this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
466 points (97.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3577 readers
215 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is one huge problem I have had with gun control advocates. In Canada they are basically banning all rifles that look 'military'. The problem? All, and I mean ALL semi-auto rifles now look like that. Even ones that still have wooden furniture like a pre-WW2 era rifle can have them swapped out for black polymer and 'look' modern.
Even lever guns are sporting serious polymer furniture that make them look like sci-fi western guns.
The definition of 'military style' gun was created in the late 80s when your average gun owner was still owning their vintage ww2 surplus rifle (from the 1960s to 70s WW2 era rifles were so common on the market that there wasn't that much room for anything truly new) that had that old school look while all new military rifles had switched to polymers and had protruding pistol grips.
The rhetoric has remained the same despite almost 40 years passing and a lot of basic changes.
Unpopular opinion, probably, but if your hobby, such as hiking, sewing, reading, improv comedy... kills more children than car crashes, someone should be allowed to take a look at stopping that. Unless the hobby is guns, of course, of course.
I think the comment was more about politicians banning weapons based on how they look. It really doesn’t matter how a firearm aesthetically looks, and politicians should use their capabilities to determine if they should be banned. I know that this is an issue to a degree in the US. I don’t know about Canada.
I think the person I replied to was begging the question a little by saying "gun control advocates want to ban guns on how they look."
I dont think any serious participant in the discussion is saying guns are ok under any circumstances so long as if they look silly.
if we're gonna ban stuff just based on deaths, we should get rid of fast food, soda, cigarettes, alcohol, and cars in general
I'd argue that food and drink, cigarettes and cars are already regulated more than US guns. For example, it's illegal to sell soup out of the trunk of my car in some jurisdictions where I could sell a gun under the same circumstances.
We can dive into specifics if you want, I'm sure you'll be able to find some examples, and counter examples, but I don't think that's especially a fruitful conversation.
i'd disagree. of course, I agree that all these items are regulated. which makes sense for all the same reasons- a lot of people die if you fuck up. but you don't need an id and a background check to buy a McDonalds combo meal
maybe not but your example
I think the opposite is true. There's a ton of places I can sell soup, especially if it's pre-packaged and inspected by the FDA. for example I can go to walmart and buy a bunch of canned soup and sell that all day, no problem. In most of this country, however, you cannot just sell guns from the back of your car
sure, there are exceptions in certain states. for example a private seller who is not in the regular business of selling guns, there are specific states that allow you to do so with significantly less scrutiny than a dealer. although you still have the responsibility to do a basic check (is person old enough, what is person buying gun for)
beyond that, the overwhelming majority of gun sales go through Federal Firearms Licensed businesses. which conduct background checks and check ID.
tldr: if you're in one of the few states that allow it and you want to sell 1 or 2 guns out of the back of your car, OK. if you are anywhere else and/or you sell more than a couple guns, you're liable to get hit with some very serious federal and state charges. like potentially years in the federal penitentiary type charges
you don't need an ID or a background check to buy a gun, gunshow loophole baby!
And some troglodytes in here would happily condemn billions to death by agreeing with that
I’ve always wondered. What is the thing on top of an M-16? Is that just a carrying handle?
Pretty much, yes. It also serves as a mount for the rear sight. Since the AR platforms keep all the major moving parts in a straight line back from the barrel, ergonomics requires the sights to be higher than usual to account for the shape of the face.
The other guy explained it better, but basically yes.
Where have I seen
that bullshit before?
Then why don't more people have that style of gun?
I hear this argument all the time about different banned features and attachments. (I own and shoot often btw)
Like for braces. People say it doesn't make you more able to kill, when it does.
When there was a brief time where braces were legally iffy, I was using a sling instead. Let me tell you something, shooting with a sling is incredibly inaccurate compared to a brace.
Every shot removes the pressure you are putting on the sling, whereas a brace every shot pushes it into your shoulder more.
Shooting with a brace is incredibly similar to shooting with a stock, essentially identical just barely less comfortable.
People are so political when they talk about guns, just be honest with yourself. You can love guns and love regulation at the same time. Maybe we just shouldn't have crazy people and violent people owning them?
But, why outlaw braces in the first place?
Regulation is good when it makes sense. Calling a gun an "assault weapon" and trying to figure out some ass-backwards and arbitrarily definition afterwards is not good regulation.
IDK why the second pic says "same capacity" when...you can see they don't have the same capacity.
The top rifle looks like it has one of those 10-bullet mags, so the difference isn't much.
That first graphic reminds me of sci fi author David Brin’s concept of a “militia rifle”.
(He published this a long time ago and I’m unclear if he still supports the idea)
Basically he argues:
Seems to me the California laws approach this design equilibrium.
Thank you for providing an explanation of this. I don’t know a lot about guns but this is very informative.
Only black powder guns, single round, should be sold to the public. Like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3-ZWLSmgco&t=527s It's all anybody needs for hunting.
Someone needs to come up with a kit to make an AR look like the rifles at the top
If it is just as capable as an AR-15 then why not just buy that gun?
Hint: it isn't.
All you have to do is buy a Mini-14 from Ruger instead of an AR to accomplish that.
Mini-14 is now prohib in Canada as of 2020. They say they did it because of the Polytechnique shooting in 1989, but they had passed sweeping gun legislation in the 90s already. It is kinda incredible how that shooting is still the number 1 talking point and they've practically competely forgotten about the Nova Scotia shooting in 2020. I think it is because they are well aware that the 2020 shooting was done pretty much entirely with firearms smuggled in from the US. And the one gun that he had that was sourced in Canada the RCMP let him have due to a major league fuckup when they had all the right to just take it.
Also he was forbidden from owning firearms well before the shooting. Despite countless complaints that he had guns and seemed to be planning something fucked, they chose to do nothing, as usual.
It's funny how gun control is a legitimately important issue but some of its biggest and loudest advocates are more interested in looking busy and being 'tough' on guns rather than addressing actual problems.
Too easy
https://www.reddit.com/r/WA_guns/comments/bld13i/my_california_compliant_ar/?rdt=44855
This should be pretty close save for the ar mag
There already is.