15 was banned, but that wasn't the name of the Sandy Hook rifle.

Just like the rifle I bought in 2002, an Olympic PCR (politically correct rifle), it took detachable mags and had a pistol grip but didn't have a collapsible stock, flash hider, and bayonet lug.

And AR15 by any other name is still an AR. Again, demonstrating the weakness of the AWB approach.

[jazzimov]

67. Although it was a Bushmaster, it was an AR-15 clone

which was banned.

[X_Digger]

82. AR-15 clones were not banned during the "ban".

Sales of guns with the required number of features removed actually went *up* during the so-called ban. (That's from the Penn State researcher funded by the Clinton DOJ on the effectiveness of the "ban".)



You'll notice that the muzzle brake has been permanently affixed, the bayonet mount ground down, and the stock is not collapsible. Therefore it only has one "feature" on the list, and is therefore *not* an "assault weapon" per the '94 "ban".

[aikoaiko]

89. No it wasn't. Its hard to accept, but that is just how flawed the AWB was.

All one had to do was change the name and limit the rifle to 2 evil features (e.g., detachable mag well and pistol grip) and any AR-15 style of firearm was legal in the light of the 1994 AWB.

You can like it or not, but its true.

[HooptieWagon]

35. Yes, ban them all...

despite many of the functional features you cite that are ergonometric features that increase gun safety. And the public must be protected from the epidemic of bayonet and grenade deaths. Geesh louise....

[jazzimov]

37. Which one of those "increase gun safety"? nt

[HooptieWagon]

129. Pistol grip, heat shield, adjustable stock,

and carrying handle which you didn't mention. All ergonomic features which improve control of the gun during firing or transport- which improves safety. Magazines less likely to accidently discharge during loading than muzzle or breech loading.

Other features are non-issues...who the hell has heard of an AW owner firing grenades or stabbing with bayonet? Grenades not even legal to own. Folding stock reduces the gun size for transport, but still too big to hide in pocket. Street criminals (responsible for 2/3 firearm homicides) rarely use long guns, weapon of choice is a semi-automatic handgun.

[newmember]

39. So your point is to ban all semi auto ?

Then mag capacity really wouldn't matter.

[jazzimov]

44. The point of the OP was to point out

that many of the features that anti-gun control proponents claim are simply "cosmetic" actually serve a purpose.

[newmember]

46. Other than mag capacity and being a semiauto , the rest is all fluff

If you want to ban all semi auto just say it.

[jazzimov]

53. "The rest is all fluff" - the OP disproves that. Which was the point.

[newmember]

57. If you want to think so

You could get rid of a flash hider and have a non threaded crowned barrel
You can get rid of a 4 or 6 position retractable stock and go with a fixed butt stock
You can rid of the m4 profile barrel and go with a pencil barrel or a heavy target barrel.


It's all fluff if it has semi auto capability with 30 round mags.

Like I said if you want to ban semi auto fire in all rifles .

Just say it

[Hoyt]

62. Said. That would all but stop proliferation of guns. Gun cultists don't get all excited

about bolt action rifles and revolvers. Just not lethal/sexy enough for today's gun lovers.

[newmember]

71. That's what's bothering me about the OP point

I see that's what he wants to say but he won't say it.

My personal opinion having shot an AR10 last week along with a few other rifles.

I'm not exactly sure what the fascination is with AR's
I also shot a few different bolt action target rifles and to tell you the truth it wasn't bad.

It's not like I'm running out to buy a bolt action firearm but I can also see that
it is an involved sport that many take seriously.

Out of all the rifles at the club I was invited to , the only AR there was the AR10 I fired a few times.
I don't know if that's normal or not at a shooting range?

(I will add that the people there were all long distance shooters)

[Hoyt]

74. The fascination is created by marketeers who pander to baser instincts of gun culture.

You've probably seen the Bushmaster "Renew your Man Card" ad.
Gun culture likes menacing looking weapons and ones that remind them of military weapons that have killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Personally, anyone that wants one of those weapons should be prohibited from owning guns.

[newmember]

79. Yes I have seen the bushmaster add in threads here.

Pandering to the lowest common denominator.

