Maybe it is the scary looking gun

[FA_Q2]

If the looks are the appeal then you have blasted your own position.

If it is a matter of style and look then banning such things is irrelevant - a mass shooter is not suddenly going drop their plans because the gun does not look right.

who said the looks

you guys are the ones hung up on looks

it is the hype by antis over the years

that has caused to popularity

every time you antis talk gun ban gun registration gun confiscation

thousands of people flock out to buy them for example

Are you serious?

Maybe it is the scary looking gun

It's the thread title.

Here is a hint - if there is no quote in my post and there is no active convo between me and another poster then the question is directed at the OP - the person who CLEARLY was talking about the looks.

it is a free country

And? Do you always spew pointless and irrelevant statements after making asinine statements?

 

[jon_berzerk]

If the looks are the appeal then you have blasted your own position.

If it is a matter of style and look then banning such things is irrelevant - a mass shooter is not suddenly going drop their plans because the gun does not look right.

who said the looks

you guys are the ones hung up on looks

it is the hype by antis over the years

that has caused to popularity

every time you antis talk gun ban gun registration gun confiscation

thousands of people flock out to buy them for example

Are you serious?

Maybe it is the scary looking gun

It's the thread title.

Here is a hint - if there is no quote in my post and there is no active convo between me and another poster then the question is directed at the OP - the person who CLEARLY was talking about the looks.

it is a free country

And? Do you always spew pointless and irrelevant statements after making asinine statements?

not pointless ya moron

the antis have been instrumental in the massive numbers of ar15 out there

in fact obama was one of the best gun salesmen ever

 

[martybegan]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

 

[iceberg]

If the looks are the appeal then you have blasted your own position.

If it is a matter of style and look then banning such things is irrelevant - a mass shooter is not suddenly going drop their plans because the gun does not look right.

who said the looks

you guys are the ones hung up on looks

it is the hype by antis over the years

that has caused to popularity

every time you antis talk gun ban gun registration gun confiscation

thousands of people flock out to buy them for example

Are you serious?

Maybe it is the scary looking gun

It's the thread title.

Here is a hint - if there is no quote in my post and there is no active convo between me and another poster then the question is directed at the OP - the person who CLEARLY was talking about the looks.

it is a free country

then stop telling people which guns they can and can't buy.

 

[Nosmo King]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

 

[martybegan]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

I am not one of those "violent movies cause violence" people. If they do its in cases where the person is already damaged, and they use the game as an outlet that only lasts until they need to escalate their violence to reality.

Some nutjob is going to want to shoot up something regardless of what the weapon looks like,

 

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Maybe it's also the Rambo mentality that comes with it - and that invincible feeling of power.

You've never shot a gun have you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

 

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

The AR 15 is not a military rifle
It is a civilian semiautomatic

PERIOD

And they are popular because they are light, accurate and easy to shoot

 

[iceberg]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

 

[Nosmo King]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

Could a gun, be it pistol or long gun, be just as effective for sport and defense by way of a five round clip as opposed to a,fifteen round magazine?

 

[Nosmo King]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

Could a gun, be it pistol or long gun, be just as effective for sport and defense by way of a five round clip as opposed to a,fifteen round magazine?

MAybe maybe not

But if a handgun can accommodate a 15 round magazine why not use a 15 round magazine? And is a piece of shit on a killing rampage going to care if 15 or 30 round magazines are illegal?


My carry pistol is a Glock 19 it comes standard with a 15 round magazine but the morons in my state made any magazine over 10 rounds illegal so mow instead of carrying my weapon and one spare magazine I carry me weapon and 2 spare magazines

And it has been shown that magazine size is irrelevant when it comes to shooting so why not just use the standard magazines

 

[iceberg]

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

so when i say "the look of the gun can be a factor" you choose to ignore it so you can keep your fears alive and well.

got it. you don't want to talk this over, you want to be right, ergo selective in what you see. and killing 1 person isn't a mass shooting so those people wouldn't apply now would it?

and THIS is why we can't have common sense gun laws.

 

[iceberg]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

Could a gun, be it pistol or long gun, be just as effective for sport and defense by way of a five round clip as opposed to a,fifteen round magazine?

i can reload a fixed magazine faster than i can change one out.

now what?

 

[Nosmo King]

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

so when i say "the look of the gun can be a factor" you choose to ignore it so you can keep your fears alive and well.

got it. you don't want to talk this over, you want to be right, ergo selective in what you see. and killing 1 person isn't a mass shooting so those people wouldn't apply now would it?

and THIS is why we can't have common sense gun laws.

No. I am just incredulous that the media boogeyman can serve as a universal whipping boy.

Rather than take the toy appeal away from deadly weapons, you think piling on a free press can serve as a solution.

 

[martybegan]

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

 

[Nosmo King]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

Could a gun, be it pistol or long gun, be just as effective for sport and defense by way of a five round clip as opposed to a,fifteen round magazine?

i can reload a fixed magazine faster than i can change one out.

now what?

Bully for you! Does a crazed shooter in the midst of his killing spree have the same presence of mind and dexterity?

 

[Skull Pilot]

 

[Nosmo King]

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.