Jon Stewart's plea for gun control (1 Viewer)

[DJ1BigTymer]

A 5.56/.223 (standard AR) round is slightly larger than a .22.

I'm not one to blame everything on assault rifles, but those that vigorously defend ownership of these weapons either choose to ignore or just aren't aware of the shear velocity of the projectiles fired from them. A typical handgun fires a round between 700 to 1000 fps. Rifles, on the other hand, typically fires a round between 2000-4000 fps. I don't think anyone of us wants to be in an active shooter situation, but I like my chances better if that person had a handgun instead of an assault rifle.

I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine and a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry...I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.

 

[SaintBrad]

I'm not one to blame everything on assault rifles, but those that vigorously defend ownership of these weapons either choose to ignore or just aren't aware of the shear velocity of the projectiles fired from them. A typical handgun fires a round between 700 to 1000 fps. Rifles, on the other hand, typically fires a round between 2000-4000 fps. I don't think anyone of us wants to be in an active shooter situation, but I like my chances better if that person had a handgun instead of an assault rifle.

This is the problem that everyone seems to be missing. Everyone is hung up on the name "assault rifle", when fact is, a rifle is a rifle. The difference between an "assualt rifle" and a hunting rifle is mostly just attachments. Flashlight, holo graphic site.... these are things that cannot be put on a wooden shouldered harnessed rifle. Let me tell you what can be....

A scope, and a very large magazine clip for the non bolt action rifle.

Difference is, is made up of mostly plastic to allow attachments while the other is not.

That is why a lot of people who use guns and are familair with em look at the anti gun people like loonies. They speak as if they know something. Most of em don't.

The reason the "assault rifle" has its name is because it can be customized with attachments to aid in attacking such as a grip for increased accuracy, holographic sites for increased aim without losing site of perifial vision, laser pointers that are absolutly worthless and are for looks. Nothing more. And flashlights for better vision.

Thats it. Bottom line.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This is the problem that everyone seems to be missing. Everyone is hung up on the name "assault rifle", when fact is, a rifle is a rifle. The difference between an "assualt rifle" and a hunting rifle is mostly just attachments. Flashlight, holo graphic site.... these are things that cannot be put on a wooden shouldered harnessed rifle. Let me tell you what can be....

A scope, and a very large magazine clip for the non bolt action rifle.

Difference is, is made up of mostly plastic to allow attachments while the other is not.

That is why a lot of people who use guns and are familair with em look at the anti gun people like loonies. They speak as if they know something. Most of em don't.

The reason the "assault rifle" has its name is because it can be customized with attachments to aid in attacking such as a grip for increased accuracy, holographic sites for increased aim without losing site of perifial vision, laser pointers that are absolutly worthless and are for looks. Nothing more. And flashlights for better vision.

Thats it. Bottom line.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

So, you don't object to a ban on assault rifles, since in your words, it isn't anything special, and you don't need any of those attachments, right?

 

[billinms]

So, you don't object to a ban on assault rifles, since in your words, it isn't anything special, and you don't need any of those attachments, right?

Personally, I agree with this sentiment. The problem is two fold.
1. Defining an assault rifle in a way that doesn't include hunting/sporting rifles.
2. Once reasonable minded gun owners give up ground on an "assault rifle" and it doesn't solve the gun problem, what's next?

 

[Cosmic201]

This is the problem that everyone seems to be missing. Everyone is hung up on the name "assault rifle", when fact is, a rifle is a rifle. The difference between an "assualt rifle" and a hunting rifle is mostly just attachments. Flashlight, holo graphic site.... these are things that cannot be put on a wooden shouldered harnessed rifle. Let me tell you what can be....

A scope, and a very large magazine clip for the non bolt action rifle.

Difference is, is made up of mostly plastic to allow attachments while the other is not.

That is why a lot of people who use guns and are familair with em look at the anti gun people like loonies. They speak as if they know something. Most of em don't.

The reason the "assault rifle" has its name is because it can be customized with attachments to aid in attacking such as a grip for increased accuracy, holographic sites for increased aim without losing site of perifial vision, laser pointers that are absolutly worthless and are for looks. Nothing more. And flashlights for better vision.

