According to at least one member of the gungeon.

The gungeoneer was commenting on the lethality of pool noodles vs. guns.

The only explanation I had for such a bizarre statement was that gun-religion frequently causes mental illness.

better stock up.

...to tap into public fears of guns that look like military weapons (but aren't). While ostensibly targeted at military pattern rifles and civilian versions of submachine guns, the magazine restrictions that go along with assault weapon restriction have a greater effect on handguns.

Ultimately, they are whatever the legislature says they are. Under the 1994 ban they included long guns with some military features like flash hiders and bayonet lugs, but also anything with >10 detachable magazines, including .22 rimfire.

The term sounds like "assault rifle" which has a specific historical meaning. Assault rifles are already illegal without a special machine gun permit that almost no one has.

So what makes the gun in the picture more dangerous than a pistol with a handle magazine?

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hell it even tastes like a duck...

In NY, my 8-shot, antique, .22 target pistol is an assault weapon and I would have less than a year to get rid of it.

If it can't float, it is not a duck no matter what it looks like.

If it is not a mil-spec rifle capable of full-auto (machine gun) shooting, it is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. We could restrict magazines or even semi-auto rifles or handguns generally. We could require licensing and universal transfer checks. There is no point inventing an arbitrary category based on appearance only.

What you don't understand here is that your Jared Loughners, your James Holmes's, your Adam Lanza's don't really give a crap about your argument. They want those guns because they look fucking mean. Why you as a responsible gun owner would be opposed to removing "dangerous and unusual" firearms from the marketplace is beyond me? I think you need to reconsider what your priorities are here in this world of suffering and what you're doing to reduce that suffering.

Float on that.

1st you have to pass a law before you can crow about democracy. If meaningful legislation fails, you will not be making conceited remarks about democracy. Neither will I.

Ad hominem is always the last resort of a bad argument, or possibly arguer. You expect your opinion to be obvious and universally accepted. Unfortunately what is normal and obvious depends on how one constructs the world. All firearms are dangerous and Ar15s etc. are by no means unusual. For many they are simply normal, 21st c. rifles. They genuinely don't understand what the fuss is about. Obama warned gun control advocates not to be dismissive of the rural perspective for a reason. You should see some of the FB posts from my non-urban friends and relatives, many of whom voted for Obama.

I don't live in NY, so their retroactive and IMO overreaching ban does not effect me. Still, it has gotten me a bit worried. So here I am as mortified as anyone by Sandy Hook. I came to the conclusion long ago that the NRA is evil and that we need all transfers to be regulated. I think magazine restrictions are necessary, especially for rifles, but also those extra long pistol magazines. Also, maybe we need universal licensing. I managed to get myself banned from my favorite Youtube review channel because I blamed the owner for supporting the NRA. So it is with some dismay that people here lump me in with NRA apologists and that broad, sweeping bans are becoming likely that I can only hope will not be retroactive.

I have never used (shot or otherwise) a gun in anger. My only interest is putting holes in paper. Most of my guns are rimfire caliber (that's small and weak) because it's cheap and paper does not shoot back. So why come after me? Honestly, if I were Bruce Banner, I would never get angry enough to turn into the Hulk. Why should many of my .22s become illegal like they are now (retroactively) in NY? I've not done anything wrong, so why should I absorb the financial loss? And I am not the only one. Yeah, we need meaningful restrictions and ending unregulated transfers, but some of this talk just seems punitive and arbitrary.

The psychological aspects of mass shooters is a well-taken point. I just think that if ARs are not available, they will get something just as dangerous, but because it does not look like an assault weapon, is uneffected by the ban.

Shouldn't we try that for real before condemning it to the dustbin - I understand people want their toys but people want their kids, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers and friends back too. Why are your toys more important than their lives? Because of some political blow back?



You guys keep telling us that it doesn't make a difference what you do that with? So what's the problem? You guys already have a fuck-ton of toys, do you really need more? How much will ever be enough?

Before that they did a workaround and offered the Intratec AB-10.

The AB-10 had a 10-round magazine, doesn't have the scary perforated barrel shroud, lacks the threaded barrel, and has no clip for shoulder strap.

They tend to misfire, not a really reliable machine but they looked mean, I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intratec_TEC-DC9

gun cultists who just can't imagine life without one. If gun cultists didn't always push the envelope -- in their quest for another lethal weapon that piques their hormones/interests -- we wouldn't have these problems. The idea of a gun cultist complying with the spirit of the law is ludicrous.

or favorite, caliber for killing coyotes, ducks, rats, people (even school kids), etc.

...of potential laws you are advocating.

If the Ds lose this legislative fight, it will because they will not condescend to make common cause with those who know what the hell they're talking about.

And you are the one who suggested the pest control counter argument for banning Tech 9s. I'm only giving a basis to refute the argument.

from owning any gun because they are not responsible, or even sane, enough to be walking around with a gun.

I don't have to know the caliber of the dang thing to know it has no use but to make some gun cultist get excited and drool. It is marketed to appeal to gunners' baser instincts and should be used as a decoy to attract folks to put on the no guns list.

Gun cultist always tell us the AR15s are necessary to hunt deer. Of course, they tell themselves a bunch of crud to justify adding another lethal weapon to their home arsenal, and public carry rotation.