• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brefore & After stats assault weapons ban. THE TRUTH.

lwf said:
And you don't know the first thing about gun banners or their ideas about how to reduce crime. Sounds like maybe anyone who thinks that the other side is not really being honest about their motives and is only trying to further some political "cause" is probably talking out of their ass, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

that is probably because gun banners really don't have any ideas how to reduce crime-and other than lying about the motivations for their gun bans, they never have really given that subject any thought
 
NWRatCon said:
Here's the problem with all of these debates: one side wants change, one side opposes all change regardless of degree or kind. Large majorities, including Republicans in many cases, want specific changes (e.g., universal background checks) based on logical, reasonable thinking. Are some motivated by fear? Of course, but fear can be rational, too. Anyone who doesn't have some fear of firearms is not rational.

Assault weapons have a unique place in our culture. It is not rational, it is based on perception and emotion. Some people like the look and feel of an assault weapon (and spare me the bull**** argument that "it's just like any other rifle." If it were, it wouldn't be desired or marketed so hard), some people fear it for the same reasons. Many fetishize them. Most Americans do not have personal experience with firearms. A very, very small minority have any experience with assault weapons. I'd venture to say most DP members don't either. So, most opinions are "uninformed" in that regard.

I've spent my life around firearms. I own them. I use them. I carry them. I spent 30 years in uniform (US Army, Ret.), many carrying and using assault weapons. I know the differences and I know the purposes of various weapons. I've always believed in the maxim, "the proper tool for each purpose." This thread is about one particular aspect of the gun "debate", and one particular tool, but most of the arguments are not "rational," but emotional. (Many are also just disingenuous.) I'm always willing to carry on reasoned and rational debate on the subject. It's really hard to do that when most arguments are neither. This is an argument that, for the good of the nation, needs to be resolved. It won't be here, but we can further the process if we do so in good faith.
Anyone here think we can do that?
Click to expand...

Yes it has to be the look and feel of the rifle. No way could it be the fact that the AR platform is an extremely good design that is extent versatile. Nor the fact that is it can do a wide variety of things depending on the set up. From home defense to long range shooting. And capable of all that while still being relatively inexpensive.

No. No way could it be any of that. Just has to be because people have a fetish.

Get real.

By the way still waiting for you to provide evidence of your BS.
You should stop running away and either post some proof or admit you were wrong.
 
braindrain said:
Yes it has to be the look and feel of the rifle. No way could it be the fact that the AR platform is an extremely good design that is extent versatile. Nor the fact that is it can do a wide variety of things depending on the set up. From home defense to long range shooting. And capable of all that while still being relatively inexpensive.

No. No way could it be any of that. Just has to be because people have a fetish.

Get real.

By the way still waiting for you to provide evidence of your BS.
You should stop running away and either post some proof or admit you were wrong.
Click to expand...

good points- I don't pretend to be a trained gunsmith. But because of the popularity of the AR, I can buy parts and put together a specialized rifle for several different things. For example, I wanted a good varmint gun. So I took a basic DPMS lower. Put a very stable fixed stock on it and replaced the mil spec crappy trigger with a Timney match trigger. I bought a DPMS upper with a heavy bull barrel chambered just for the .223 rounds. Attached a Harris bipod and a Burris 6-14 scope and I have a rifle that I can easily hit woodchucks at 300M with.

Another example-one of my friends wanted to shoot PCC steel with us and wanted a good reliable rig without a lot of money. We got a PSA lower. Put a really good magpul stock on it. Replaced the basic trigger with a CMC cassette 9mm trigger. Then we got a light profile 9mm upper from PSA. no bolt carrier unit or charging handle. I put a Giessele charging handle in it with a locally made (the best going) Faxon arms Bolt carrier group and put a C-More rail sight on it. It runs very well and he has won several matches with it. We didn't spend any money on any parts we didn't need save the cheap mil-spec stock that came with the lower and the mil spec trigger group. Now the entire cost of that rig was under a K and it compares favorably with some of the 1600-2000 dollar PCC rigs including the one the PSA is going to release shortly
 
TurtleDude said:
good points- I don't pretend to be a trained gunsmith. But because of the popularity of the AR, I can buy parts and put together a specialized rifle for several different things. For example, I wanted a good varmint gun. So I took a basic DPMS lower. Put a very stable fixed stock on it and replaced the mil spec crappy trigger with a Timney match trigger. I bought a DPMS upper with a heavy bull barrel chambered just for the .223 rounds. Attached a Harris bipod and a Burris 6-14 scope and I have a rifle that I can easily hit woodchucks at 300M with.

