Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

School attack in Canadaland.Follow

#77 Mar 04 2016 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not weird. The term "assault weapons" has absolutely no meaning or purpose whatsoever except to make people think they're the same as "assault rifles". The fact that Ugly even used one term when he meant the other is part of your proof.

So the term "long rifle" was invented by gun nuts so people would confuse them with "long guns"? The fact that you didn't know the difference between them is my proof.

The term "assault weapon" has a meaning -- it's part of the Wiki page you linked. Guess you should have read it. I mean, if you cared about something more than trying to make a big show of being "right".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Mar 04 2016 at 9:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Huh. I thought the M16A2 didn't have full automatic.
It has a three round burst, or the "Hey, watch me miss twice" mode.
Yeah. I've referred to selective fire mode as "automatic fire", which isn't technically correct. So my bad..


Yes. You're bad.



Yes, they are both "not single fire mode". But the distinction is like the diffence between an automatic transmission and a manual one.

ie, A little more than a "technical" difference.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#79 Mar 04 2016 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Me saying one word when I intended another word is only proof me being a tad stunned at times.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#80 Mar 04 2016 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Selective fire is a term used by anti-gun nuts so people will confuse it with automatic fire. Gbaji's confusion is my proof. Smiley: thumbsup

Selective fire is meaningless! Selective could mean anything. It could mean that you're selecting to fire at deer instead of people. It's all made up by politicians to scare people.

Edited, Mar 4th 2016 9:35pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Mar 04 2016 at 9:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The term "assault weapon" has a meaning -- it's part of the Wiki page you linked. Guess you should have read it. I mean, if you cared about something more than trying to make a big show of being "right".


Its meaning is circular though, and varies from legislation to legislation. It's literally "whatever criteria we chose when we passed a ban we labeled an assault weapons ban". There is no consistent functional definition of the term and its existence pretty much starts and ends in the minds of gun control proponents. An assault weapon is whatever kind of weapon the people writing the ban want to ban. Which isn't a terribly useful definition at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Mar 04 2016 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's literally "whatever criteria we chose when we passed a ban we labeled an assault weapons ban".

The definition of a phrase is the definition people gave it? Those mad men! I thought words had precise definitions assigned by a divine creator, not ones developed by humans through the course of their culture.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Mar 04 2016 at 9:41 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Isn't it funny how gbaji and virtually ALL his dickbag GOP heroes glorify combat and claim expertise in martial affairs whilst studiously avoiding military service?


Isn't that hilarious?



Oops, I meant pathetic. Silly spellcheck.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#84 Mar 04 2016 at 9:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hang on, Gbaji's gonna tell you all about his military friends and family now.

Sort of like Varus.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Mar 04 2016 at 9:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Here's a colorful, but informative page. They have more specific accounts of the type of conflation of terms that I'm talking about. Again, this is not accidental. Gun control proponents know that it's easier to get a ban passed if people think they're outlawing weapons with burst or full auto capabilities, than weapons that, while looking menacing, aren't actually any more dangerous than other non-banned firearms (age old story of an ill informed public being easier to manipulate). Also, in many cases are actually less dangerous since the weapons they target are usually ones designed with the same ammo and styling as the military weapons they mimic, which effectively means that they sacrifice the same power and range that actual assault rifles do (relative to "normal" rifles), but don't gain the automatic firing modes that make that tradeoff worth doing in the first place.

A basic hunting rifle would be a much more effective way to kill people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Mar 04 2016 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Bijou wrote:
I am soothed.
h00r.
gbaji wrote:
I've referred to selective fire mode as "automatic fire", which isn't technically correct.
It's actually incorrect. Selective fire is when a weapon has multiple modes of fire. Automatic (also: single, semiauto) is a mode of fire.
gbaji wrote:
What I'm trying to get across is that if a weapon has any firing mode that allows more than one bullet to be fired with a single trigger pull, then that weapon meets at least one of the requirements to be an assault rifle
That's not true, though. For an assault rifle you need all the requirements. There are also rifles that only fire full auto (Colt AR-15 is the example used in your own link), which would disqualify them from being assault rifles. So a semi-auto can both be and not be an assault rifle.
gbaji wrote:
The problem is that gun control advocates love to conflate the name and apply it to weapons that simply don't qualify.
I just want you to recognize that you're doing the same thing.

The real problem is that neither group really bothers with the definition.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 Mar 04 2016 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Here's a colorful, but informative page.

Smiley: laugh

No one cares that Ugly made an error which he readily admitted and corrected except you. Have fun throwing your fit about scary liberals.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Mar 04 2016 at 9:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Isn't it funny how gbaji and virtually ALL his dickbag GOP heroes glorify combat and claim expertise in martial affairs whilst studiously avoiding military service?