Thats it. Bottom line.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Until the last two decades or so, the vast majority of hunting rifles were bolt action and not semi automatic. In fact, bolt action rifles are still generally the more accurate rifles.

Very few people (at least ones worth bringing into an adult discussion) think we should ban or further limit bolt action rifles. Hunting is okay. There is almost zero need for a semi automatic rifle when hunting. Most hunters even agree that bolt action rifles are generally better overall for hunting due to it being more accurate as well as cheaper to use (can much easily load your own ammo for bolt rifles than semi due to more tolerance in minute differences in loads).


The arguments on why we need Semi automatic rifles in the hands of civilians don't really convince me.
One argument is self defense. A shotgun or handgun is better for self defense in almost all cases.
The other one I hear is that they're fun to shoot. I'm sure they are. Rocket launchers should be fun too. I bet RPG's are a blast (heh) to fire. Doesn't make that a legal basis for owning the rifles. (Though making them legal to shoot at approved fire ranges might be an option like some countries do).

What argument am I missing?

 

[billinms]

Until the last two decades or so, the vast majority of hunting rifles were bolt action and not semi automatic. In fact, bolt action rifles are still generally the more accurate rifles.

Very few people (at least ones worth bringing into an adult discussion) think we should ban or further limit bolt action rifles. Hunting is okay. There is almost zero need for a semi automatic rifle when hunting. Most hunters even agree that bolt action rifles are generally better overall for hunting due to it being more accurate as well as cheaper to use (can much easily load your own ammo for bolt rifles than semi due to more tolerance in minute differences in loads).


The arguments on why we need Semi automatic rifles in the hands of civilians don't really convince me.
One argument is self defense. A shotgun or handgun is better for self defense in almost all cases.
The other one I hear is that they're fun to shoot. I'm sure they are. Rocket launchers should be fun too. I bet RPG's are a blast (heh) to fire. Doesn't make that a legal basis for owning the rifles. (Though making them legal to shoot at approved fire ranges might be an option like some countries do).

What argument am I missing?

Nothing you said there was correct.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Personally, I agree with this sentiment. The problem is two fold.
1. Defining an assault rifle in a way that doesn't include hunting/sporting rifles.
2. Once reasonable minded gun owners give up ground on an "assault rifle" and it doesn't solve the gun problem, what's next?

For the record, I'm not sure how I feel on an assault rifle ban b/c I think the problem with gun homicide is more pertinent to hand guns. However, I also don't have an objection to an assault rifle ban. I agree that the definition needs to be clear though.

Second, I don't buy the slippery slope argument. We already ban all kinds of weapons, and I'm sure you're not arguing for allowing unfettered access to all arms, so we already impose limits on who can own what kind of weapon -- this is just part of debate on where the line is drawn.

 

[Big_L]

I'm not one to blame everything on assault rifles, but those that vigorously defend ownership of these weapons either choose to ignore or just aren't aware of the shear velocity of the projectiles fired from them. A typical handgun fires a round between 700 to 1000 fps. Rifles, on the other hand, typically fires a round between 2000-4000 fps. I don't think anyone of us wants to be in an active shooter situation, but I like my chances better if that person had a handgun instead of an assault rifle.

To be honest with you, I can do more damage with my Glock 21 in a close quarters situation than I could with my M4. I am trained to react to active threat (shooter) situations both by Military and Civ law enforcement. I would much rather use my side arm than M4 when clearing a building. In my opinion, a rifle is no good up close and personal. I would use my M4 for targets between 50 and 300 yards out, and most buidings are not that big internally. I have an M4 to stay proficient with it. We do not shoot enough with the M4, maybe due to budget concerns, so I have my own. My range quals are in the top 5% of my unit with the rifle and top 1% with my sidearm. I fire my pistol a lot more.

 

[bclemms]

So, you don't object to a ban on assault rifles, since in your words, it isn't anything special, and you don't need any of those attachments, right?

Where did he say it isn't anything special? He did say that laser sights are worthless on an assault rifle but never said that assault rifles are nothing special, nor did he say attachments are nothing special.

One of these guns kill thousands of people a year. Same style and caliber.

The other two combined kill less than 400 a year (all styles and calibers).

One of these guns look really scary.

