Gun Legislation

[Mad American]

All semantics, are you seriously telling me you will not be more accurate if you add a scope to your gun (Where it originally just had sights)?

It's not cosmetic, it's a general principle.

It is not really semantics there is a difference between the inherent built in accuracy of a weapon and the effective accuracy of the weapon paired with shooter. Vrede mistakenly made the statement that a scope effects the weapons accuracy that is not true. However, your statement of adding a scope making "you' (the shooter) more accurate is spot on. I even said as much several pages back. The funniest thing about the whole argument to this point is that vrede picked two accessories that are not even included in the banned items list.

Ok, it's not semantics, it's a retarded way of looking at the accuracy of weapons.

It is the correct way of looking at the accuracy of weapons. You can have a Jarret custom target rifle that will group at thousandths of an inch at 100 yards...that is a very accurate weapon. Give it to an incompetent shooter and it may not hit a barn door at 50 yards...that is an inaccurate pairing. There is a difference and I have said all along that scopes aid the shooter but not in all cases.

[Mad American]

Yep, just keep running your mouth vrede. You have been proven an ignorant dumbass on the subject. I bet it really stings to see o'really engaging in sensible converstation, agreeing with me, and asking reasonable questions. Now please go away and let the adults continue a legitimate conversation.

[O Really]

OK, let's not go down the rabbit hole in whether the lower pic is just sheet metal. I don't know, and don't care. But I see your point. Here's a further question: what is the operational difference in the lower pic Ruger and an AR-15 brand?

Operationally between all three pics there is no difference. They are all "gas operated" semi-automatics. Put simply, a small portion of the gas pressure created when the shell is fired is used to push a piston connected to the bolt assembly backwards opening the bolt, ejecting the spent casing and allowing another shell to load. Spring pressure then closes the bolt and seats the next round in the chamber. There is a difference in caliber. The Ruger is a standard 22LR rimfire, while the AR-15 platform is available in several different calibers.

So back in and before the civil war, there were a wide variety of cannons. They all pretty much worked the same way and pretty much looked alike except for size. But there was a big difference in the type and extent of damage that each could do. There was a difference in range and accuracy, and different cannons were used for different conditions and situations. The fundamental similarities in cannons were like your stated similarities in the 10/22, enhanced version, and AR-15. Why does anyone select specifically an AR-15?

[Mad American]

OK, let's not go down the rabbit hole in whether the lower pic is just sheet metal. I don't know, and don't care. But I see your point. Here's a further question: what is the operational difference in the lower pic Ruger and an AR-15 brand?

Operationally between all three pics there is no difference. They are all "gas operated" semi-automatics. Put simply, a small portion of the gas pressure created when the shell is fired is used to push a piston connected to the bolt assembly backwards opening the bolt, ejecting the spent casing and allowing another shell to load. Spring pressure then closes the bolt and seats the next round in the chamber. There is a difference in caliber. The Ruger is a standard 22LR rimfire, while the AR-15 platform is available in several different calibers.

So back in and before the civil war, there were a wide variety of cannons. They all pretty much worked the same way and pretty much looked alike except for size. But there was a big difference in the type and extent of damage that each could do. There was a difference in range and accuracy, and different cannons were used for different conditions and situations. The fundamental similarities in cannons were like your stated similarities in the 10/22, enhanced version, and AR-15. Why does anyone select specifically an AR-15?

The cannon example is almost apples and oranges but I'll try to explain using it. Think of the differences, in size and damage done by, of the cannon as different calibers of rifles (chamberings). All the of cannon operated the same and looked pretty much the same. However, each had different terminal ballistics and different down range effects. The more devastating longer range cannon would be the bigger more powerful calibers. With that in mind lets look at the rifles. The Ruger 10/22 is only available in 22 Long Rifle (LR) which is what we all know as the basic "22". The AR-15 is a platform that is available in many calibers .17 remington, .223, .243, .308, 458 soccom, 50 beowolf...and the list goes on as well as fills in between. The AR-15 platform is just the same as any other centerfire semi-auto platform on the market in that regard. The Browning BAR is available in multiple calibers, the Remington 750, as well as many others. There is only in very rare situations, a single caliber for a single rifle model in the centerfire caliber world. So why does someone specifically select the AR-15. Well, there is the obvious point of they just want one. then, there are also other selling points that I have mentioned before, smaller and lighter for youth and female shooters, a reasonable degree of accuracy, dependablity, heat dissipation (a big one for varmint hunters), and finally fit and "feel".

[Mad American]

No one has agreed with you that scopes and tripods are "cosmetic". They've just agreed with you that they aid the shooter since . . . of course they do, duh.

Which is exactly what I said when you were ignorantly arguing that they improved the weapon's accuracy. Now please go away and let the adults talk.

[rstrong]

Which is exactly what I said when you were ignorantly arguing that they improved the weapon's accuracy.

