They just sold exactly the same item but modified to avoid whatever criteria the ban specifies.
As they do here in the UK. They modify the AR-15 by adding a cocking lever to the breech assembly and removing the gas activated reloading, making it the same as any bolt action rifle.
"Your crass comments are based upon the assumption that the attack on the mother began with her being shot"
You're not keeping up.
Oh I'm keeping up old chap, you on the other hand are still not thinking it through.
I will say again, you're basing your accusation that Mrs Lanza is responsible for her son getting access to her weapons, on the assumption that the attack upon her began with her being shot.
As they do here in the UK. They modify the AR-15 by adding a cocking lever to the breech assembly and removing the gas activated reloading, making it the same as any bolt action rifle.
Or just require people to use the regular charging handle before every shot.
Not as easy as with a dedicated charging handle but I'm such a fashion-victim.
That and it means I can use a regular AR15 upper rather than a slotted one.
Thing is, even if they decide to ban semi-auto guns (can't really see that) companies can even get around that with minimal effort.
You can already buy "lever-action" AR15s which have a hinged pistol-grip which cycles the action and, in the face of a ban, I suspect it wouldn't be long before somebody invents a mechanism whereby the bolt recocks the hammer but a double-action trigger chambers the next round, thus making the gun NOT, technically, semi-automatic.
Or just require people to use the regular charging handle before every shot.
Not as easy as with a dedicated charging handle but I'm such a fashion-victim.
That and it means I can use a regular AR15 upper rather than a slotted one.
Thing is, even if they decide to ban semi-auto guns (can't really see that) companies can even get around that with minimal effort.
You can already buy "lever-action" AR15s which have a hinged pistol-grip which cycles the action and, in the face of a ban, I suspect it wouldn't be long before somebody invents a mechanism whereby the bolt recocks the hammer but a double-action trigger chambers the next round, thus making the gun NOT, technically, semi-automatic.
Or, in short, they're on a hiding to nothing.
That's what I said earlier.
If they are going to make changes, then make them in relation to suitability of the firearms holder - something which is perhaps achievable, not foolproof, but within the realms of possibility.
A few schools have shut down today because of threats or perceived threats.
People are on high alert for copycats.
Looking at a variety of (evil) pro-gun websites in the USA, there's a lot of talk about organising armed volunteer groups to stand watch around schools.
Looking at a variety of (evil) pro-gun websites in the USA, there's a lot of talk about organising armed volunteer groups to stand watch around schools.
I can see this ending in tears.
There were comments on some news sites on Monday, that many schools had ended armed security guard coverage due to budget capping etc.
I may have not made myself clear, we are arguing the same point of view
Either I was agreeing, or I quoted the wrong person! Not sure which now, but a lot of people have been saying that any gun control is akin to banning all cars/alcohol/knives/drugs/cigarettes and other dangerous things that are already "controlled", without modern democracy crumbling or resulting in a zombie apocalypse.
I understand that some people use guns for hunting etc, but those people can still go hunting having proven they are a capable shot, using registered guns etc. There is of course a risk that one of those hunters will flip and use their legally owned gun to go on a rampage, but as you said, it's a numbers game. They won't be able to sell their old gun to a friend of a friend without that person having proven they are capable and ensuring they take over the legal responsibility for keeping that gun safe.
I understand that some people use guns for hunting etc, but those people can still go hunting having proven they are a capable shot, using registered guns etc. There is of course a risk that one of those hunters will flip and use their legally owned gun to go on a rampage, but as you said, it's a numbers game. They won't be able to sell their old gun to a friend of a friend without that person having proven they are capable and ensuring they take over the legal responsibility for keeping that gun safe.
Just to use another analogy, it's kinda like with cars though...
It's actually rather difficult to nick people for just being generally unfit drivers but it's really easy to nick people for quantifiable things such as speeding or drinking & driving so we tend to focus on the things that ARE easy to do.
Regarding guns, we decided to "crack down on crime" so we changed the way gun-crime statistics were compiled to include incidents involving toy guns. This created an apparent increase in gun crime and then we enacted legislation to ban toy guns with a commensurate decrease in gun crime.
In reality, of course, none of that has actually saved a single life because all it's done is ban something that was never actually dangerous and, in fact, it may have actually made things MORE dangerous because a yob who now wants "a gun" is forced to obtain a real, lethal, weapon rather than contenting themselves with a replica.
It often seems like a lot of these laws are simply designed to pacify a society that wants to see "something done" rather than to have a meaningful effect.