Another example-one of my friends wanted to shoot PCC steel with us and wanted a good reliable rig without a lot of money. We got a PSA lower. Put a really good magpul stock on it. Replaced the basic trigger with a CMC cassette 9mm trigger. Then we got a light profile 9mm upper from PSA. no bolt carrier unit or charging handle. I put a Giessele charging handle in it with a locally made (the best going) Faxon arms Bolt carrier group and put a C-More rail sight on it. It runs very well and he has won several matches with it. We didn't spend any money on any parts we didn't need save the cheap mil-spec stock that came with the lower and the mil spec trigger group. Now the entire cost of that rig was under a K and it compares favorably with some of the 1600-2000 dollar PCC rigs including the one the PSA is going to release shortly
Click to expand...

Higher level maintenance (I was company armorer as a cush job reward for my last six months) is not much more. The only things I don't see you doing in the above description is taking the barrel off or the trigger assembly apart. Neither is rocket science, one could read a wiki and do it.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Higher level maintenance (I was company armorer as a cush job reward for my last six months) is not much more. The only thing I don't see you doing above is taking the barrel off or the trigger assembly apart. Neither is rocket science.
Click to expand...

the cassette (aka drop in) triggers are not designed for that. Now I can give a 1911 a good trigger job and I have completely built 1911's from a bag of parts, fitting the slide, lapping in the barrel etc. But I haven't built an AR 15 the same way.
 
TurtleDude said:
the cassette (aka drop in) triggers are not designed for that. Now I can give a 1911 a good trigger job and I have completely built 1911's from a bag of parts, fitting the slide, lapping in the barrel etc. But I haven't built an AR 15 the same way.
Click to expand...

Many a company armorer (not me, I was warned) has cried to battalion maintenance, "this trigger assembly cannot be put back together!"
 
ecofarm said:
Many a company armorer (not me, I was warned) has cried to battalion maintenance, "this trigger assembly cannot be put back together!"
Click to expand...

I have a couple tools that are glorified punches that you use to re-assemble the mil spec triggers and I can do that if I have to put I replace the mil-spec ones with the cassette triggers-rather than the ones that are a collection of parts (Giessele, hiperfire) etc. So my go to trigger is the CMC though I have also used Timney, Eftman, Velocity and Rise Armaments. Going to try a TriggerTech next time one is on sale-hear really good things about them. I also use PSA "anti walk" pins when I put the triggers in. For 9mm we used to have to use purpose built CMCs but the new Bolt carrier groups-like the FAXONS are tapered so you can use any AR 15 trigger
 
TurtleDude said:
I have a couple tools that are glorified punches that you use to re-assemble the mil spec triggers and I can do that if I have to put I replace the mil-spec ones with the cassette triggers-rather than the ones that are a collection of parts (Giessele, hiperfire) etc. So my go to trigger is the CMC though I have also used Timney, Eftman, Velocity and Rise Armaments. Going to try a TriggerTech next time one is on sale-hear really good things about them. I also use PSA "anti walk" pins when I put the triggers in. For 9mm we used to have to use purpose built CMCs but the new Bolt carrier groups-like the FAXONS are tapered so you can use any AR 15 trigger
Click to expand...

A company armorer has basically three tools. A punch, a pliers-thingy that twists wire and a gauge for barrel clearance.
 
ecofarm said:
Higher level maintenance (I was company armorer as a cush job reward for my last six months) is not much more. The only things I don't see you doing in the above description is taking the barrel off or the trigger assembly apart. Neither is rocket science, one could read a wiki and do it.
Click to expand...
A year and a half ago I gave my sons and sons in law a lower receiver and kit for Christmas. Then for their birthdays that year I gave them the upper and kit. For Christmas this year I gave them stocks, magazines and a better rail system. Then we all put them together. I wanted to make sure they could completely assemble, disassemble and repair their rifles and not be dependent on a smith.

I put in a Larue MBT about a month ago and gave it a decent shakedown and it works great. We did some 2 gun run and gun in the desert today with the AR and the Glock 40...that Larue is a great trigger set up.
 