Of course they do.

I may not be a gun user but I have plenty of experience with tripods - in photography. That they greatly reduce shaking when you zoom in on even a slightly distant object is absolutely obvious. The effect it would have on aiming a gun is also absolutely obvious.

[Mad American]

No one has agreed with you that scopes and tripods are "cosmetic". They've just agreed with you that they aid the shooter since . . . of course they do, duh. You just confused yourself all along about what was meant. Clearly, that's not a difficult task, Confused American.

Still running away from:

Your "catch" confusion,
Your diversion away from your "catch" confusion,
Your stupid definition of "cosmetic",
Your page after page diversion away from your stupid definition of "cosmetic",
Your lie that I ever called a rifle a "machine gun", and
Your new invention that previously banned or potentially banned accessories had anything to do with my post.

Run away, Baby American, run away, the adult world of telling the truth and being responsible for your screw-ups is a very, very scary place.

Which is exactly what I said when you were ignorantly arguing that they improved the weapon's accuracy. Now please go away and let the adults talk.

Liar, again. You have never retracted your stupid claim of "cosmetic". Everything since has either been a diversion away from it - like your silly confusion about the intended meaning of "weapon's accuracy" - or an outright defense of it. You can talk irrelevant details about your compensations and toys all you want, I don't care, it does not refute or excuse any of the above. In fact, given your application of "cosmetic" to non-"cosmetic" compensations and toys, you're even clueless when it comes to firearms specifics.

"Adult" is just another word that you don't get the definition of.

Understand this and then STFU. I will NOT retract the term cosmetic because by definition it fits. You are too stupid to see that and will continue to try to wipe that egg off of your dumbass face. You made the incorrect statements regarding scopes effecting the weapon's accuracy. It has long since been disproven. I even claimed early on that they aided the shooter but you still kept beating that horse.

Now, do you want to engage in a discussion about what you call" irrelevant details" and "firearms specifics"? If you do fire away....I'm anxiously awaiting your reply. However, I'm betting you stick to just more of the same bullshit!
Run, vrede run!

[Mad American]

Which is exactly what I said when you were ignorantly arguing that they improved the weapon's accuracy.

Of course they do.

I may not be a gun user but I have plenty of experience with tripods - in photography. That they greatly reduce shaking when you zoom in on even a slightly distant object is absolutely obvious. The effect it would have on aiming a gun is also absolutely obvious.

Yes, a tripod aids the photographer just as a bipod aids the shooter. However, the bipod has no direct effect on the weapon's accuracy....only the accuracy of the paired weapon and shooter. As I have already explained...there is a difference.

[rstrong]

Yes, a tripod aids the photographer just as a bipod aids the shooter. However, the bipod has no direct effect on the weapon's accuracy....only the accuracy of the paired weapon and shooter. As I have already explained...there is a difference.

I'm *almost* ready to conceed that I'm wrong here....

I believe the comparison you want to make is this: A bipod may have little effect for someone who already has a steady aim; it simply equalizes the situation for someone who does not have a steady aim. This is different from say rifling the barrel of a gun, which makes it fundamentally more accurate.

The reason I'm not quite ready to conceed is that military snipers and Olympic biathalon athletes for example use bipods. Apparently even the best shooters find that a tripod improves the effective accuracy of the weapon.

BTW, bipods equalizing the situation for those without steady aim leads to another comparison: Crossbows, being banned by a pope.

It used to take an archer with a longbow - and many years of training and practice - to reliably take out a nobleman in full armor at a distance. With the advent of crossbows, suddenly any poor slob could do it. Noblemen being killed by untrained commoners, no matter their armor! No wonder the Pope banned crossbows.

Of course a crossbow with is a bow with an accessory allowing you to aim without the interference of struggling to keep it drawn at the same time. Much like the accessories (pistol grips, bipods, etc.) defined in assault weapon legislation. The gun may be "the great equalizer", but like the crossbow, anything that equalizes too much is going to be banned.

[Mad American]

Yes, a tripod aids the photographer just as a bipod aids the shooter. However, the bipod has no direct effect on the weapon's accuracy....only the accuracy of the paired weapon and shooter. As I have already explained...there is a difference.

I'm *almost* ready to conceed that I'm wrong here....

I believe the comparison you want to make is this: A bipod may have little effect for someone who already has a steady aim; it simply equalizes the situation for someone who does not have a steady aim. This is different from say rifling the barrel of a gun, which makes it fundamentally more accurate.

The reason I'm not quite ready to conceed is that military snipers and Olympic biathalon athletes for example use bipods. Apparently even the best shooters find that a tripod improves the effective accuracy of the weapon.

Yes, the bipod aids the shooter. However, it does not effect the accuracy of the weapon itself. The weapon itself has it's own accuracy that is dictated by barrel vibration patterns, throat length, barrel crown, and many other factors. That accuracy is very difficult to change and if it is, it is only by fractions of an inch. A way to flip the point and possibly make it easier to understand would be to say that a world champion shooter could take any rifle, add a bipod and scope, and win the next match. That would be very difficult because the rifle itself must have the accuracy to be able to effectively place shots on target first.

BTW, bipods equalizing the situation for those without steady aim leads to another comparison: Crossbows, being banned by a pope.

It used to take an archer with a longbow - and many years of training and practice - to reliably take out a nobleman in full armor at a distance. With the advent of crossbows, suddenly any poor slob could do it. Noblemen being killed by untrained commoners, no matter their armor! No wonder the Pope banned crossbows.

Pope & Young was formed in 1961. I hardly think noblemen and armor had much to do with it. In addition Pope & young does not "ban" crossbows. They simply do not recognize animals taken with a crossbow. Something that they also did with compound bows with over 65% let off up until a few years ago.

Of course a crossbow with is a bow with an accessory allowing you to aim without the interference of struggling to keep it drawn at the same time. Much like the accessories (pistol grips, bipods, etc.) defined in assault weapon legislation. The gun may be "the great equalizer", but like the crossbow, anything that equalizes too much is going to be banned.

Not exactly, a crossbow leaves out a few parts used by handheld bow. In addition due to the short limb tip to tip length crossbows have such high draw weights that shooting one by hand would be impossible. Crossbows are a unique hybrid between a shoulder fired long gun and a standard bow, that is normally opearted by being held at full draw by its firing mechanism. Funny, thing about crossbows though, even with the high draw weights there is no measurable increase in performance between them and handheld bows. However, there is an ACCESSORY that can be mounted to handheld bows that will hold the bow just short of full draw allowing enough movement to disengage the string from the device. They are illegal in a lot of states and also not recognized by Pope & Young.

[rstrong]

Pope & Young was formed in 1961. I hardly think noblemen and armor had much to do with it. In addition Pope & young does not "ban" crossbows. They simply do not recognize animals taken with a crossbow.

The Pope (Innocent II) banned them in 1139, actually. Though he only banned their use against Christians. I'm not sure how one tells whether an animal is Christian or not. Other than of course....

A missionary was walking in Africa when he heard the ominous padding of a lion behind him. "Oh Lord," prayed the missionary, "Grant in Thy goodness that the lion walking behind me is a good Christian lion."

And then, in the silence that followed, the missionary heard the lion praying too: "Oh Lord," he prayed, "We thank Thee for the food which we are about to receive."

[Mad American]

Pope & Young was formed in 1961. I hardly think noblemen and armor had much to do with it. In addition Pope & young does not "ban" crossbows. They simply do not recognize animals taken with a crossbow.

The Pope (Innocent II) banned them in 1139, actually. Though he only banned their use against Christians. I'm not sure how one tells whether an animal is Christian or not. Other than of course....

A missionary was walking in Africa when he heard the ominous padding of a lion behind him. "Oh Lord," prayed the missionary, "Grant in Thy goodness that the lion walking behind me is a good Christian lion."

And then, in the silence that followed, the missionary heard the lion praying too: "Oh Lord," he prayed, "We thank Thee for the food which we are about to receive."

LMAO.....my mistake.....go to talking archery equipment and my mind automatically goes to POPE & Young. Did you understand the difference between the two in today's world???

[rstrong]

LMAO.....my mistake.....go to talking archery equipment and my mind automatically goes to POPE & Young. Did you understand the difference between the two in today's world???

Yup, although I hadn't heard of Pope & Young.

[Mad American]

Pope & Young is the bowhunting equivalent of Boone & Crockett recognizing trophy animals taken with archery equipment and working to further bowhunting.

http://www.pope-young.org/

[bannination]

Which is exactly what I said when you were ignorantly arguing that they improved the weapon's accuracy.

Of course they do.

I may not be a gun user but I have plenty of experience with tripods - in photography. That they greatly reduce shaking when you zoom in on even a slightly distant object is absolutely obvious. The effect it would have on aiming a gun is also absolutely obvious.

Yes, a tripod aids the photographer just as a bipod aids the shooter. However, the bipod has no direct effect on the weapon's accuracy....only the accuracy of the paired weapon and shooter. As I have already explained...there is a difference.

What does this slight difference of words have to do with the subject at hand? What are you trying to prove by saying that a gun with a scope isn't more accurate than a gun without one? More importantly, what percent of the population do you think would not be more accurate with a scope than without? Derp derp derp

[Mad American]

Now, do you want to engage in a discussion about what you call" irrelevant details" and "firearms specifics"?

What's the point? Anyone maintaining the "cosmetic" stupidity is too ignorant in both English and firearms to discuss firearms coherently. I prefer mocking and pitying you, that's the amusing reason to remain. I like being entertained.

