|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Aurora Colorado Violence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 340 Joined:
|
Despite the fact that I'm from Texas, and I can still see that in some circumstances the death penalty seems more than warranted... I can no longer support it, for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the gusto with which is enacted in some states more so than others, and sometimes in circumstances that are by no means "beyond reasonable doubt". I.e. any system run by humans will have failures, and I don't want my grandchildren or other loved ones to end up one of those accidents.
The European Convention on Human Rights prohibits capital punishment, and I personally believe that is a stance which the world as a whole ought to eventually adopt. That's just my opinion. excerpt from European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia
quote: Edited by Briterican, : No reason given. Edited by Briterican, : added to the quote and credited it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Thanks - educating myself a little more now. The civilian AR-15 is apparently only capable of firing one round for each pull of the trigger.
I had misunderstood "semi-automatic" - I had thought it meant firing three rounds per burst, as distinct from a continuous burst until the magazine ran out of ammunition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't know whether the reports over here are accurate, but I understand that one of the weapons used was an AR-15 assault rifle. My understanding is, that's correct. But the AR-15 is a popular rifle simply because of its versatility - it's light, accurate, and chambered for a variety of popular rounds. It's a highly modular weapon, allowing for a wide variety of customization of the receiver, forestock, buttstock, and accessory rail. Here's a picture of what is legally considered an individual AR-15: Everything else that you would need to construct a functional rifle around this is, legally, an aftermarket accessory.
What rationale do the NRA and other opponents of gun control offer, in support of the public being able to buy assault rifles ? What do you think an "assault rifle" is? Weapons that can fire on any fully-automatic or multi-shot mode have never been legal for civilian purchase. What's the legal determination you would put forward to determine whether a rifle is an "assault" rifle or not? If a guy kills his wife and children by smashing their heads in with a Craftsman 12" framing hammer, does that make it an "assault hammer"? There's 100 reasonable justifications for which someone would own an AR-15, not the least of which is that, statistically, it's a lot less deadly than a handgun. But having said all that, I can't think of a single reason why anyone not in the service or the police should be allowed to purchase a magazine that holds more than seven rounds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Calling a gun an "assault weapon" based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine is completely retarded.
You can put a pistol grip, folding stock, and banana mag on a .22 and there'd be no good reason to call it an "assault weapon". What we're dealing with is people who know nothing about guns trying to write laws about them. Its like the people who back SOPA not knowing anything about the internet.
The civilian AR-15 is apparently only capable of firing one round for each pull of the trigger. I had misunderstood "semi-automatic" - I had thought it meant firing three rounds per burst, as distinct from a continuous burst until the magazine ran out of ammunition. Er... you can still bump fire with semi. They even make a sliding stock for it now! Military Gun Supply This is a semi-automatic AR-15: Only one bullet per trigger pull
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Aah ! My education continues.
Bump firing is distinguished technically from fully automatic fire, I take it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
An AR-15 rifle that someone can buy in the USA without special licensing is still a semi-automatic rifle and not an assault weapon. For each shot you need to pull the trigger, there is no automatic or even three shot burst mode.
The media is as usual simply showing its ignorance by calling it an assault rifle.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yeah, one bullet per trigger pull is semi-automatic. Automatic is multiple bullets per trigger pull. When you're bump firing, you're pulling the trigger each time a bullet comes out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
quote: I still wonder why anyone would need such a thing, if not to kill human beings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
You know, this is quite, quite insane. Assault rifle, bump firing, banana magazine....it's all an incomprehensible euphemism and pedantry.
Why would any civilised society allow these sort of weapons to be legally owned by its citizens? And why fein surprise when a fruit-loop uses them for their intended purpose?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 340 Joined:
|
In reply to no-one in particular... when will America shed its frontier mentality?
Why are guns so worshipped, their ownership being viewed as a god-given right? Every society draws the line somewhere on what "arms" it allows to proliferate within its borders. You can't have nukes. You can't have a patriot missile in your garden. So why the F should you be able to have a weapon like this? It's a legitimate question. I spent 35 years in Texas, and NEVER cared for guns. Never understood why something that has only one real purpose (killing living things) was considered so glamorous. Sure, I went hunting... single shot shotgun... you can own one of those here in the UK for hunting with a permit. What are you guys hunting that you need an AR-15 for? And, you're honestly comfortable with the ease with which such a compact death machine can be obtained by your fellow citizens? Even knowing those fellow citizens the way you do? I just don't get it... I never did when I lived there... I definitely don't now. And I'm definitely not the only one. The argument ignores reality. The argument says "you can kill someone with a brick, should we ban bricks?" The argument boils it down to "who is the government to tell me I can't have this?" for many of you. Well guess what, there's a lot of things the government tells you you can't have. That's the price you pay for living in a (relatively) civilised 21st century society. So... tell me again why you need an AR-15 any more than you need a cruise missile battery? Edited by Briterican, : "you're" not "your", dumbass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
The writers of the Consititution and the Bill of Rights, could not fathom that the 2nd Ammendment would later allow automatic and semi-automatic weapons with such deadly accuracy and lethality to be legal. I believe they would be the first to ammend it to prevent such lethal weapons from being legalized. The Ammendment stated the right to form militias and bear arms not the right to have weapons of mass destruction.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined:
|
What we're dealing with is people who know nothing about guns trying to write laws about them. Its like the people who back SOPA not knowing anything about the internet. There are many people who have experience with weapons who want tougher gun laws, myself included. Stop speaking from ignorance."It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
CS writes: I just read online that the prosecution is going to wait to see if they're going to pursue the death penalty until after speaking with the families of the victims. I think that's a good way to go about it; If the families of the victims think they'll feel better if this guy gets the death penalty, then that's reason enough for me. I have a problem with this. The deal we have with the state is that we hand over the punishment of crimes against us to the state on the understanding that they will independently and objectively deal with the offence. One reason we do this is to prevent knee jerk and violent retribution by those who are understandably distraught by their loss. It seems to me to be an abrogation of the state's role in playing out their disinterested role of justice to ask the victims families how they should proceed. How many finger nails should we pull out before we flay him, 1, 3, 7 or 10?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
The AR-15 is the predecessor to the military's now adopted M-16. It is the semi-automatic version of the M-16 which is used in all branches of service.
Again. There is no reason this weapon should be able to be purchaced legally in the same way you should not be able to legally purchace an RPG launcher or live hand grenades. These are not covered under "the right to bare arms" of the 2nd Ammendment. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given."It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I still wonder why anyone would need such a thing, if not to kill human beings. Such a what thing? A rifle? Rifles are legitimately used for target shooting and hunting. The .223 caliber that the AR-15 is chambered for is a perfectly legitimate hunting round; it's not a weird military round or something.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024