[QUOTE=duckymallard;6306to be honest, I gave up trying to keep up with your scattergun thought processes about 2 days back - I was getting a headache. [/QUOTE]
It's tough when you think that all guns perform the same and that people are rushing to buy guns because they are more popular since the massacre.
Just to use another analogy, it's kinda like with cars though...
It's actually rather difficult to nick people for just being generally unfit drivers but it's really easy to nick people for quantifiable things such as speeding or drinking & driving so we tend to focus on the things that ARE easy to do.
I don't know about you, but I had to prove basic competence by sitting a driving test. I know my grandfather didn't, but he'd be 100 by now, and I'm sure most alive people have had to demonstrate basic competence.
It's not going to prove that they will always be a fit driver, and some people will cheat the system, and criminals will drive without a licence. I don't hear libertarians getting upset because most people who drive have bothered to learn how to do so.
I'm pretty sure that in America they insist that you take a basic eye test once you reach a certain age to keep your licence valid, and I think the same should be done here. Technically, your licence isn't valid if your eye-sight isn't up to scratch, and when I had to give up contacts and rely on my old glasses, my optician told me I wasn't legal to drive, so I didn't.
Speeding is part of it. Drink driving is part of it. Enforcement of wearing seatbelts and child seats all contribute to the reduction of traffic related injuries and deaths. Not one of these will prevent deaths on the road, but that doesn't mean they aren't working.
I don't know about you, but I had to prove basic competence by sitting a driving test. I know my grandfather didn't, but he'd be 100 by now, and I'm sure most alive people have had to demonstrate basic competence.
It's not going to prove that they will always be a fit driver, and some people will cheat the system, and criminals will drive without a licence. I don't hear libertarians getting upset because most people who drive have bothered to learn how to do so.
I'm pretty sure that in America they insist that you take a basic eye test once you reach a certain age to keep your licence valid, and I think the same should be done here. Technically, your licence isn't valid if your eye-sight isn't up to scratch, and when I had to give up contacts and rely on my old glasses, my optician told me I wasn't legal to drive, so I didn't.
Speeding is part of it. Drink driving is part of it. Enforcement of wearing seatbelts and child seats all contribute to the reduction of traffic related injuries and deaths. Not one of these will prevent deaths on the road, but that doesn't mean they aren't working.
I agree regarding the part about licensing.
That wasn't what my post was about though.
My post was about the apparent preference for demanding simplistic action as a means of creating a "band-aid" solution, which isn't likely to work.
How many people per year do you think get nicked for having below-standard eyesight compared with the amount that get nicked for speeding?
It seems quite apparent that one type of enforcement is preferred to the other.
It's even tougher when some folks confuse perform and function.
I wonder if, in practical terms, anybody would like to take a run at explaining how an "assault rifle" with a 10 round capacity magazine is likely to be more dangerous than a revolver with a similar capacity in these incidents?
I wonder if, in practical terms, anybody would like to take a run at explaining how an "assault rifle" with a 10 round capacity magazine is likely to be more dangerous than a revolver with a similar capacity in these incidents?
Jesus Si, don't confuse the poor chap anymore than he alrfeady is!
He'll go off on one of his damned tangents and god knows where we'll find him next.
My post was about the apparent preference for demanding simplistic action as a means of creating a "band-aid" solution, which isn't likely to work.
How many people per year do you think get nicked for having below-standard eyesight compared with the amount that get nicked for speeding?
It seems quite apparent that one type of enforcement is preferred to the other.
My post was about why it's not excuse to ignore sensible, easy precautions because some other precautions are more difficult and harder to implement.
I'd happily require all holders of driving licences to submit proof of acceptable eye-sight every ten years or so. It wouldn't catch everyone, but it wouldn't be too arduous and it would remind people that it is actually important, so they'll hopefully check more often themselves for their personal peace of mind. A bit like more responsible drivers checking oil and tyre pressure or taking their car in for a service between MOTs.
I'd love to see tail-gaters be taken to task more often, but it doesn't mean I think it's OK to drive at 50 mph along a residential street either.
It's even tougher when some folks confuse perform and function.
Are you trying to say that an object cannot perform a task. Then you would be wrong. Not that it matters but you are misinterpreting most of what other posters are saying.
Are you trying to say that an object cannot perform a task. Then you would be wrong. Not that it matters but you are misinterpreting most of what other posters are saying.
I was responding to your comment that I somehow believe that all guns perform the same.
I'm merely correcting you. All guns do not perform the same, they do however function the same
Similarly all ammuniton does not perform the same, but it does function the same.
