What's new
By:

Steve Kerr's Passionate Personal Stand on Gun Control

dalamon said:
Searched modified AR-15 mass sbooting, and this came up instantly.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles...o-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057

It's very obvious that people would modify them more frequently if it was actually of huge use. But with smaller magazine sizes and amount that u can carry on u (I.e. Limited munitions) and the difficulty of controlling a rapid-shooting rifle to ppl outside of the military, it makes it quite obvious why there isn't a huge desire for modification. Mass murderers aren't morons. Google gives you thousands of hits on how to make commonly accessible rifles fully automatic.

The point here is that it can be done, though.
Click to expand...

Lmao.

They altered how the magazines are released, now how the gun fires. Do you understand the difference?

Look, of course you can make a semi auto a full auto. It's not easy, you're pretty likely to end up with a gun that won't fire, but it is possible. So of course it can be done. But has it? You still haven't given any link to a shooting where it has happened.
 
dalamon said:
Here's a link that explicitly states the San Bernardino shooter making the gun fully automatic

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/san-bernardino-shooting-high-capacity-magazine-clips/


Pls proceed to suck a dick ;)
Click to expand...

Actually that's not what it said.

It said it had been changed with the intent of making it fully automatic, not that they did make it fully automatic. Pretty important wording there.

In fact, here's a direct quote from the ATF agent: "The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said."

Also, for someone who bitches about right wing/biased news sources, I'm just shocked you would link to the trace, which is admittedly biased against guns and funded by Michael Bloomberg. Shocked I tell you.

Proceed to suck a fat hairy dick.
 
#bern said:
Actually that's not what it said.

It said it had been changed with the intent of making it fully automatic, not that they did make it fully automatic. Pretty important wording there.

In fact, here's a direct quote from the ATF agent: "The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said."

Also, for someone who bitches about right wing/biased news sources, I'm just shocked you would link to the trace, which is admittedly biased against guns and funded by Michael Bloomberg. Shocked I tell you.

Proceed to suck a fat hairy dick.
Click to expand...

ATF agents are biased too? Dang, news to me. Also, I'm enjoying watching u grasp at straws. Truly.
 
dalamon said:
ATF agents are biased too? Dang, news to me. Also, I'm enjoying watching u grasp at straws. Truly.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?

One source says "with the intent to...", the other source says "in an attempt to..."

Neither one said that it actually worked. But hey, you do you.
 
#bern said:
Actually that's not what it said.

It said it had been changed with the intent of making it fully automatic, not that they did make it fully automatic. Pretty important wording there.

In fact, here's a direct quote from the ATF agent: "The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said."

Also, for someone who bitches about right wing/biased news sources, I'm just shocked you would link to the trace, which is admittedly biased against guns and funded by Michael Bloomberg. Shocked I tell you.

Proceed to suck a fat hairy dick.
Click to expand...

No wonder you're a virgin. Shave that ****.
 
bigb said:
What a dumb ***. Automatic weapons are illegal. If he's basing it off the standards of 1776, women and African Americans still wouldn't be able to vote (or hold office).
Click to expand...

It's pretty safe to assume that when people like Kerr refer to automatic weapons, it makes sense to replace rapid, fire large magazine rifles capable of discharging multiple rounds within a short period of time and easily reloadable. You know, the kind of rifles one might take into a target dense environment and shoot/kill multiple people at a rate of hundred+ rounds per minute. Plus, for a few hundred $ one can modify an AR15 to become a fully automatic weapon, and this is perfectly legal.

As for the second part of your reply, you're not even close to understanding the point he was trying to make. I doubt you even tried to understand it.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
It's pretty safe to assume that when people like Kerr refer to automatic weapons, it makes sense to replace rapid, fire large magazine rifles capable of discharging multiple rounds within a short period of time and easily reloadable. You know, the kind of rifles one might take into a target dense environment and shoot/kill multiple people at a rate of hundred+ rounds per minute. Plus, for a few hundred $ one can modify an AR15 to become a fully automatic weapon, and this is perfectly legal.

As for the second part of your reply, you're not even close to understanding the point he was trying to make. I doubt you even tried to understand it.
Click to expand...
Why is that "safe to assume"? Based on the statement, I think it's safe to assume he's not educated enough to speak on the subject.

As for the second part: well, apparently you're the expert on what other people mean, so I'm not going to bother.
 
bigb said:
Why is that "safe to assume"? Based on the statement, I think it's safe to assume he's not educated enough to speak on the subject.

As for the second part: well, apparently you're the expert on what other people mean, so I'm not going to bother.
Click to expand...

It's safe to assume based on the context of such statements. If one is only left to interpret meaning by the most literal interpretation available, then communication is rendered almost impossible.

I'm not an expert in what people mean, but at least I do try to understand what they mean, and this includes taking into account context. Honestly, I don't see why this is a hard concept to grasp.
 
Maybe if you don't have the understanding to figure out the difference between a semi auto and a full auto, you shouldn't be talking about what we need to do with guns. As evidenced in this thread, some people are clueless on the matter.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
It's safe to assume based on the context of such statements. If one is only left to interpret meaning by the most literal interpretation available, then communication is rendered almost impossible.

I'm not an expert in what people mean, but at least I do try to understand what they mean, and this includes taking into account context. Honestly, I don't see why this is a hard concept to grasp.
Click to expand...
Oh, so it's one of those "listen to what I mean, not what I say" scenarios? I've always wondered when I can get away with that. I usually just use it on my 4 year old when I tell him to quit hitting his sister but I really mean "quit being a **** head you devil incarnate". Note I know I can just talk out of my *** whenever I want and claim to be "taken out of context".
 
#bern said:
Maybe if you don't have the understanding to figure out the difference between a semi auto and a full auto, you shouldn't be talking about what we need to do with guns. As evidenced in this thread, some people are clueless on the matter.
Click to expand...
I think that if you don't know the ins and outs of all things gun, you can still have an opinion about them and how you think they should be regulated.
 
fishonjazz said:
I think that if you don't know the ins and outs of all things gun, you can still have an opinion about them and how you think they should be regulated.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can. But when that opinion on what and how it should be regulated is based on factually incorrect information it loses weight. As it should.
 
dalamon said:
I doubt there are many, namely because semi-automatic weapons are much easier to use for amateur gun owners. I bet you, with limited ammunition, a person could kill more people with a semi-auto AK than a fully automatic one
Click to expand...

[MENTION=26]Gameface[/MENTION] is our resident gun expert and maybe he could clarify, but I'm guessing this is highly probable (unless we are talking humvee or aircraft mounted 50 cal's). There is a reason military personnel use either single fire or triple fire for the most part instead of fully auto.

The thing I find interesting about Dalamon's points is that he is essentially claiming that un-banning fully auto weapons would save lives in mass shootings.
 
I believe within 10-20 years AR-15 type weapons will be put on the Class III list. That's why I plan on investing about $10k in them at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top