TurtleDude said:
good points- I don't pretend to be a trained gunsmith. But because of the popularity of the AR, I can buy parts and put together a specialized rifle for several different things. For example, I wanted a good varmint gun. So I took a basic DPMS lower. Put a very stable fixed stock on it and replaced the mil spec crappy trigger with a Timney match trigger. I bought a DPMS upper with a heavy bull barrel chambered just for the .223 rounds. Attached a Harris bipod and a Burris 6-14 scope and I have a rifle that I can easily hit woodchucks at 300M with.

Another example-one of my friends wanted to shoot PCC steel with us and wanted a good reliable rig without a lot of money. We got a PSA lower. Put a really good magpul stock on it. Replaced the basic trigger with a CMC cassette 9mm trigger. Then we got a light profile 9mm upper from PSA. no bolt carrier unit or charging handle. I put a Giessele charging handle in it with a locally made (the best going) Faxon arms Bolt carrier group and put a C-More rail sight on it. It runs very well and he has won several matches with it. We didn't spend any money on any parts we didn't need save the cheap mil-spec stock that came with the lower and the mil spec trigger group. Now the entire cost of that rig was under a K and it compares favorably with some of the 1600-2000 dollar PCC rigs including the one the PSA is going to release shortly
Click to expand...
Anyone that is building their own AR...they should START with buying a quality trigger. The DPMS lower kit with the trigger is junk and just dangerous IMO. We did 6 identical builds and 4 of the 6 triggers malfunctioned. 2 of them were routinely firing 2-3 rounds with a single trigger pull.
 
VanceMack said:
Anyone that is building their own AR...they should START with buying a quality trigger. The DPMS lower kit with the trigger is junk and just dangerous IMO. We did 6 identical builds and 4 of the 6 triggers malfunctioned. 2 of them were routinely firing 2-3 rounds with a single trigger pull.
Click to expand...

favorite brands?
 
TurtleDude said:
favorite brands?
Click to expand...
I'm sold on Larue. The MBT (Meticulously Built Trigger) goes in like a standard trigger and the breaking point is super crisp and clean. Ive heard good things about the Rise Armament drop in and the Timney but I havent ever used them. People should do a little digging and find out what suits them best. The cost on the MBT is $87.00 unless you can get them on sale and it hasnt moved in years. Some can go a lot higher.
 
VanceMack said:
Sure I do and Ive cited their actions which demonstrate I'm correct. You...you are just blathering.
Click to expand...

Everyone is stupid except you?
 
TurtleDude said:
that is probably because gun banners really don't have any ideas how to reduce crime-and other than lying about the motivations for their gun bans, they never have really given that subject any thought
Click to expand...

They do have ideas about how to reduce crime and they are not lying about them. They just haven't thought them through completely, and hypocritically only want their ideas to apply to certain dangerous things while leaving other more dangerous things perfectly legal.

Gun banners are not out to take your weapons away because they hate conservatives, they're out to stop mass shootings using any means possible, and are willing to make certain weapons illegal to do so. If you want to give them pause and make them think about what they are saying, accusing them of not really caring about crime is a pretty stupid strategy.
 
OscarLevant said:
More people die due to medical malfeasance than all of the above combined, I mean, why stop at 'blunt instruments' ?

Recall, in my post, "you can't ban matches or cars, but you can ban assault weapons for civilian use" ?

Matches and cars is the metaphor for anything else that can't be banned that is used to kill which would include blunt instruments.


You need to stay on point and quit introducing irrelevant data when you are designing public policy. We work with what we can do to improve the situation. We can ban assualt weapons and therefore we should, given the before and after stats of the assault weapons ban proving the law was effective, in the arena of mass murders mostly in school shootings. We are not talking about the broader concept of guns used in crimes and murders, just these mass shootings, which are terrorizing the nation. Guns are used in smaller crimes all the time and are not newsworthy, and thus are not "terrorizing the nation via the news" as assault mass shootings are. The public demands action, and repubs are preventing it.

No, we can't stop crime, but we can put a dent in it, and we should, WHEREVER POSSIBLE.


The public DEMANDS it and to not do it is to thwart the will of the people.
Click to expand...

We'll stay on point, what is an "assault weapon"? Remember semi-automatic guns (fully automatic guns are all but banned already) generally work on one of two principals blowback (ie recoil driven), or gas operated. Anything else is really cosmetic. If a gun can accept a magazine then there is really no limit on how big that magazine can be. And even if you limit a magazine to 10 rounds it take less than a second to change them out. Of course you could say ban all semi-automatic guns. But then the gun of choice would be a revolver and they would just do New York reload. This is toss the gun and grab another. Of course you do know a revolver can have more than six shots right?

