I shot four AR-15's today

Question is...does one get a woodie when blasting these thing?? That's really all that matters....cost is irrelevant when it come to gun blasting excitement..

 

The reason we believe that the bans are about looks instead of function is because we can't see a reason why those particular functions are being banned.

Let's start with the flash hider: why should that be restricted? It doesn't make you harder to see at night-it actually makes you more distinctive. It just makes night shooting a little easier. If night shooting is your fear, why aren't things like tritium sights or night vision scopes on the list?

If the banned items are about function, there will be a logical reason to restrict each function.

 

So what if it did? does that somehow make them a bad person?

 

So are you admitting that these accessories have a function or just making the gun look pretty? What reason did you add one to your weapon? Functionality or cosmetics?

If you admit that they have some function, then this function could be what we are trying to ban...................not the cosmetics it would add. Most people on this thread were unwilling to admit that these accessories add a function. They tried to pretend that these accessories didn't add function; therefore we must be trying to ban them on looks alone.

You and I both know differently, huh? These accessories DO add function!

So let's take your example:
1. Flash suppressors - So, if I am shooting at you in the dark and from 200 yards away, how in the hell are you going to see where I am shooting from if I have a flash suppressor??? Wouldn't it make it harder to see where I am shooting from? Doesn't the flash suppressor decrease the barrel flash each time I fire a round??

So the reason we want the suppressor banned is because the HUNTED have a better chance of seeing where the shooter is shooting from.

Now, if you can prove that the HUNTED would have a better chance of seeing the shooter without a flash suppressor, then Im willing to listen. But Im not quite sure how you are going to do this based on the empirical data we have on the function of the suppressor. In other words, in order to prove me wrong, you would have to prove that the suppressor does nothing at all and is just there for looks. If its just there for looks, then not having one wouldn't give the HUNTED any better of a chance of getting away! Having a flash suppressor WOULD get the target a better chance of getting away!

Are you ready to concede that these things do in fact have a function or are you going to just pretend that there is no function whatsoever; therefore we must be wanting to ban them on looks alone..........despite the fact that you admit they do have some function!!!!

Which is it? Are we trying to ban these accessories because of function(which you may or may not understand) or because there is no function whatsoever.......which only leaves cosmetics?

 

Have you ever participated in a non team sport? (man against man, women too of course.) Competed against some of the best in the country at that sport? Ever win or at least place well?
No you don't get a woodie as you mean it but you can get a wooden plaque.
Team sports are fun. The real test is when you have no other to rely upon but yourself. It makes sharing that accomplishment more difficult but the pride lasts much longer than having a few beers with your team mates.
I'd be willing to bet most folks have no idea how much time and effort goes into competing at that level.

FWIW the 308 Brit can be handloaded pretty cheap. Finding components right now might prove difficult though. Then again its a fairly old obscure round with little demand.

 

No, they actually don't work that way at all. They don't make the shooter harder to see at night, that is a common misconception. What they do is direct the flash out of the line of vision of the shooter. They do somewhat reduce the amount of flash visible to the enemy, but mostly because they reduce the amount of gas that pushes vertically, not because they make it much less bright. A person shooting a firearm with a flash supressor is still completely visible at night, he is just less blinded by the flash when he shoots.

From wikipedia:

Here is a great picture of two M-4 variants with flash suppressors firing in low-light conditions:

You'll notice the distinctive "notch" in the top of the flame pattern. That is what flash suppressors do, they make a notch that the shooter can see through so that he isn't blinded by his own muzzle flash. They don't make the flash disappear. If you ever watch a military movie where people are shooting at night, you'll probably notice a star pattern to the muzzle flashes. That is another pattern that flash suppressors create. Regardless, they don't make muzzle flash hard to see.

Since flash suppressors are used to make it easier to shoot at night, is this the function that people want to ban? If so, why not ban tritium sights and laser sights - both of which also serve the same purpose as the flash supressor?

More importantly, why only ban them when they include several other items as well? Is it acceptable to be able to shoot at night as long as you aren't able to also attach a bayonet?

 

Some politician said something really stupid about banning guns and how some "look scary" as part of their opposition against guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice beat down. I doubt he'll be back.

 

So they do serve some function? So since there is a function that means we want to ban something that has no function whatsoever?? And this function means that our reasons for banning something are based on no function at all????

I didn't say they(flash suppressors) make the shooter harder to see at night. I said that suppressing the flash makes it harder to see someone at night who is shooting at you. But no matter if the flash suppressor keeps the shooter from being blinded or if the flash suppressor makes it harder to find the shooter at night............its EVEN MORE of a reason to ban them. Because with a flash suppressor the shooter doesn't get blinded therefore he has the potential to kill more people. If he fired one round and got blinded and couldn't shoot any more, then this would be a great thing. So no wonder people want to use them. It makes it easier to see what you are trying to kill. You don't get blinded!

You see? The reason we want to ban them is still based on function, huh?


From wikipedia:

I never said they make the flash "disappear". This is YOUR qualifier and you added it to keep from understanding my point. The key word in describing the flash is "suppressor" not "eliminator". But I get your point. They dont make the flash hard to see by the target, but they do make it easier for the shooter to see his target while shooting in the dark.

But do you see how this doesn't disprove the reasons that we want to ban them. Providing another FUNCTION only gives me another reason to ban that accessory. Its based on function and whether that function makes it easier for the shooter to kill or whether it makes it harder for the target to get away(stay alive).................either of these functions are the reasons we want them banned! Not cosmetics!

So yes, since the flash suppressor makes it easier to shoot and kill at night, I wonder if this is a good reason to ban the accessory that makes this FUNCTION possible????

- - - Updated - - -

Doubting and then getting proven wrong..................should make you correct yourself. But I wonder if you are honest enough to do so!

 

Holy hell you found the function of something... after guessing wrong and then having someone explain it to you. So, answer me this; how many people have been killed at night with weapons that have flash suppressors and why does that make these weapon parts so deadly to the population that they must be banned for our safety? Hell actually just tell me why "assault rifles" need to be banned, (*)(*)(*)(*) all this parts bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Why does a weapon used in, what, 1% of murders, need to be taken from peaceful gun owners? I can give you the answer now; the ban is nothing more than a feel good measure for anti-gun people. It is only pushed to punish gun owners and make idiots feel like they did something when the reality of the situation is that they did nothing. Go look at the statistical analysis of the last AWB. Two studies were done, the change in violence occurring with "assault weapons" was statistically insignificant. The major reason for this is because "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes to begin with.

I'm sorry but you'd have to be an idiot to support these bans, especially when you have no idea as to what you're banning. You've just been told something is bad and are rallying against it without actually knowing what the hell you're rallying against. Like the vast majority of the anti-gunners, it's sheer ignorance fueling your fire.

 

LMAO! He doesn't know what the function is, but he's pretty sure it has one, and he's positive that it needs to be banned!

 

Isn't it a shame he doesn't understand himself as well as everyone around him does? theres gotta be a technical name for that.

 

Oh so there is no function?.............you added it because it makes your gun look pretty! LMAO!

- - - Updated - - -

So you see..........we don't want to ban something because of cosmetics. Its because of function, huh? LMAO!

 

You? Me? WTH are you talking about now? I added what to what?

 

You said it would make it harder to see where a person was shooting from. I explained that they don't work that way. They don't make it harder to see where a person is shooting from.

You still have yet to explain why, if preventing night shooting is the goal, why aren't tritium sights and laser sights included - both of those do far more to improve night shooting ability than a flash suppressor does. A night vision or thermal imaging scope does even more to make a person able to shoot at night, but those aren't on the list either. So why a flash suppressor, but not those?

More importantly: WHY ONLY BAN FLASH SUPPRESSORS IF THE RIFLE ALSO HAS A BAYONET LUG AND PISTOL GRIP? Are flash suppressors suddenly more dangerous if the person has the ability to connect a knife to the end of their rifle?

 

So there is no function to the flash suppressor? I know you don't want to admit there is! LMAO!

And that's the entertainment I am after! LOL

- - - Updated - - -

And I explained how, even if I was wrong about THAT function.............the function you listed is still a very good reason to ban them. TRY AGAIN!

 

You see? This would be very easy for you to understand if you would just be honest and tell me if the flash suppressor has a function or not. You tell me it functions by suppressing the flash, but you don't want to admit that the suppressor has a function? This is amazing, but extremely funny! LMAO!

So does the suppressor have a function or is it installed on guns just for looks???? Come on, you can be honest with me. I will not bite. Don't be scared!

 

NO, you said I added something with no function just to make it pretty. I'm asking WTF your referring too. Can you not follow your own comments?

If you could read I stated pages ago everything on this earth has a function. Well maybe not everything, whats yours?

 

I asked that because if there is NO FUNCTION..............then what's your purpose for adding it? Looking pretty?

So again you are not willing to admit that there IS function. I wonder why you CANT be honest??? Interesting, huh?

 

I never argued that they didn't have a function. Your entire argument is a strawman argument. No one actually claims that the banned features have no function. The claim is that these features weren't banned because of those functions, but were banned because they make the gun look scary and militaristic.

Part of the reason for this belief is the fact that none of the features are banned on their own or even in pairs. If the functionality was the actual target, they would be banned regardless of how many random parts were on the gun. Likewise, if the functionality was the target, all items that offer the same functionality would be banned, instead of just the ones that make your gun look like a military rifle. One more piece of evidence that the ban is about appearance is the requirement for three or more features to be on the weapon for it to be banned. These features are pretty unrelated - having one doesn't make the others more effective - but having several makes the gun look more like a military rifle. Thus the logical assumption is that the ban was about appearance instead of about the functions of the banned features.

So, please explain why only these features were chosen for the ban and why they are only banned when they come in groups of three or more, if the ban is about function and not appearance.

 

An excellent post.

It only goes to support the assertion by Wolverine that the vast majority of the anti-"assault weapon" reaction is knee-jerk and not based on facts.

 

Then you guys should admit that these things do have a function and that is the reason we are trying to ban them..................instead of pretending that they have no function and our reasons for banning them is because of looks!

Its YOUR(GOP/CON) argument that is invalid.

 

Accept that I argued from the facts! Remember, these accessories are not added because they make the gun look pretty..............they are added to increase function.

 

I'm still wondering why you can't answer a pertinent question? WHAT DID I ADD?
If you can't tell me what I added how can I possibly explain why I added it?

 

And I wasn't implying that you DID add something! Reread my post! My point was, WHY WOULD YOU ADD something that serves no purpose? Either that purpose is for functionality or cosmetics.

So if you DID add a flash suppressor what would be your reason?
So if you DIDN'T add a flash suppressor what would be your reason for doing so...........if you did?

Cosmetics or function?

 

This was your reply to me. Notice the words "You added it" You wrote them, not me.