For example:
.22 rifle - effective range is 150 yards
7.62mm M24 rifle - effective range up around 800-1000 yards.
Now they both function the same, in that you put a round in, depress the trigger and off the round goes, but as you can see by the figures, they most certainly do not perform the same.
You haven't won that pedant of the year title just yet!
I was responding to your comment that I somehow believe that all guns perform the same.
I'm merely correcting you. All guns do not perform the same, they do however function the same
Similarly all ammuniton does not perform the same, but it does function the same.
For example:
.22 rifle - effective range is 150 yards
7.62mm M24 rifle - effective range up around 800-1000 yards.
Now they both function the same, in that you put a round in, depress the trigger and off the round goes, but as you can see by the figures, they most certainly do not perform the same.
You haven't won that pedant of the year title just yet!
I thought it is you who keep trying to pass off all guns as equal when clearly they are not. You even do this by comparing a semi automatic with a small number of rounds to a revolver. You neglect to compare to a semi automatic shooting 20 rounds in 5.3 seconds.
I thought it is you who keep trying to pass off all guns as equal when clearly they are not. You even do this by comparing a semi automatic with a small number of rounds to a revolver. You neglect to compare to a semi automatic shooting 20 rounds in 5.3 seconds.
For *&%$ sake!!!!! :mad:
I don't know why I bother with you B. You clearly have a very limited knowledge of firearms and appear to be completely unwilling to learn anything.
I posted links to videos yesterday showing you;
1.How fast a semi automatic can be fired
2.How fast a revolver can be fired
3.Smith and Wesson latest 50 cal revolver.
Did you not bother to actually watch and take in what you were seeing?
I don't know why I bother with you B. You clearly have a very limited knowledge of firearms and appear to be completely unwilling to learn anything.
I posted links to videos yesterday showing you;
1.How fast a semi automatic can be fired
2.How fast a revolver can be fired
3.Smith and Wesson latest 50 cal revolver.
Did you not bother to actually watch and take in what you were seeing?
The poster Veri explained to you in post 1534 why semi automatics are NOT the same as revolvers. And that you yourself pointed out they are faster to reload.
Also the S&W 500 has been banned already by various city councils. So that video is not really relevant to the debate.
Speed loaders would obviously be illegal under gun control.
Comments
As they do here in the UK. They modify the AR-15 by adding a cocking lever to the breech assembly and removing the gas activated reloading, making it the same as any bolt action rifle.
Oh I'm keeping up old chap, you on the other hand are still not thinking it through.
I will say again, you're basing your accusation that Mrs Lanza is responsible for her son getting access to her weapons, on the assumption that the attack upon her began with her being shot.
I wonder if I can change my username to Juror #8?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-SeKsVm7YE
Or just require people to use the regular charging handle before every shot.
Not as easy as with a dedicated charging handle but I'm such a fashion-victim.
That and it means I can use a regular AR15 upper rather than a slotted one.
Thing is, even if they decide to ban semi-auto guns (can't really see that) companies can even get around that with minimal effort.
You can already buy "lever-action" AR15s which have a hinged pistol-grip which cycles the action and, in the face of a ban, I suspect it wouldn't be long before somebody invents a mechanism whereby the bolt recocks the hammer but a double-action trigger chambers the next round, thus making the gun NOT, technically, semi-automatic.
Or, in short, they're on a hiding to nothing.
People are on high alert for copycats.
That's what I said earlier.
If they are going to make changes, then make them in relation to suitability of the firearms holder - something which is perhaps achievable, not foolproof, but within the realms of possibility.
Looking at a variety of (evil) pro-gun websites in the USA, there's a lot of talk about organising armed volunteer groups to stand watch around schools.
I can see this ending in tears.
There were comments on some news sites on Monday, that many schools had ended armed security guard coverage due to budget capping etc.
Somehow think the budgets may be available now.
I understand that some people use guns for hunting etc, but those people can still go hunting having proven they are a capable shot, using registered guns etc. There is of course a risk that one of those hunters will flip and use their legally owned gun to go on a rampage, but as you said, it's a numbers game. They won't be able to sell their old gun to a friend of a friend without that person having proven they are capable and ensuring they take over the legal responsibility for keeping that gun safe.
Gawd, I love the Comfort Dogs. Don't know why, I'm not even a dog-lover.
Just to use another analogy, it's kinda like with cars though...