One of these guns looks like something you would see in old westerns.

The one that looks like it would be in the old westerns uses a massive round that inflicts an incredible amount of damage. It needs to though, it is used to kill Elk, Moose, Bear, Deer and other large game.

The one that looks really scary shoots a relatively small round. It is a high speed round and it is very useful when hunting feral hog and other animals with tough skin and/or thick fat.

The name assault rifle is used because these weapons are based off of military style weapons that are lightweight, offer large capacity, can be customized for many different situations, offer range but aren't oversized for tight spaces. Military assault rifles can come in single fire, 3 round burst, 4 round burst, fully automatic or select fire that can be switched from single shot, burst or fully automatic.

The civilian style assault rifles do have a purpose but with extremely limited numbers (and highly watched) only come in semi-automatic. The best example is feral hog hunting. The gun is lightweight which is terrific since chasing hogs can cover many miles, can be equipped with a flashlight since most hog hunting is at night, more durable and easier to clean. They also offer higher capacity since many times you need several rounds or can get on a group and can take out several at a time. The civilian style is great to shoot at a range since it is lightweight, comfortable and the ammo is relatively cheap.

What people like me don't understand is why go after the type of gun that is used to kill the fewest amount of people? All rifles account for so few murders every year that there are so many different items that kill more people. Screwdrivers, knives, baseball bats, etc all kill many more people. Shotguns and handguns kill more people.

As for the mass shootings, a pistol was used in all of the 11 deadliest with the only exception being the UT sniper. Some had other weapons to go with the pistols, some were rifles some shotguns some all three. Many are saying that the only reason for the really high death numbers are from assault rifles but the Virginia Tech shooting is still the second deadliest and nothing more than pistols were used.

The anti-gun crowd is going after the assault rifle because it has a limited use, it looks scary and it is the gun they will have the least resistance to getting banned. They are trying to ban assault rifles just to say they got it banned. The pistol also has a limited use but they already know that is a losing battle. They don't look scary, a huge number of people have them and even though it is hands down the most popular murder weapon in the US, they aren't going down that road.

Here are the guns pictured below. Also included is a chart, the bullet with the red arrow on the left is the .223 round used in the assault rifle. The red arrow to the right is the one used with the winchester .300 (old western gun). Don't for one second think that buying or making high capacity magazines for the hunting rifle isn't common.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

To be honest with you, I can do more damage with my Glock 21 in a close quarters situation than I could with my M4. I am trained to react to active threat (shooter) situations both by Military and Civ law enforcement. I would much rather use my side arm than M4 when clearing a building. In my opinion, a rifle is no good up close and personal. I would use my M4 for targets between 50 and 300 yards out, and most buidings are not that big internally. I have an M4 to stay proficient with it. We do not shoot enough with the M4, maybe due to budget concerns, so I have my own. My range quals are in the top 5% of my unit with the rifle and top 1% with my sidearm. I fire my pistol a lot more.

That's kinda the point though. YOU have training and understand how to employ your weapon. There is a high percentage of people out there that don't have a clue on what they are doing, they think they do, but they don't. Those of us charged with carrying an assault weapon for duty go through countless hours of classroom and practical training. The average active shooter with an assault rifle has little to no training and yet is able to inflict serious damage to multiple victims.

 

[Saint77]

This is specifically discussed in the video. While it's clear that no one thing the President or Congress or whoever does will magically solve the issue of gun violence, and that yes, there are clear issues that need to be dealt with in regards to our treatment of mental health issues and violent video games/movies/culture and various other things brought up every time somebody talks about having the "conversation," some kind of gun control CAN be a part of that discussion along with all those other issues as piecemeal steps in working towards finding a broader solution. I'm not a gun guy, and I'm not advocating taking away people's rights to own weapons, but I'm also fully aware that there's no need for an average American citizen to EVER need an AK-47 or an AR-15 or other military-grade weapons of that class. This "conversation" would go a lot smoother and be more productive if the left stopped trying to "get rid of everything!" and stigmatize everyone who wants to own weapons and the right stopped throwing up straw men and started participating as the well-informed gun owners most of them are in a discussion of exactly what weapons are reasonable to own and what belongs in the category with tanks and SAMs.

