Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
mmmm. I'm an avid supporter of citizen rights to firearms such as the AR and even the infamous AK. BUT, I have to be completely fair. The term "assault rifle" was first applied to even the semi auto versions of these firearms by manufacturers and dealers and subsequently spilled into the shooting community.
The antis picked it up from our own front yard and ran with it. For quite a while the firearms industry was big on hyping up high capacity and cyclic rate of the semi auto versions of service rifles. Personally I never bought off on it and viewed the "spray and pray" mentality that popped up around these types of rifles with a bit of disdain. But, I will admit that this stigma was coined by shooters. Not by anti shooters.
This was due to a tricle down effect , imo, caused by the military buying off on the area fire vs aimed fire debate, and coming down on the area fire side. Excluding the USMC which always held to the tenets of marksmanship and trained its people to believe that each round must count. Even a mouse round like the 5.56 is more effective if it actually hits the target it's aimed at.
I would think that we've all scene the footage from Viet Nam of soldiers sticking their rifles up over their heads and letting loose with whole magazines with out any sort of visual reference as to a specific target. Compared to similar footage from WW2 where soldiers are actually aiming their weapons and picking targets they can actually see.
Even with all the splitting of technicalities in terminology now this sort of nonsense continues with the "tacticool" rage. Picture the images of black clad, armored ninja with guns dropping out of helicopters and deploying from armored vehicles. And these are cops. Not warfighters. And they are "assaulting" private homes. Not dug in enemy positions somewhere overseas.
And the capabilities of these personnel to totally smash any opposition and claim victory is portrayed as being a direct result of the weapons they carry. It's BS, but people believe it. It's actually irrelevant in the end. If shooting had been kept to the realm of marksmanship (where it belongs) as opposed to where it has drifted the anti types would be harping on the ability to hit single targets with single rounds rather than burning through hundreds of rounds and hitting nothing.
Thank you. The inclination to be "completely fair" is a rare thing in this forum, and you are so right...
These terms are generally not ginned up by those who use them most later; "Assault weapons," "Trickle down economics," "enemies of the state," on and on. These terms are not what makes the difference in the end either! "Terrorist" and/or "Islamic Terrorist."
Who are the people, really, who focus on the rhetoric and bumper-sticker slogans for their obvious agenda purposes versus those who are really just looking to properly evaluate the facts as objectively as possible, again in the name of that "intelligent discussion" everyone wants to have but doesn't know how.
Not one to count too much on movies to teach us either, but just as an aside, I saw the move "12 Strong" yesterday, which of course is the true story of the 12 who went into Afghanistan soon after 9/11 to strike back at Al Qaida. Good movie all considered.
I'd like whatever weapons those guys were using for my 100 men vs the 1000 with .357s...
Odd I post the stats, the facts, I have done it multiple times in multiple threads. You yourself even put the link up to the FBI UCR data... if you can't draw the connection... that's your ignorance...
Their policies to be specific. Insanity is performing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result...
I didn't say you lived in a rural area! Did I? You just didn't say, so I pointed out that where you live can make a BIG difference when it comes to what ladies are likely to do on ladies night...
You do go on a bit, and I give up on "comparing notes" with you on all the rest, but yes of course I have posted statistics and all manner of other information as well to consider amidst all the rest.
About just this excerpt comment pulled from all the rest, what "connection," exactly, is it you think I'm not making?
Again, please refer to my comments specifically and stop using all these straw man arguments as if they all represent my opinion or position, or as if I'm supposed to defend every notion out there, real or imagined in your mind.
Have you not seen how hard it is to control where the shots go with a bump stock? Too dangerous on a range where people are standing close by.
Well. Do this then.
Make them use a device such as a chain to clip into a bayonet lug, or into a sling loop to eliminate muzzle rise and throwing shots until they get used to it, or require short bursts. 5-10 rounds at a time so they know what to expect...
Mag Dumps of course there wont be sub minute of mile groups LOL...
They're not as uncontrollable as you would expect...
It's not uncontrollable like the case of an 8 year old girl with an UZI...
I've seen the videos of what you're talking about... usually older dudes who've never flicked a fun switch into fun mode. Or total newbs who have never performed double taps or controlled rapid fire being taken by surprise. I understand what you're saying though, and your cause of concern.
About just this excerpt comment pulled from all the rest, what "connection," exactly, is it you think I'm not making?
The connection being democrat held cities are majorly responsible for the homicides in this country. The connection of, strict gun laws work when there are states, as well as cities that contradict that notion. And before we tap dance for round two on the whole red states are awash with guns and they're leading the pack in homicides... as that myth was put to rest, look right at the specifics.
Blue hives within red states leading in the body count.
So I say again.
If the premise of stricter gun laws work, why is California in the lead for total murders via firearm?
Why is Chicago and other cities with strict laws, in the lead?
That said, would you really want democrat law makers to come in and push their failure onto you and others disarming those who abide by the law, but keep only criminals and cops armed?
I wouldn't.
Nor am I open to what is perceived as "common sense" there's nothing common sense that spews from Feinsteins trap, or Bloombergs.