Things to think about, my hunting rifle use a much more powerful round then my two "assault rifles" (both of which have been deemed assault rifles in at least one state). What funny is that if I remove ONE part from each of them they would no longer be considered an "assault rifle" In one case I'd have to remove the bayonet, in the other I would have to replace the adjustable stock. Notice that neither of those things did anything to alter the firing rate, the number of rounds they carry.

I have a picture of two rifles, they have the same barrel, take the same round, the same magazine, have the same rate of fire, work exactly the same, because they are mechanically the same, yet one is banned, and the other is not, in the same state.
 
OscarLevant said:
I should think these stats would be enough for common sense to prevail. Apparently, on the right, common sense is in short supply.

View attachment 67262986

Adam Best on Twitter: "Poway: AR-15
Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Midland/Odessa: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15"


There is a dynamic to this that the right is not capable of grasping, and that is the gun fetish culture that is driving assualts with the AR-15. These guns give gun fetishers erections, they
pose with them on the internet, even let their kids pose with them. Because during the ban these weapons
of war were not available, and given that other guns were available, as the stats prove, the boring hunting rifles were not used hardly at all. Why? Because these gun nuts are bored with boring looking and less than human efficient killing machine guns, they were not "inspired" to assault in mass shootings.

Banning then literally takes the wind out of the sails of the gun fetish crowd, of which these mass murderers are like viruses springing from this poisoned pond.


The right consistently argues that banning assault weapons will not reduce mass murderers, because those intent on killing masses of people will find other weapons.

A few will, but since most are inspired by these bad ass killing machines, the overall numbers will drop, as the assault gun fetishers will lose availability of their 'muse', and human lives will be saved. The stats prove it, there is no other explanation that I can think of.

Even if this explanation is pure conjecture, the stats prove that the ban will save lives. Just on the naked hard data alone, common sense is that they should be banned for civilian use.
How many assaults committed with fully automatic rifles ( not talking' bump stock ) ? Zero? Why? Fed regs put a lot of hurdles in the path of ownership of these weapons, and even
though they are not completely banned, acquiring them is expensive and difficult. in short, FED REGS WORK!!! Localized bans do not work. It's like a restaurant I once knew of, during the 90s, ( before the full on smoking ban) put a non smoking section consisting of one table, right in the center of the restaurant. I.e., localized banning is absurd, because the surrounding areas make it a moot point. Similarly, localized bans do not work. If banned in one state, crims can go to the adjacent state where they are not banned and acquire them. This is why FED REGs are the only way to achieve this so as to save lives.

No, we can't ban matches or cars, and IEDs, but we can ban weapons of war, and the public demands it.

Vote for dems during the next election, dems will do something about it. Repubs will not. They are beholden to gun manufacturers
Click to expand...

Wow, talk about cherry picking, in truth there were about 26 mass shooting during the ban, in order to get to your number you have to have a say 10 or more killed and even then you're wrong, there were 2 others that have more then 10 deaths during the ban. And 57 shooting in the 10 years after the ban,
 
lwf said:
They do have ideas about how to reduce crime and they are not lying about them. They just haven't thought them through completely, and hypocritically only want their ideas to apply to certain dangerous things while leaving other more dangerous things perfectly legal.

Gun banners are not out to take your weapons away because they hate conservatives, they're out to stop mass shootings using any means possible, and are willing to make certain weapons illegal to do so. If you want to give them pause and make them think about what they are saying, accusing them of not really caring about crime is a pretty stupid strategy.
Click to expand...

that might be true about the soccer moms who march against gun violence but it is COMPLETE BS when dealing with asses like Charles Schumer or Diane Feinstein. There is a ton of evidence that sticking it to the NRA and those of us who vote against gun banners, was what motivates most of the stuff those two try to foist on the US public
 
VanceMack said:
I'm sold on Larue. The MBT (Meticulously Built Trigger) goes in like a standard trigger and the breaking point is super crisp and clean. Ive heard good things about the Rise Armament drop in and the Timney but I havent ever used them. People should do a little digging and find out what suits them best. The cost on the MBT is $87.00 unless you can get them on sale and it hasnt moved in years. Some can go a lot higher.
Click to expand...