Theres no question there are some really kooky ideas coming out of the right side, no doubt, but Its equal in proportion IMHO as to most of whats coming out of the left side. And, its all mostly missing the mark.

I have changed my tune somewhat, but I still firmly believe that the primary focus should be on mental health, and cultural, poverty, and education problems in our society. I firmly believe with a deepened focus on all these areas, we can as a while have more of an effect then simply addressing the physical side.

But, the only way I am coming to this conclusion is through being informed. Or at least, as informed as I can be, since I cant seem to add hours to the day yet.

I dont see a lot of folks on the left doing that. I mean, hell, many of the leaders on this fight on the left side abhor guns so much they have never touched or fired one, or done so in a safe environment at a range. They barely have a grasp on what they are screaming about, and what they do know is hearsay from others who have skewed and biased views.

Addressing the physical side, magazine size, ammo restrictions, banning types of guns, etc and so on, is all feel good, quick satisfaction stuff, This is where the conversation is going from the left. That seems to be the focus, Theres good reason why these arguments meet resistance.

I can stop someone whose suffering form depression and ready to go off the deep end by showing them I care and getting them help and attention much easier then I can stop an armed nutjob bent on taking out some bodies while I am unarmed or restricted in my use of arms. Thats where id like to see the majority of the focus.

Lastly, as far as needing AR's, AK's, etc. I usually never go into comparative type things, but, I would ask why we need Mustangs with 500HP? Turbo and Supercharged vehicles. Why do we race? Its all the same, to me. we dont need any of that, not really, but for most of us law abiding folks, both fast cars and hybrid guns are a form of recreation, and we have them because we can. and regardless of what some folks think, both do have some uses. That's just part of what being a free peoples is.

You know something I completely agree. They won't do much if anything in stopping spree killers. While they might save some lives it's a "prevented event" statistic which can never be completely accurate.

But my point is: why is that so often used as a shut-down argument against something? "A 1% cut in X program won't do much." If you said "I got a $.20 an hour raise that didn't do much" did you then give it back, or did you take the little it did? In the statement you are actually admitting that it will do something. Why then follow that with "it won't do much, but let's try it because every little bit helps" or "it won't do much but let's start with that proposal and see if we can make it more effective."

I honestly don't think much can be done to "solve" our gun violence problem without massive changes in our Second Amendment rights that I don't think we would ever see. I don't think all of these other ideas will help much (but they will help a little and thus we should be willing to try some of them) from the mental health aspect to violent entertainment to glorifying war and death. I think as sad as it sounds we simple have to accept that we will have Sandy Hooks, that they will happen again and more people will die in these seemingly random violent outbursts and that this is a consequence of our Second Amendment freedoms.

Its a sad truth, but yes, I agree.

I think people tend to shut it down because for folks like Sens Fienstien, and McCarthy, the Brandy Campaign, MAIG, and others will not stop at a 1% suggestion. For example, I am a huge advocate of something like, say, a tax break incentive for everyone to take firearms education classes on all the ramifications of owning a gun, from firing one, to legal issues, to cleaning and use, over mandated requirements. This would not fly with them, they want bannings, removals, restrictions, penalties, jailtime, All things that many of us lawful owners known to be either ineffective, or far more restrictive to us then to criminals.

Biden has been bandying things like Ammo restriction, and stiffer penalties for people carrying guns near schools.

I dont see any of these folks(I could be wrong here, maybe I am), or organizations emphasizing mental health issues, and passive positive methods of helping our people. all they usually want to do is address the physical. Work on the poverty, education, violence in all media avenues, change us as a people, and culture, and I am fairly certain the rest, including gun violence, will follow behind.

But yes, we will have some Sandy Hooks, and some Oklahoma city bombers, and Charles Mansons, etc and so on. Bu i dont think they will just be consequences of the 2A freedoms we enjoy, I believe them to be a price we have to pay for freedom in general.

I'm not one to blame everything on assault rifles, but those that vigorously defend ownership of these weapons either choose to ignore or just aren't aware of the shear velocity of the projectiles fired from them. A typical handgun fires a round between 700 to 1000 fps. Rifles, on the other hand, typically fires a round between 2000-4000 fps. I don't think anyone of us wants to be in an active shooter situation, but I like my chances better if that person had a handgun instead of an assault rifle.

I can safely tell you, with full certainty, when your under fire, you will A) have no idea what velocity those rounds are coming to you at, B) wont even be attempting to care about that. It will make 0 difference to you, as the target. The only thing your going to be thinking about is the gallons of adrenaline dumped into your body.

Until the last two decades or so, the vast majority of hunting rifles were bolt action and not semi automatic. In fact, bolt action rifles are still generally the more accurate rifles.

Very few people (at least ones worth bringing into an adult discussion) think we should ban or further limit bolt action rifles. Hunting is okay. There is almost zero need for a semi automatic rifle when hunting. Most hunters even agree that bolt action rifles are generally better overall for hunting due to it being more accurate as well as cheaper to use (can much easily load your own ammo for bolt rifles than semi due to more tolerance in minute differences in loads).


The arguments on why we need Semi automatic rifles in the hands of civilians don't really convince me.
One argument is self defense. A shotgun or handgun is better for self defense in almost all cases.
The other one I hear is that they're fun to shoot. I'm sure they are. Rocket launchers should be fun too. I bet RPG's are a blast (heh) to fire. Doesn't make that a legal basis for owning the rifles. (Though making them legal to shoot at approved fire ranges might be an option like some countries do).

Where do you get this info?

For the record, I'm not sure how I feel on an assault rifle ban b/c I think the problem with gun homicide is more pertinent to hand guns. However, I also don't have an objection to an assault rifle ban. I agree that the definition needs to be clear though.

Second, I don't buy the slippery slope argument. We already ban all kinds of weapons, and I'm sure you're not arguing for allowing unfettered access to all arms, so we already impose limits on who can own what kind of weapon -- this is just part of debate on where the line is drawn.

With folks like Bloomberg, Fienstien, McCarthy, Cuomo, Holder, etc and so on, I do buy the slippery slope sentiment, perhaps not as much as the hard right does, but I do give some credence to it.

To be honest with you, I can do more damage with my Glock 21 in a close quarters situation than I could with my M4. I am trained to react to active threat (shooter) situations both by Military and Civ law enforcement. I would much rather use my side arm than M4 when clearing a building. In my opinion, a rifle is no good up close and personal. I would use my M4 for targets between 50 and 300 yards out, and most buidings are not that big internally. I have an M4 to stay proficient with it. We do not shoot enough with the M4, maybe due to budget concerns, so I have my own. My range quals are in the top 5% of my unit with the rifle and top 1% with my sidearm. I fire my pistol a lot more.

Agreed. I prefer my Mossberg 590 A1 Shotgun, and my Glock 19 or S&W M&P9 over an AR, or my SKS.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I can safely tell you, with full certainty, when your under fire, you will A) have no idea what velocity those rounds are coming to you at, B) wont even be attempting to care about that. It will make 0 difference to you, as the target. The only thing your going to be thinking about is the gallons of adrenaline dumped into your body.

I get that but you miss the point. My chances of surviving an engagement is increased if I am shot with a hand gun vs an assault rifle. Think of it like taking a punch from Mayweather vs Tyson. Yeah, they'll both hurt but at least with Mayweather, I might survive.

 

[bclemms]

I still stand by my statements from another thread. Guns are a very inefficient way to kill a large number of people.

Bombings kill 115 people in Pakistan, including 81 in sectarian attack on billiards hall - The Washington Post

Don't think it will happen here? Already has, including the deadliest school killing in US history.
Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Centennial Olympic Park bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just aren't going to stop crazy by making gun laws.

 

[SaintBrad]

So, you don't object to a ban on assault rifles, since in your words, it isn't anything special, and you don't need any of those attachments, right?

The better question is, why ban em?

 

[Saint77]

I get that but you miss the point. My chances of surviving an engagement is increased if I am shot with a hand gun vs an assault rifle. Think of it like taking a punch from Mayweather vs Tyson. Yeah, they'll both hurt but at least with Mayweather, I might survive.

At the distances you would be shot at, 10 to 30 feet, it wont make that much difference, Id be willing to bet that the rifle round will go through you more often then not, whereas a pistol round probably wont. Either way, you will not care, nor have time to think about it.