I really hate this gun debate because it splits our side up when we should all
be united with what the republicans have in store for us.

I really wish all Democratic and Progressive gun owners could find common ground on this issue
with non gun owners in our party.

It hurts us.

[Hoyt]

81. I hear you, but anyone who would vote for a Republican over guns is not much of a Dem.

Besides, Republicans stand with Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent when it comes to gun laws good for our country.

[newmember]

99. I guess I agree but I've seen members here almost come out and say I won't

vote for a democrat that supports gun control.

What's that telling me ? he or she will stay home and not vote.

That's just dumb to let an issue like this split us .

[derby378]

41. You seem to be a tad late to the party

I don't know of anyone who called these features listed above purely cosmetic. On the other hand, some legislators appeared to be going after any rifle with black polymer handguards instead of more traditional wood guards, which would be a cosmetic feature.

[Crepuscular]

42. In answer to the question posed by the OP

Almost of all of the cosmetic variances indicated have no perceptible impact on the functionality of the weapon, in terms of it's potential to be used to kill things. Almost none.

A better question would be (putting aside the obvious one of why waste so much time and energy focusing on restrictions applied to weapons that are involved in a very, very, low percentage of crimes) are there any instances of gun related violence involving multiple murders that have occurred in recent years, that conceivably could not have occurred if the particular weapon used had been banned?

The answer is almost without exception, no.

Virtually every major mass shooting could have occurred with firearms that are owned by millions and millions of Americans and which would have been perfectly legal to own under virtually all of the gun bans that have been proposed.

Grabbers don't want to admit that truth but it remains a fact.

[jazzimov]

47. Then there's no need for them. If they're banned, you won't miss them.

And many of the features allowed the mass shooters to kill more than they would have otherwise. It could also be argued that if the shooters had not had access to those weapons which allowed them to kill so manym then they would have been dissuaded from attempting the mass killings.

Also, I am NOT a "grabber".

[X_Digger]

49. They have no impact on the lethality of the firearms

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a removable flash hider instead of a welded on flash hider?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had an adjustable stock (4" shorter, maximum) instead of a fixed position stock?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a bayonet mount?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a pistol grip instead of a thumbhole stock?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a grenade launcher mount?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a barrel shroud instead of a free float tube?

Could the same gun kill or injure more people when placed into the third stock versus the first?



So no, it's not 'cosmetic' a la color, but it is immaterial to the lethality of the firearm.

[jazzimov]

54. Pretty much all of them where such features were used.

For the rest, they have the potential of being used (except for the bayonet mount - but some a-hole will eventually try it).

[X_Digger]

75. That's a non-answer.

In what shooting has a removable flash hider contributed to a higher injury or mortality (as opposed to a welded on flash hider)?

Same for the other features I mentioned..

No, you've got 'red sports car' syndrome. As if by regulating the color of sports cars, or the absence or presence of ground effects kits, halogen headlights, etc you'd affect highway mortality- all based on the characteristics of cars involved in accidents.

When in fact it's not the characteristics that affect the mortality, but the mindset of people inclined to drive dangerously. An idiot who would drive recklessly in a red sports car would be just as likely to drive recklessly in a green sports car (with or without low-profile tires, etc.)

[Gravitycollapse]

86. A tactical or "pistol grip" stock would increase potential lethality.

Because it would increase accuracy under high rates of fire. Especially while moving or engaging moving targets.

[X_Digger]

87. As compared to a thumbhole (non-pistol-gripped) stock? Bullshit. n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

92. Now you're just blatantly moving the goal posts.

A thumbhole stock in many ways is no different from a pistol grip. Although it may vary upon design and shape.

None of those three stocks you posted had thumbholes. Nice try though.

[X_Digger]

93. Read post #49 again. I moved nothing.

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a pistol grip instead of a thumbhole stock?

I mention thumbhole stocks because they were not components of the '94 "ban". Therefore it was acceptable to have a thumbhole stock on an "ak" clone, and that didn't count as a 'feature' in the number of acceptable characteristics.



This is a 'ban-compliant' AK clone- gas block ground down so that a bayonet may not be attached, smooth muzzle end, thumbhole stock.

[Gravitycollapse]

95. Still trying to move those posts. Respond to what I said not what you wanted me to say.

I'm not on here arguing the efficacy of the 94 AWB.

For what it's worth, I find little or no functional difference between a thumbhole stock and a pistol grip stock.

[X_Digger]

100. The fact that you didn't notice me mentioning thumbhole stocks isn't my problem, it's yours.

Should thumbhole stocks be banned as part of "AWB 2.0" there will be other alternatives, such as..





Are these rifles without pistol grips somehow less lethal?

[Gravitycollapse]

102. When gun industry pricks try to sneak around it, just amend the goddamn law.

The first three stocks are likely functionally no different from a pistol grip stock. The last appears to be a shallow angle pistol grip with a fin? I don't even know how that doesn't qualify as a pistol grip unless angle has something to do with the legal definition.

[X_Digger]

104. They are all *not* pistol grips.

The first three because it's not vertical, and ends at the shoulder, the second because you can't wrap your thumb around it.

How would you write a definition into law that covers this? The first three have a grip angle similar to a traditionally-stocked firearm, or what's commonly called a monte carlo stock-

[TnDem]

120. Ha ha...

You can't just "amend the Goddamn law"...It doesn't work like that.

In case you're wondering, the "law" does not just get "amended" every time the President wishes it to be.

How would we all like it if Pat Robertson were President and he just "amended the Goddamned law" about abortion...

See how our government works?

[TnDem]

96. Thumbhole

Unfortunately, the "thumbhole" stocks were created because of the 1994 ban as a way around the ban...So if you say that there is no difference in the two, then you have made everyone's point.

Nice try though...

[Gravitycollapse]

97. I'm not arguing the efficacy of the 94 AWB.

So either you are confusing me with someone else or you misunderstand my argument.

[TnDem]

103. Untrue

The entire premise of this thread is the cosmetic features of these rifles versus their actual functionality.

Here's what you said in a prior thread:

"Those features alter the performance of the firearm. If other firearms pose a similar risk without possessing some or all of those traits, then we need to enact legislation that deals with those firearms."

You hold the premise that these cosmetic features "alter the performance" of the rifle...You have been shown over and over that this is basically bullshit... The core platforms of all of these rifles are exactly the same and they function exactly the same.

The rifles only "look" cooler and they "look" all tactical and shit, but they function identically and one or the other feature would have no bearing on the lethality of the rifle. That's the whole point of this thread....The retarded silliness of the 94 AWB and all other types of bans like them. The market has decided what sells and what doesn't and the fact is that most of the buying public likes having a rifle that looks like the military versions of these weapons.

On a much larger issue however, the southern Democratic party will simply not show up to vote in 2014 and probably 2016 because of the internal harping on this issue such as this thread.

[Gravitycollapse]

105. Yep, no functional difference...

Which is why our our military doesn't bother having standard issue rifles with those characteristics, right?

Oh...wait.

[TnDem]

116. It's obvious...

That you ignored most all of what I said...

The civilian versions of the rifles merely adopted cosmetic identicalities with the military versions. Their functions end there. Only since 1964 have the "black rifle" concepts been in place that make firearms "look" more menacing, (starting with the M-16 and M16-A1).

Before that the US military used the wood stocked M1/M2 Carbine which shot a .30 caliber carbine round and had a 30 round mag, functioned in the same semi/full auto mode as the M-16 but had old school features, (wood stock, looked "safer", warm and fuzzy like Grandpa's shotgun)....However its lethality was identical in it's semi/full auto capabilities.

Many thousands of Japanese soldiers were killed with M1 carbines and many thousand Chi-Com/North Koreans were killed with M2 carbines...

Bottom line....Cosmetics only matter to make a rifle look more "badass"...The barreled receiver IS the weapon, not the stock and accessories that make people that don't understand firearms to wet their pants.