Yep

TriggerTechs-some run over 300
HiperFire mid 200s
CMC around 150 is what you often can get the most common one's for
Rise -under 100
Velocity=-been a while but under 130
Eftman-240 or so
 
TurtleDude said:
that might be true about the soccer moms who march against gun violence but it is COMPLETE BS when dealing with asses like Charles Schumer or Diane Feinstein. There is a ton of evidence that sticking it to the NRA and those of us who vote against gun banners, was what motivates most of the stuff those two try to foist on the US public
Click to expand...

While I agree that most politicians aren't really out to reduce crime in the most efficient way possible, they aren't out to stick it to voters. No politician is. They're out to play whatever role they think the voters want them to play so that they can keep their seats. If today the voters are in a mindless panic about assault rifles, they are going to attack assault rifles and the most visible organizations that represent the voters' fears will be fair game. Eventually something else will spook the herd and the politicians will adopt that as their pet project in order to sweep up as many votes as possible. Just like other politicians have done in the past when skittish voters panicked about the dangers of Muslims, immigrants, heavy metal music and satanism.
 
TurtleDude said:
this is hilarious given that NO political movement in the USA is more patently dishonest and spews more bald faced lies than the anti gun movement. It is based on dishonesty because it pretends that its goal is public safety and crime control, when in reality, gun control started as a facade by people who wanted to pretend they were doing something about crime, without actually inconveniencing criminals.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which lie the left told which rises to the level of douchebaggery that the right demonstrates when they argue that guns aren't deadly. Please explain how those who don't claim to be experts on guns being misinformed is the equivalent of people claiming to be experts who say that guns aren't deadly. The latter is a much more egregious stupidity by far.

Or, is your willful ignorance derived of the old, tired, "guns don't kill people..." BS? Is that it? Are you guys saying that people should be banned rather than assault weapons? What a horribly disingenuous position. You know that if an IQ test or a mental illness screening were required to purchase a gun, the right would go ape****. Hell, we can't even get regular background checks passed without right wing hysteria.

What you guys are offering is the diagnosis after the fact, but the rest of us can't afford to let the body count determine a person's worthiness. By then it's too late.

The NRA has long been one of the most generous donors to conservative candidates. Why are you guys so happy to have their money obstructing the mechanisms of democracy for the rest of us? Do you think they deserve so much political influence when the product they endorse is causing the death of so many Americans? I don't.
 
OscarLevant said:
These guns give gun fetishers erections
Click to expand...

What about women who own and use guns? I've never heard of a woman getting an erection yet there are tons of women who own and use guns and their number tremendously increased particularly during the Obama administration.
 
OscarLevant said:
Recall, in my post, "you can't ban matches or cars, but you can ban assault weapons for civilian use" ?

Matches and cars is the metaphor for anything else that can't be banned that is used to kill which would include blunt instruments.
Click to expand...

And just what are "assault weapons?" Matches and cars can be labeled assault weapons depending on how they're used. Rocks, sticks, bare hands can be labeled assault weapons depending on how they're used.
 
D_NATURED said:
I'm not sure which lie the left told which rises to the level of douchebaggery that the right demonstrates when they argue that guns aren't deadly. Please explain how those who don't claim to be experts on guns being misinformed is the equivalent of people claiming to be experts who say that guns aren't deadly. The latter is a much more egregious stupidity by far.

Or, is your willful ignorance derived of the old, tired, "guns don't kill people..." BS? Is that it? Are you guys saying that people should be banned rather than assault weapons? What a horribly disingenuous position. You know that if an IQ test or a mental illness screening were required to purchase a gun, the right would go ape****. Hell, we can't even get regular background checks passed without right wing hysteria.

What you guys are offering is the diagnosis after the fact, but the rest of us can't afford to let the body count determine a person's worthiness. By then it's too late.

The NRA has long been one of the most generous donors to conservative candidates. Why are you guys so happy to have their money obstructing the mechanisms of democracy for the rest of us? Do you think they deserve so much political influence when the product they endorse is causing the death of so many Americans? I don't.
Click to expand...

that is because the left-wing democrats adopted anti gun owner laws to pretend they weren't soft on crime.
 
DebateChallenge said:
What about women who own and use guns? I've never heard of a woman getting an erection yet there are tons of women who own and use guns and their number tremendously increased particularly during the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

gun banners don't understand firearms, have no idea what the laws concerning firearms are, so they project this nonsense about penises to guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom