Republicans: continued

[Tero]

I'm playing this Boebert game
BD4230C2-579E-47DF-8CD6-CC8FD516DD2B.jpeg

You can't argue with it. She's not going to accept that she doesn't know enough to see what's wrong with what she said, and you can't force her to learn anything.

Yeah, well, never could Trump. Man tweets and then counts the million likes. He read tweets, but not replies to him. But you could always mess with Trump supporters. It's not the same now.

[Cunt]

People who use the phrase 'assault weapon' when discussing firearms regulation, out themselves as too ignorant to join the conversation.

I would assume

You sound like a guy who knows neither firearms science/technology, nor law.

Just perfect for a school or mall massacre...

But you know how to hint at scary stories, while displaying that lack.

[JimC]

People who use the phrase 'assault weapon' when discussing firearms regulation, out themselves as too ignorant to join the conversation.

I would assume

You sound like a guy who knows neither firearms science/technology, nor law.

Just perfect for a school or mall massacre...

But you know how to hint at scary stories, while displaying that lack.

I have done a hell of a lot of shooting in my time, including owning and firing an M1 Garand, with a 30 shot magazine (handed in in a gun amnesty many years ago). So, are you denying that "the general class of semi-automatic rifles, with large capacity magazines, in the same calibre as modern infantry weapons (typically .223), with a size and weight that's not too high" are readily available for purchase in the US?

They clearly are available. Perhaps it is lazy terminology to call them "assault weapons", but they certainly (aside from the lack of a fully automatic or burst fire function) can serve most of the purposes of modern infantry weapons. In most respects, they are weapons optimised for killing human beings at near or medium range.

From Wikipedia:

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles.

For example:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 180 metres (200 yd).[17]
Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL, M14, and H&K G3 main battle rifles are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

So, in a technical sense, the Colt AR-15 (representative of similar rifles available for civilian purchase in the US) is not an assault rifle, in not having select-fire capabilities (which of course means being able to switch to fully auto fire). However, I gather it is possible for a skilled gunsmith to add that capability - it has occurred in the US. However, they fulfil all the other criteria for that category, and are much in demand by survivalist types, who clearly would want them to serve as infantry weapons.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Yeah. You need to distract the little ones with bourbon instead.

Poverty and hunger. And Roy moore.

[Cunt]

I have done a hell of a lot of shooting in my time, including owning and firing an M1 Garand, with a 30 shot magazine (handed in in a gun amnesty many years ago). So, are you denying that "the general class of semi-automatic rifles, with large capacity magazines, in the same calibre as modern infantry weapons (typically .223), with a size and weight that's not too high" are readily available for purchase in the US?

Then why use the clarion call of the ignorant to make your point?

Classing weapons is notoriously hard, and might be moot.

They clearly are available. Perhaps it is lazy terminology to call them "assault weapons",

It's lazy and DOGSHIT stupid, because of its lack of clarity. It doesn't help that anyone who knows anything about guns knows that it is inadequate for crafting law.

If someone wanted to advocate for better gun laws somewhere, I would suggest avoiding that term like the plague, first for being a shitty term as seen by gun enthusiasts, and second because of how useless it would be to lawyers.

I don't know where to put a gun law, that it doesn't serve authoritarians more than it serves individuals (my favourite minority). Canada just made an arbitrary list. I doubt it is very well informed, but there has to be some way.

You do understand that, laws be damned, any plucky kid with a few hundred bucks can print his own, in your town, right?

[JimC]

All that does not change the point that rifles such as the AR-15, with the capacity of military assault rifles, minus only the full auto mode, are readily available in the US, and have been used to kill multiple innocent people on many occasions. And the "print a gun" thing is a red herring, since it is vastly easier (at least in the US) to buy one, and be pretty sure it won't blow up in your hand...

I'm exceedingly glad I'm in a civilised country, one that does not allow such weapons (or pistols) to be freely available.

[Cunt]

Yes, with your compliant population, the government should offer a car buy-back too.

And no, I'm not joking.

I don't know the 15, but if I needed a rifle (for the usual local needs) I would probably go with a cheap kit - SKS, .22lr and a 12.

I think that breaks all your rules, but it isn't even beyond a very basic kit.

Canada has the best of both worlds. Guns everywhere, like in the US, but not near the gun crime. We get some, and it's always horrifying, but I think there is a balance, especially knowing that for a lot of the people most vulnerable to authoritarians, they are a necessary day to day tool. I live in a city, and nearly never see them, but 10km out, and in all teeny communities surrounding, there are several good reasons to have one.

Like I said, I don't know the answer, but I try very hard to stay sensitive to a valued perspective. If I may, I would like to encourage you to, as well. Picture living in Colville Lake. Up to recently, there was no RCMP outpost, and maybe no nursing station either. It's a modern place, with oil-heated lovely homes, internet, an unusual mix of modern and frontier.

That JimC, living in Colville Lake, will surely see different 'thumb rules' around firearms, like what is worth having around etc. Also would be a bit leery of trusting a modern supply chain, what with endless hammering by the invaders over the decades and centuries past.

[pErvinalia]

How many times has a citizen of Colville Lake used their gun to foil a crime? Or even more specifically defended themselves from an authoritarian?