Just drop the bullshit about these stocks making the weapons more accurate, etc....They do NOT do any such thing....These black plastic stocks basically make the rifle look more modern and make them something more like we might see in a movie, but the functionality is identical.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

111. So you would ban thumbhole stocks?

[Crepuscular]

50. Silly conclusion and certainly not justification for banning them.

You simply saying that "many" of the features resulted in greater mortality, does not make it so, especially coming from someone who is clearly unfamiliar with weapons and their limitations and capabilities. Virtually all of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years would have resulted in similar levels of mortality, had the perp been using a plain old garden variety pump shotgun, the kind that has sat in tens of millions of closets in this country for the last hundred years or so and the type that no politician in his or her right mind would even consider trying to ban.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever fired a gun before?

[jazzimov]

58. "Just out of curiosity, have you ever fired a gun before?"

Yes - I was fully trained in Basic Training. I averaged 78 out of 80. I also qualified in grenades (which wasn't difficult) and pistol. I was in the NG for 6 years and had to annually qualify on the rifle range.

I also own a single-shot shotgun because I live in the woods. I have had to use it once.

By this statement

Virtually all of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years would have resulted in similar levels of mortality, had the perp been using a plain old garden variety pump shotgun

I would say that of the two of us you are the one who is clearly unfamiliar with weapons. That statement is blatantly false.

[Gravitycollapse]

88. It seems to be the case that gun control advocates in here know more about firearms.

And those who are talking down the advantages of these "cosmetic" alterations have little or no experience with them.

[TnDem]

119. What about this video

I think it explains it all:

[Crepuscular]

126. No, I'm sorry but it's not a false statement

Shotguns are an extremely effective close quarters combat weapon and almost all of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years tend to be close range situations, where the victims can't readily flee.

You might want to study up on why the Germans protested about the Americans use of trench guns in WWI, to the point where they threatened to execute any soldier captured that was carrying a shotgun.

A pump shotgun loaded with buckshot is significantly more accurate at close range than either a handgun or an "assault weapon"

Give us an example of a mass shooting that has occurred that would not have been equally deadly had the murderer been armed with a 12 Ga pump instead of the weapon that was used?

[rrneck]

45. Any ergonomic feature of any firarm is intended to make it more effective.

That's the whole idea. The next question to ask is "effective for whom and why".

[jazzimov]

48. Thank you. That is a discussion we should be having. nt

[Crepuscular]

52. a more relevant question might be

"do minor variations in "effectiveness" have any measurable and substantive difference in the lethality of the weapon in most situations?"

Having fired literally hundreds of thousands of rounds in a wide variety of firearms over my lifetime, I'd have to say that in almost every case, the answer to that question would be no.

[jazzimov]

55. Then why pay for them?

[Recursion]

114. Do any of those features come with a premium?

It's not like a monte-carlo-grip AR-15 is any cheaper.

[Crepuscular]

124. For the same reason

that people customize all sorts of different things, from cars, to boats to living rooms. Not that hard to understand, really.........

Don't your amps go to 11?

[Hoyt]

63. Gun culture loves to shoot all day without reloading while relaxing in recliner.

[rrneck]

68. Arrogant assholes like to shoot off their mouths with computer keyboards without thinking about it.

[Hoyt]

69. Anger and guns don't mix well. Better lock yours up for awhile.

[rrneck]

70. If I were angry you'd know it.

Any fair reading would reveal an astronomical anger in what you write.

[Lizzie Poppet]

122. I was wondering how many posts it would take for you...

...to start indulging in your usual bullshit amateur psychoanalysis.

[Deep13]

51. yes and no

It ultimately depends on statutory language.

It usually means a high capacity, military-pattern, semi-auto rifle or any high-capacity, semi-auto pistol.

Most of those gadgets don't do much. The large, detachable magazines are significant. No one uses bayonet mounts. When was the last time there was a bayonet fatality in this country? 1865? Flash suppressors? Well, you should not be shooting at night.

Frankly, instead of inventing the term "assault weapon" and then figuring out what it, we ought to figure out what's dangerous and work on that.

How about this: No semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine or which stores more than ten rounds, exclusive of the chamber, shall be manufactured, sold, or possessed.

Or this: No detachable magazine for a semi-automatic pistol, capable of storing in excess of ten rounds, shall be manufactured, sold, or possessed.

