Three separate shootings in UK in last week

Still an AR

 

They can call a Ruger bolt action rifle an AR-15, but it doesn't make it one.

 

I meant people can still get ARs. Wasn’t referring to any specific brand.

 

[QUOTE="HonestJoe, post: 1069142778, member: 51921"}My core point remains that the entire basis for the thread (and countless like it) is flawed and dishonest. The idea that any instance of gun crime automatically means gun control "doesn't work" is ridiculous. As I said, the implication would be that any instance of crime would mean the laws against that crime don't work either.[/QUOTE]

And as I pointed out several times, gun control laws only effect the law abiding. Criminals don't give a damn about laws.

Maybe if we got tougher on criminals that are violent and misuse firearms, we wouldn't have the problems that we do.
And maybe if we required pharmacies to report those individuals on anti depressants, kids on Ritalin, etc. Many mental people would not be able to purchase firearms.

But your right to freedom of choice ends when it affects my right to choose.

 

Tougher on criminals that are violent and misuse firearms how? Are you saying we don’t arrest people for committing violent crimes?
As for requiring pharmacies to report people on anti depressants, are you not a fan of a persons right to privacy? Being on anti depressants does not mean that person is ‘mental’.

 

so if a state banned the Catholic Church you'd claim its adherents weren't denied their first amendment rights because they could attend Episcopal or Scottish Rite services?

 

How we get tougher on crime. Mandatory sentencing laws...a felon in possession of a firearm is ten years per weapon and ten years per round of ammunition. So a felon in possession of a semi auto pistol and 50 rounds of ammo would get 510 years, no parole.

Hey everyone wants to ban people with mental health issues, this is one way around physician/patient privelage. Pharmacies are currently protected. The only way a person could be denied is if they were adjudicated mentally unfit.

 

Wouldn’t that apply to all criminal law though, not just gun control? Why aren’t you arguing on a much wider base, to eliminate all legal restrictions and controls on things like driving, drug use, flying, trespassing, building regulations and countless other things?
You’re also grossly oversimplifying reality. People aren’t divided in to criminal and non-criminal. Much criminal use of firearms come from people who brought and owned them with perfect good intentions but for them to become weapons of convenience, by themselves or someone else with east access to them. It’ll also be much easier for career criminals to access firearms when they’re more commonplace and easily available, especially the lower-end and younger criminals who probably pose proportionately more risk.

Are we not already, on both sides of the pond? That isn’t mutually exclusive with gun control after all so you’re free to propose improvements in that aspect independently of gun control. Anyway, if your line is that criminals “don’t give a damn about laws”, how would this provide any kind of deterrent?

That is gun control! There will already be records of anyone on proscribed medicines though I’m not sure who pharmacists would be able to “report” customers to. I’d challenge the idea that anyone who is proscribed any form of anti-depressant should be automatically banned from owning firearms but I’m glad you agree that mental health should be one of the factors on which legitimate restrictions can be applied.

 

Oh please. An AR that doesn’t have a pistol grip or collapsible butt stock is still an AR. It still has the same power. Unless you think not having a collapsible butt stock makes a gun less powerful. Do you?

 

This is why you are not in a position of implementing laws. We’re all grateful.

 

One of the AR's greatest assets is its modularity and adjustability to fit each shooter. The ability to adjust the AR's stock to fit creates a utility that cannot be underestimated.

I've handed the "politically correct" AR. Instead of being an ergonomic wonder it gets reduced to an awkward handling animal poorly suited for any application.

My wife is much smaller statured than I am. A conventional length stock is too short for her; while an AR stock dropped in two clicks fits her like a glove.

 

Funny. I've never had a problem shooting "politically correct" ARs.

 

Is everyone the same size as you? With the same length arms, width of shoulder, and proper range of motion available?

 

The ARs I shot were not fitted to me. I was able to adjust to the guns no problem. That's all I'm saying.

 

If a stock is too long, there is no way to "adjust" to the guns. You will not be able to control them or wield them effectively or safely, and that gets the wrong people killed.

 

And where and why exactly are you in a situation where shooting your AR could get the wrong people killed? You're not carrying an AR when you're in public, correct? If you're at a gun range and can't handle an AR to the point where you are shooting people directly beside or behind you then you have NO business shooting a gun at all.

 

Under stress, in a crisis situation. In my home, for example, the primary defensive long gun is a rifle that properly fits my wife. She can access it, handle it, and use it with exemplary skill...BECAUSE THE RIFLE FITS HER. If she was forced to use a rifle that did not fit her correctly in a crisis situation the wrong person getting killed might be her, and that is utterly and completely unacceptable.

 

The ARs I have fired have close to really no recoil at all. Shouldn't matter the size of the gun, as long as one hand is on the trigger and the other on the barrel she should have no issues.

 

Recently the Glock firearms manufacturing company introduced the fifth generation of their line of semi-automatic pistols. However firearm-related restrictions in the state of California legally prohibit not only the possession, but also the sale of any Glock pistol that was introduced after the third generation. The state of California has specifically outlawed the ownership of any modern and current firearm manufactured by the Glock company, meaning that only outdated models may legally be owned.

 

Then ultimately what was the legitimate justification in prohibiting the above mentioned features, if ultimately it does not change anything of substance?

 

No idea why. The lethality of the gun did not change by having those features. Meaning if you were shot point blank with an AR with a pistol grip it wouldn’t do more damage than the same gun without a pistol grip. But by putting those features on the list that opened the door for a loophole where gun makers just made the same exact gun without those features.

 

Every time a Democrat bans a gun based on features an engineer somewhere says "hold my beer"

 

So true

 

you are not being accurate. the second amendment is a blanket ban. The government doesn't get the power to ban certain types of rifles upon the creation and availability of others

 

In MA, up until this year the ‘assault’ weapons ban was for ‘assault’ weapons that had two or more of...pistol grip, collapsible butt stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount or grenade launcher. As long as the gun didn’t have two or more of those things it was legal to buy. That’s how the gun makers got around the ban.