If you do fire away....I'm anxiously awaiting your reply. However, I'm betting you stick to just more of the same bullshit!

"bullshit" - another word that Dumb American doesn't know the meaning and can't cite a legit example of. There are so, so many of them.

Run, vrede run!

Just as I figured to chicken to discuss those "irrelevant details" and "firearms specifics"
Run away some more vrede...run away

[Mad American]

What does this slight difference of words have to do with the subject at hand? What are you trying to prove by saying that a gun with a scope isn't more accurate than a gun without one? More importantly, what percent of the population do you think would not be more accurate with a scope than without? Derp derp derp

It is a valid point regarding knowledge of firearms. You have also missed the point that a gun itself has an inherent built in accuracy (the ability of the GUN ITSELF to accurately place bullets on target....some call it grouping) If a gun will not fire accurately (group) then the best shooters in the world, with the best scopes in the world can not shoot that gun accurately. I have said all along that scopes aid the shooter....I am not disputing that! The point is, that in order to have a serious discussion regarding what add on accessories do or do not change about a gun, one must first have knowledge of guns and what can be changed. It has become very obvious that some here do not possess that knowledge.

[O Really]

What does this slight difference of words have to do with the subject at hand? What are you trying to prove by saying that a gun with a scope isn't more accurate than a gun without one? More importantly, what percent of the population do you think would not be more accurate with a scope than without? Derp derp derp

It is a valid point regarding knowledge of firearms. You have also missed the point that a gun itself has an inherent built in accuracy (the ability of the GUN ITSELF to accurately place bullets on target....some call it grouping) ....

Here's the problem, Mad - most of us are happy to speak in general or generic terms with regard to firearms. When we say "makes it more accurate" we don't necessarily mean the firearm itself is better, just the probable result. Nobody is going to deny that you have more technical knowledge than most of the rest here, but most of us don't care about that degree of detail anyway, so your argument gets lost in yawns. Look at it like this: I'm reasonably sure I know more about some aspects of the law than most, but my comments about the law with regard to abortion had not the slightest impact on Parti. Because he's not arguing a technical issue. He's arguing what he believes. You've got a group here (myself included) that thinks some restrictions/regulations on some types of weapons or accessories would be helpful in getting started on reducing incidents of mass killing. If I were taking your side of the argument, I'd explain to the rest of us the difficulty of doing that and making it effective. For example, your side likes to say that there's no point in banning "assault rifles" because "it didn't work" before. But why didn't it "work"? Partly because it was not a very strong law; partly because gun manufacturers took advantage of technical loopholes gratuitously offered by the law'; partly because "work" was so loosely defined. So your argument that the Ruger 10/22 would be equally effective as a Newtown model in shooting a lot of people in a short period of time seems to have some validity. But mass shooters don't really pick a Ruger 10/22 - in its original form - for their work, do they? Why is that? And what could be done to keep big guns away from bad guys?

[Mad American]

Not they wouldn't pick a 10/22 in it's original form. Probably wouldn't pick a 10/22 at all simply because it lacks the power to do much damage in a mass shooting. You have hit on a good point, that is technical knowledge of firearms, and thank you for the compliment by the way. Any proposed laws or even the prior "Clinton" ban are/was based on the misconception that appearance changes technical operation. It is almost negligent to attempt to make laws regarding a misconceived notion based on appearance with out technical knowledge to back it up. As I said, I lurked around on BRN, followed the crowd and lurked over here. Only after Sandy Hook and the ensuing debate did I decide to post. I made that decision based on trying to educate people about the technical aspects of guns and shed some light on the misconception that just because a gun looks scarey, is all black, and has a modular platform it is in fact just another modern semi-automatic sporting rifle not different from hundreds of others on the market today other than appearance.

[O Really]

You also get a lot of propaganda from the manufacturers. Here's a Field and Stream article promoting the AR-15 as a hunting weapon, and acknowledging some resistance. A key concept is in the comments, third one down, that says (bold/underline added):

"I also see why F&S would support this type of weapon for hunting. It has to do with our right to bear arms being threatened in our government. We as hunters and the rest of society that support the second amendment must stick together with this because if they take away our semi auto rifles now, what is next? They have already talked about taking away bullets that are considered cop killing bullets. I assume those are bullets that would penetrate a bullet proof vest. That in itself would probably eliminate anything 30-06 and bigger. We can't afford to give our government an inch by taking these guns away. If it means promoting these guns for hunting to save our second amendment right, then so be it. Lets use them. And show the public that wants to ban these weapons that we can use these weapons safely and respectfully and lawfully.

So the argument by the gun ummm, "enthusiasts" really is, "we wouldn't actually hunt with this thing first choice, but if we let the feds outlaw it, then next they'll be coming for the rest of our guns so hunt with it we will."