It's actually rather difficult to nick people for just being generally unfit drivers but it's really easy to nick people for quantifiable things such as speeding or drinking & driving so we tend to focus on the things that ARE easy to do.
Regarding guns, we decided to "crack down on crime" so we changed the way gun-crime statistics were compiled to include incidents involving toy guns. This created an apparent increase in gun crime and then we enacted legislation to ban toy guns with a commensurate decrease in gun crime.
Yay! Job done. Look everybody, we've decreased gun crime!
In reality, of course, none of that has actually saved a single life because all it's done is ban something that was never actually dangerous and, in fact, it may have actually made things MORE dangerous because a yob who now wants "a gun" is forced to obtain a real, lethal, weapon rather than contenting themselves with a replica.
It often seems like a lot of these laws are simply designed to pacify a society that wants to see "something done" rather than to have a meaningful effect.
It's tough when you think that all guns perform the same and that people are rushing to buy guns because they are more popular since the massacre.
It's not going to prove that they will always be a fit driver, and some people will cheat the system, and criminals will drive without a licence. I don't hear libertarians getting upset because most people who drive have bothered to learn how to do so.
I'm pretty sure that in America they insist that you take a basic eye test once you reach a certain age to keep your licence valid, and I think the same should be done here. Technically, your licence isn't valid if your eye-sight isn't up to scratch, and when I had to give up contacts and rely on my old glasses, my optician told me I wasn't legal to drive, so I didn't.
Speeding is part of it. Drink driving is part of it. Enforcement of wearing seatbelts and child seats all contribute to the reduction of traffic related injuries and deaths. Not one of these will prevent deaths on the road, but that doesn't mean they aren't working.
I agree regarding the part about licensing.
That wasn't what my post was about though.
My post was about the apparent preference for demanding simplistic action as a means of creating a "band-aid" solution, which isn't likely to work.
How many people per year do you think get nicked for having below-standard eyesight compared with the amount that get nicked for speeding?
It seems quite apparent that one type of enforcement is preferred to the other.
It's even tougher when some folks confuse perform and function.
I wonder if, in practical terms, anybody would like to take a run at explaining how an "assault rifle" with a 10 round capacity magazine is likely to be more dangerous than a revolver with a similar capacity in these incidents?
Jesus Si, don't confuse the poor chap anymore than he alrfeady is!
He'll go off on one of his damned tangents and god knows where we'll find him next.
I'd happily require all holders of driving licences to submit proof of acceptable eye-sight every ten years or so. It wouldn't catch everyone, but it wouldn't be too arduous and it would remind people that it is actually important, so they'll hopefully check more often themselves for their personal peace of mind. A bit like more responsible drivers checking oil and tyre pressure or taking their car in for a service between MOTs.
I'd love to see tail-gaters be taken to task more often, but it doesn't mean I think it's OK to drive at 50 mph along a residential street either.
Are you trying to say that an object cannot perform a task. Then you would be wrong. Not that it matters but you are misinterpreting most of what other posters are saying.
I was responding to your comment that I somehow believe that all guns perform the same.
I'm merely correcting you. All guns do not perform the same, they do however function the same
Similarly all ammuniton does not perform the same, but it does function the same.
For example:
.22 rifle - effective range is 150 yards
7.62mm M24 rifle - effective range up around 800-1000 yards.
Now they both function the same, in that you put a round in, depress the trigger and off the round goes, but as you can see by the figures, they most certainly do not perform the same.
You haven't won that pedant of the year title just yet!
I thought it is you who keep trying to pass off all guns as equal when clearly they are not. You even do this by comparing a semi automatic with a small number of rounds to a revolver. You neglect to compare to a semi automatic shooting 20 rounds in 5.3 seconds.
For *&%$ sake!!!!! :mad:
I don't know why I bother with you B. You clearly have a very limited knowledge of firearms and appear to be completely unwilling to learn anything.
I posted links to videos yesterday showing you;
1.How fast a semi automatic can be fired
2.How fast a revolver can be fired
3.Smith and Wesson latest 50 cal revolver.
Did you not bother to actually watch and take in what you were seeing?
I think, perhaps, some people are more intent on indulging in debate than actually considering the subject being discussed, TBH.
http://www.newson6.com/story/20375570/tulsa-school-locked-down-after-shots-fired-nearby
The poster Veri explained to you in post 1534 why semi automatics are NOT the same as revolvers. And that you yourself pointed out they are faster to reload.
Also the S&W 500 has been banned already by various city councils. So that video is not really relevant to the debate.
Speed loaders would obviously be illegal under gun control.