[Cunt]

I was talking to JimC, who might take it seriously, but in short I don't know.

Can you picture it? Living there? I find it very tough to picture some of the small-town elements of it. Especially trying to empathize with the history. I try to, by celebrating some of the traditions, and other ways. I would actually recommend it.

[JimC]

Yes, with your compliant population, the government should offer a car buy-back too.

And no, I'm not joking.

I don't know the 15, but if I needed a rifle (for the usual local needs) I would probably go with a cheap kit - SKS, .22lr and a 12.

I think that breaks all your rules, but it isn't even beyond a very basic kit.

Canada has the best of both worlds. Guns everywhere, like in the US, but not near the gun crime. We get some, and it's always horrifying, but I think there is a balance, especially knowing that for a lot of the people most vulnerable to authoritarians, they are a necessary day to day tool. I live in a city, and nearly never see them, but 10km out, and in all teeny communities surrounding, there are several good reasons to have one.

Like I said, I don't know the answer, but I try very hard to stay sensitive to a valued perspective. If I may, I would like to encourage you to, as well. Picture living in Colville Lake. Up to recently, there was no RCMP outpost, and maybe no nursing station either. It's a modern place, with oil-heated lovely homes, internet, an unusual mix of modern and frontier.

That JimC, living in Colville Lake, will surely see different 'thumb rules' around firearms, like what is worth having around etc. Also would be a bit leery of trusting a modern supply chain, what with endless hammering by the invaders over the decades and centuries past.

We can possess quite an array of guns, if one is a registered shooter (and that is not hard to obtain). Bolt or lever action rifles of any caliber, an various sorts of shotguns. Farmers, in addition, can obtain special permits for semi-automatics for a variety of farm purposes. Lots of hunting occurs in Oz (I used to myself), often very ethically sound (I count hunting ethical if it is either for food or to remove feral pests - sometimes both reasons apply...). We have a large number of feral, introduced animals, including deer, pigs, goats, rabbits, foxes and water buffalo. Red kangaroos are also hunted; their populations have more than doubled since white settlement, due to increased water supply, so hunting them for food is perfectly reasonable.

And I don't know whether you are implying that living in a remote community (of which there are plenty here) requires firearms for self defence. That is simply an argument of despair, if you mean defence against other humans. It is probably true that in Canada, perhaps one might need to shoot a marauding bear, but that is not an issue here. People in remote areas of Oz probably do own more firearms than city folk, mainly because there are more opportunities for hunting, which is perfectly reasonable.

[pErvinalia]

in short I don't know.

Word to that.

[Cunt]

Yes, with your compliant population, the government should offer a car buy-back too.

And no, I'm not joking.

I don't know the 15, but if I needed a rifle (for the usual local needs) I would probably go with a cheap kit - SKS, .22lr and a 12.

I think that breaks all your rules, but it isn't even beyond a very basic kit.

Canada has the best of both worlds. Guns everywhere, like in the US, but not near the gun crime. We get some, and it's always horrifying, but I think there is a balance, especially knowing that for a lot of the people most vulnerable to authoritarians, they are a necessary day to day tool. I live in a city, and nearly never see them, but 10km out, and in all teeny communities surrounding, there are several good reasons to have one.

Like I said, I don't know the answer, but I try very hard to stay sensitive to a valued perspective. If I may, I would like to encourage you to, as well. Picture living in Colville Lake. Up to recently, there was no RCMP outpost, and maybe no nursing station either. It's a modern place, with oil-heated lovely homes, internet, an unusual mix of modern and frontier.

That JimC, living in Colville Lake, will surely see different 'thumb rules' around firearms, like what is worth having around etc. Also would be a bit leery of trusting a modern supply chain, what with endless hammering by the invaders over the decades and centuries past.

We can possess quite an array of guns, if one is a registered shooter (and that is not hard to obtain). Bolt or lever action rifles of any caliber, an various sorts of shotguns. Farmers, in addition, can obtain special permits for semi-automatics for a variety of farm purposes. Lots of hunting occurs in Oz (I used to myself), often very ethically sound (I count hunting ethical if it is either for food or to remove feral pests - sometimes both reasons apply...). We have a large number of feral, introduced animals, including deer, pigs, goats, rabbits, foxes and water buffalo. Red kangaroos are also hunted; their populations have more than doubled since white settlement, due to increased water supply, so hunting them for food is perfectly reasonable.

And I don't know whether you are implying that living in a remote community (of which there are plenty here) requires firearms for self defence. That is simply an argument of despair, if you mean defence against other humans. It is probably true that in Canada, perhaps one might need to shoot a marauding bear, but that is not an issue here. People in remote areas of Oz probably do own more firearms than city folk, mainly because there are more opportunities for hunting, which is perfectly reasonable.

You do seem to get the city/country difference, but maybe aren't getting the oppressed people disarmed by invaders angle...

[JimC]

Not interested in the slightest in the "we need firearms to defeat oppressors" NRA bullshit.

[Cunt]

It isn't NRA bullshit.

You don't know what you are talking about, and no reason you should. I asked you to try to empathize with that population, but don't require it.

[Hermit]

Canada has the best of both worlds. Guns everywhere, like in the US

Not quite.

Estimate of civilian firearms per 100 persons
USA -120.5
Canada - 34.7