I'm sorry. Where did I glorify combat or claim expertise in martial affairs? I'm just pointing out that the use of the term "assault rifle" is wrong entirely, and the term "assault weapon" is a made up term designed and used specifically because people will confuse it with "assault rifle" and thus be more likely to support whatever proposed gun control is on the table at the moment. Which, my own experience in or out of the military aside, it true.


Quote:
Isn't that hilarious?


Um... No. Not really at all. Looks more like a personal attack designed to pivot away from facts and into name calling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Mar 04 2016 at 10:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I've referred to selective fire mode as "automatic fire", which isn't technically correct.
It's actually incorrect. Selective fire is when a weapon has multiple modes of fire. Automatic (also: single, semiauto) is a mode of fire.


Selective fire is the ability to select between different mode, one of which may be automatic (which itself may be full or burst). So yes, while the presence of selective fire capability assumes automatic fire as an option, the criteria for an assault rifle is actually "selective fire". Machine guns have automatic fire capability but not selective fire, and thus are not assault rifles. Yeah. I'm being overly pedantic, but I didn't want someone coming in from some other direction on this and calling me out on it (cause that's never happened before).

Assault rifles specifically retain as much of the qualities of a standard military rifle as possible while *also* having automatic fire capability. So the ability to switch back into a semi-auto mode is just as much a criteria as being capable of automatic fire. Just having automatic fire alone would disqualify a weapon as an assault rifle, just as much as having semi-automatic fire alone does.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
What I'm trying to get across is that if a weapon has any firing mode that allows more than one bullet to be fired with a single trigger pull, then that weapon meets at least one of the requirements to be an assault rifle
That's not true, though. For an assault rifle you need all the requirements.


?

My statement somewhat strongly implies the existence of other criteria and that this is just one of them.

Quote:
There are also rifles that only fire full auto (Colt AR-15 is the example used in your own link), which would disqualify them from being assault rifles. So a semi-auto can both be and not be an assault rifle.


Um... Yes. I know that. What in my post made you think otherwise? As I mentioned above, this was my whole reasoning behind correcting my previous use of the term "automatic fire", when I meant "selective fire".

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The problem is that gun control advocates love to conflate the name and apply it to weapons that simply don't qualify.
I just want you to recognize that you're doing the same thing.


You have grossly misread what I actually wrote.


Edited, Mar 4th 2016 8:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 Mar 04 2016 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Isn't it funny how gbaji and virtually ALL his dickbag GOP heroes glorify combat and claim expertise in martial affairs whilst studiously avoiding military service?
I'm sorry. Where did I glorify combat or claim expertise in martial affairs?
2007-2015 and likely before.



Please don't be a giant lying pussy and claim that it ain't so. We all know better.


As a qualifier, because I'm nice: you are arguing the definition of an assault rifle with a current member of the active armed forces (lolgaxe) and trying to claim the upper hand in what defines it. Hubris on a grand scale.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#91 Mar 04 2016 at 10:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... No. Not really at all. Looks more like a personal attack designed to pivot away from facts and into name calling.

Could be. Sort of like whining about the semantics of the phrase "assault rifle/weapon" is designed to pivot away from the whole "people getting murdered" thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Mar 04 2016 at 11:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
As a qualifier, because I'm nice: you are arguing the definition of an assault rifle with a current member of the active armed forces (lolgaxe) and trying to claim the upper hand in what defines it. Hubris on a grand scale.


Um... Except maybe you missed that Lolgaxe and I are both in agreement on the definition of an assault rifle. We're just quibbling over minor details of terminology. We both know that an AR-15 is *not* an assault rifle, and an M-16 *is*. And we both know why one is an assault rifle and the other isn't. Everything else is just misunderstandings or misreadings of each others posts.

I'll also point out that this isn't knowledge that requires advanced military training (or any military training for that matter). And that's certainly the case within the context of what an assault rifle isn't (which is what we're really talking about with regard to potential gun control legislation).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Mar 04 2016 at 11:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... No. Not really at all. Looks more like a personal attack designed to pivot away from facts and into name calling.

Could be. Sort of like whining about the semantics of the phrase "assault rifle/weapon" is designed to pivot away from the whole "people getting murdered" thing.


I'd argue that using the phrase "assault weapon" is designed to pivot away form the actual problem of people getting murdered and to the unrelated goal of banning firearms for ideological and political reasons. The weapons that fall under the "assault weapon" category are there because they are perceived as "scary" (or can be made to appear that way), but aren't actually responsible for more than a tiny percentage of total firearm deaths in the US. So pursuing an "assault weapon ban" is less about actually addressing the problem of people getting murdered and more about sensationalizing those deaths to pass a bill that wont actually do anything about them, so you can look "tough" to people who don't really know any better.