[Hugabear]

56. If they're only cosmetic, why are gun nuts so gung-ho for them?

Why do these things even exist if their purpose is only cosmetic? Gun nuts act as if it's just a matter of slapping a sticker on.

[Deep13]

59. For the AR platform it's ergonomics...

...a degree of authenticity, and, frankly, for the same reasons guys who live in the city by pickup trucks. They think it is cool and masculine.

Also, dictatorship, communism, blah blah blah.

[Recursion]

115. Don't forget it's what a generation of vets trained on

It's good to have a rifle you're already familiar with, though the gas system in an AR is much simpler than in an M16.

[Hoyt]

64. Good point. Gun marketers know what excites the yahoos that covet lethal weapons.

[Recursion]

113. Well, the pistol grip makes a rifle safer, which is why I think they should be mandated if anything

It's a feature that makes a rifle more accurate and reduces the chance of a dropped weapon. I find it borderline sociopathic that people want to ban that; if anything that should be mandated on new rifles.

That's the one feature I actually care about (and the one feature that the AR-15 used in Newtown had); I personally couldn't care less about the rest, I just think the whole law is kind of a stupid idea that fails to address an actual problem.

EDIT: the OP lists being a semi-auto and accepting detachable magazines as "features"; in the language of the AWB those aren't "features" but functional requirements that the gun must have before the feature limit kicks in. That said, being semi-auto and accepting detachable magazines are extremely crucial things, and banning them would actually do something, unlike regulating the angle of the grip.

[Recursion]

112. Some make the gun safer and more accurate; others are entirely unused

When was the last bayonet murder you read about?

The only two characteristics that actually matter are "semi automatic" and "detachable magazine".

The rest are either stupid things for people who want to play army (bayonet lugs, grenade launcher mounts) or positive safety features that we should be talking about mandating rather than banning (pistol grips, flash suppressors).

The stock thing I don't really care about; the NFA strictly regulates how long a rifle can be, and any legal collapsing stock has to stay within that limits. If you think whatever the limit is (22" IIRC) is too small, then work to change that. Frankly I think any talk about rifles in the first place is idiotic when it's handguns that are used in something like 90% of firearms murders.

[TnDem]

117. Finally....

Finally, someone who understands the concept of what this issue really encompasses and not the typical hyperbole from people that want to argue the efficacy of the cosmetic silliness that we all shake our head at and have since 1994.

[baldguy]

125. If the features that make them "assault weapons" are functional, they should be regulated.

If those features are merely cosmetic, then what's the big deal in regulating them?

[ManiacJoe]

128. What would be the point of regulating them?

[ileus]

130. of all those, the collapsible stocks are the most useful

On our AR's they make it possible for everyone in the family to shoot the same rifle on range day.

10yo daughter, 8yo son, Mom, and Father...

Even with youth sized guns like my sons 7mm08 or his cut down 20ga stock they're still hard for children to shoot properly.

First position on the AR's stock (Magpul MOE) fits my son perfectly, my daughter can also use it on the first or second position. My wife prefers the third position on her AR, and I use the #3 for most all plinking.

[0rganism]

131. this thread shows how emotional the debate over gun control is

There are some people who know plenty about firearms on both sides of nearly any possible sub-topic up for consideration, and each side is pretty well entrenched in its positions. I have yet to see anyone actually change an opinion either way based on these "discussions" (as in, someone in the thread outright says, "Gee that's interesting, I hadn't thought of that before. You made me rethink my position on this issue.&quot Now, to be fair, there probably aren't a whole lot of controversial topics on DU where this happens, but this one sure does bring out the "closet rightwinger" and "authoritarian asshole" accusations.

Which makes me wonder, is it possible to have a constructive conversation among Democrats about what sensible, safety-conscious, freedom-respecting small arms regulations would look like? Regulation that respects the rights of prospective as well as established gun owners yet enhances public safety with respect to firearms? Everything proposed is somehow controversial, yet there seems to be consensus that something must be done. If we can't agree amongst ourselves on this, what are the odds we'll ever have something workable at the federal level?

I'm going to try to craft an OP for this purpose. Preliminary hypothesis: it will sink like a stone.