Common-hates guns.
Sense-lacking.
Thank you. The inclination to be "completely fair" is a rare thing in this forum, and you are so right...
These terms are generally not ginned up by those who use them most later; "Assault weapons," "Trickle down economics," "enemies of the state," on and on. These terms are not what makes the difference in the end either! "Terrorist" and/or "Islamic Terrorist."
Who are the people, really, who focus on the rhetoric and bumper-sticker slogans for their obvious agenda purposes versus those who are really just looking to properly evaluate the facts as objectively as possible, again in the name of that "intelligent discussion" everyone wants to have but doesn't know how.
Not one to count too much on movies to teach us either, but just as an aside, I saw the move "12 Strong" yesterday, which of course is the true story of the 12 who went into Afghanistan soon after 9/11 to strike back at Al Qaida. Good movie all considered.
I'd like whatever weapons those guys were using for my 100 men vs the 1000 with .357s...
I haven't seen that movie but I do want to. And no, please don't count on ANY movie for anything remotely factual about the capabilities of firearms. Holly weird vastly exaggerates these. As to what weapons the crew in the movie used, I'm speculating they would have had the M4 as general issue, one (maybe two) m249s and a couple designated marks men with M14s or Knight (AR platform ) 7.62x51s.
Traveling light and being able to carry lots of ammo would have been paramount with that mission. I'm just spitballing about those particular weapons but spitballing from having seen the gear of similar units up close.
I've often said that shooters can and have been our own worst enemies in how certain firearms are generally perceived by non shooters. The firearms press has been horribly damaging to the image of shooters in a lot of ways. The current "tacticool" rage being one such thing.
Good grief! The tactical label is being hung on just about everything firearms related and even on knives and innocuous things like clothing and flashlights. Seems these days if there's no "tactical" niche for something it is ignored as useless. And "tactical" always has to denote how something is used in combat. However "tactics" apply to anything and everything. Not just combat.
Alas the term has been twisted and singularly applied. With the sort of imagery and writings we are seeing regarding firearms is it any wonder so many people see them as good for nothing but killing? The UK has taken these perceptions to extreme of extremes. I really don't want to see the US go that route where everything related to martial skill is seen as a threat to public safety.
Just because someone practices a martial skill/art does not mean they have any desire to hurt anyone or anything. In addition to shooting firearms I practice skills such as archery, swordsmanship, and other primitive weapons such as the tomahawk and knife.
I find these are great ways to channel anger into something without doing damage or hurting anyone. Just as many people use Karate, Aikido, Boxing etc. Truthfully no different than people who sew, cook, build cars on and on it goes. I do rather believe that I am far from a unique case in how I see shooting. This is more the rule and not the exception. But there is widespread misrepresentation of the shooting community as interested only in combat.
Should the need ever arise that I need to use my shooting skills thus I suppose I'm ready. As are LOTS of other folks. But we are not thinking about that eventuality every single time we take our ARs and all other firearms to the range.
Comparing France (a country with population 67 million) to Plano - one of the wealthiest suburbs of Dallas with 300k population? Lol, who would have thought that Plano would be doing slightly better?
But that's not the point. The point is that lots of guns don't translate into high murder rates.
But that's not the point. The point is that lots of guns don't translate into high murder rates.
In my state we have permitless carry. Many people here carry, probably most. We have had one gun homicide in the last seven years in my whole county and it was a drug deal gone bad. So, like you posted, lots of guns don't translate into high murder rates.
The connection being democrat held cities are majorly responsible for the homicides in this country.
How logical is this "connection" you are making when Democrats tend to win support in areas like Detroit where many significant social problems and challenges exist that people simply don't feel as inclined to leave in the hands of Republicans? Are democrats also "majorly responsible" for poverty? Drug problems? Racism and all the rest that tends to be a part/problem in these Democrat held cities?
Make any similar effort to be "fair," and I think it is pretty simple to conclude otherwise or at least to recognize just how many other reasons there are that these problems exist and/or that Democrats hold office.
You're something like the person who blames fires on fire fighters because they always seem to be there where the fires are...
Traveling light and being able to carry lots of ammo would have been paramount with that mission. I'm just spitballing about those particular weapons but spitballing from having seen the gear of similar units up close.
I've often said that shooters can and have been our own worst enemies in how certain firearms are generally perceived by non shooters. The firearms press has been horribly damaging to the image of shooters in a lot of ways. The current "tacticool" rage being one such thing.
Traveling light and lots of ammo are certainly among the important considerations but not all. They also had to hit as many targets as quickly as possible from a long distance, as I was also thinking for the 100 guys v 1000 with .357s. They also struck on the idea of lots of bombs from the air that certainly had its advantages and success. Hopefully Americans won't have to worry about that sort of threat as well anytime soon...
As for perception and image, I'd say lots of posters in this forum aren't doing shooters any favors either!
Look it up.
A common way to start a bump stock is to force the trigger into your stationary finger. No squeeze
It still doesn't meet the definition of a machine gun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