Talking about the BS semantics of the phrase "assault weapons" is an attempt to pivot *back* to focusing on the people getting murdered. Because as long as we're obsessed over a meaningless set of firearm characteristics that have statistically near to zero impact on gun murders in the US, we're not actually doing anything productive about that problem, are we? In fact, we're being counter productive because people mistakenly think they're making themselves safer from gun violence by passing these laws, so they're less likely to take actions which may actually make them safer.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 Mar 04 2016 at 11:46 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Assault rifles specifically retain as much of the qualities of a standard military rifle as possible while *also* having automatic fire capability.
... what? This looks redundant.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#96 Mar 05 2016 at 12:29 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
I'd call him retarded but I'm not the type to insult retarded people.

Edited, Mar 4th 2016 11:29pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#97 Mar 05 2016 at 1:05 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Assault rifles specifically retain as much of the qualities of a standard military rifle as possible while *also* having automatic fire capability.
... what? This looks redundant.


Lol. Good one. Standard military rifles of say the 1930s and 40s (basically hunting rifles). You know, before assault rifles became the standard. Sorry that I wasn't clear about that.

By developing a light weight automatic fire capable weapon that fired a smaller rifle round (as opposed to pistol rounds in sub machine guns), you could retain enough of the qualities of a rifle to meet the requirements of an infantry assault, while gaining mobile suppression fire. It would not have the full range, accuracy, and power of a semi-auto (or bolt action) rifle, but the increased fire rate made up for that. Most infantry engagements occur within 300-400 yards, so a weapon accurate to 1000 yards or more and with enough power to drop a buck at that range is just not needed. Sacrificing some of that range and power for rate of fire is well worth it. Or at least the Germans thought so. And given that pretty much everyone who faced them reacted with "OMG! That's awesome. We should make something like that", I suspect they were on to something.

Well. Except the US. We pretty much sucked in the whole "automatic fire rifle" thing long after other folks got with the program.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Mar 05 2016 at 1:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'd argue that using the phrase "assault weapon" is designed to pivot away form the actual problem of people getting murdered and to the unrelated goal of banning firearms for ideological and political reasons.

You could, but then people would just think that your mind is inhabited by strange boogeymen.

Edited, Mar 5th 2016 1:07am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Mar 05 2016 at 1:35 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'd argue that using the phrase "assault weapon" is designed to pivot away form the actual problem of people getting murdered and to the unrelated goal of banning firearms for ideological and political reasons.

You could, but then people would just think that your mind is inhabited by strange boogeymen.


So you think that focusing on bans of weapons responsible for like 2% of all firearm murders by deliberately applying a misleading label to those weapons to make it seem to the uninformed masses (or say most of the media) like they're fully automatic military weapons spraying bullets around with abandon on our streets is actually a good way to address the problem of "people getting murdered"? Lol! That's some serious delusion you've got going on there.

For the 10 years that the assault weapon ban was in place, you know what statistical impact it had on gun homicides? Um.... Zero. Any reduction in the number of banned weapons being used to kill people was offset by an increase in other non-banned weapons used to kill people. The problem of "people getting murdered" wasn't affected in any way at all. Which is precisely what any sane person should expect. While mass or spree shootings get tons of national media attention, the reality is that they represent a very small percentage of total gun murders (I'm even excluding suicides here, which make up about half of all gun deaths in the US), and are the only sort of gun murders likely to be impacted at all by any form of AW ban we've seen proposed (or that could even possibly pass 2nd amendment muster). And, as the Virgina Tech shooting shows (the largest body count mass shooting in US history in case you've forgotten), one does not need to use anything that would violate such bans to kill lots of people (iirc, one of his pistols had a 10 round magazine, and the other a 15. It's unlikely having two 10 round magazines instead would have made any difference at all).

What does one need to rack up a high body count in such a shooting? It's not about the weapon(s) the shooter is using. It's the amount of time it takes for someone else with a weapon to show up to stop him. Gun free zones are the single greatest cause for the rise of mass shootings over the last couple decades, not anything related to "assault weapons". If you really care about reducing the total body count from gun deaths in mass shootings, that's the way to do it. Not with nonsensical bans on ill defined assault weapons.

And again, this all entirely ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun murders are not mass shootings. They're one person shooting another, over a slight, during a criminal act, in a gang turf conflict, etc. And most of those involve handguns, not scary looking "assault weapons". And in most cases, the number of rounds in the magazine would also have had no impact either. Real gun crime doesn't look anything like it does in Hollywood. Maybe we should make some effort not to pass legislation based on assuming that it does.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Mar 07 2016 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you think that focusing on bans of weapons responsible for like 2% of all firearm murders by deliberately applying a misleading label to those weapons to make it seem to the uninformed masses (or say most of the media) like they're fully automatic military weapons spraying bullets around with abandon on our streets is actually a good way to address the problem of "people getting murdered"?
Why not, it's the same strategy conservatives use to keep us in the Middle East.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#101 Mar 07 2016 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Personally, I think we should be focusing on putting controls on handguns rather than AR's ( or really, different controls)

I get it, thin edge of the wedge; but I'm a pragmatist at heart.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 358 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (358)