Is your argument that the AR15 is the only semi automatic weapon sold in the US, or was that a complete nonsequitor?
The selector on my FAL has three settings: safe, semi-auto, and full-auto. When the selector switch is put in the full-auto position, it is not full-auto, but semi-auto.
Right, make that up some posts above “disabled, or replaced with single-shot-only mechanics”; the important thing is how the fire control group works, not the labels stamped next to the selector switch. Obviously something made as a semi from the beginning is ok.
I always like the anti-gun threads here on the Dope posted by people who have no idea what they are talking about. A semi-automatic is a gun that fires a shot each time the trigger is pulled, one pull one shot, there is nothing automatic about it except that the gun reloads itself after each shot. This applies to most handguns, many hunting rifles, a 22 caliber plinking rifle, even shotguns.
Unless the gun has to be cocked to reload each time it is probably semi-automatic. And there is no such thing as an “assault rifle” that separates this kind of gun from other hunting and sporting rifles other than some scary black plastic accesories. Take the scary black plastic off and you have the same gun. Semi-automatic is just another scary word to influence the uneducated.
It’s a completely legit term signifying a self-loading repeating firearm.
It gets its bad spin by how many oeople only ever get to hear it in a negative context because until like 30 years ago hardly anyone really used it in everyday conversation outside of technical content.
Might as well say SDMB gun threads are also predictable in people coming around just to show derision of the less well versed, instead of trying to educate without deprecating.
Semi-auto just means that the weapon automatically loads the next round, but does not fire it.
Full auto means that the weapon automatically loads the next round and, if the trigger is still depressed, will fire it.
Full auto is not necessarily suppressing fire. Assault rifles (and by this I mean true military assault rifles, and not “scary gun with a plastic stock”) are designed to use full auto in short bursts. Some assault rifles have an additional setting on the select switch to choose a 3 round burst. I personally call this the idiot setting because its purpose is basically to let soldiers fire in short bursts without properly training them in trigger discipline to do so on full auto mode.
Short bursts in full auto are actually used to shoot directly at enemies. In fact, that’s kinda how assault rifles are intended to be used most of the time.
The M-14 was originally a select fire weapon firing the 7.62x51 NATO round. This is a significantly more powerful round than the 5.56 NATO used by the M-16 and the majority of civilian AR-15 rifles. The M-14 worked great for full auto suppressing fire. It also worked great in single shot mode (semi-auto). The heavier 7.62 round would punch through walls and heavy brush much better than the 5.56. But the M-14 sucked in short bursts. The 7.62 round was heavy enough that the recoil in full auto made the weapon difficult to control. That’s ok if you are just shooting over the enemy’s head to keep their heads down, but if you are actually firing at the enemy, the first shot is on target, the second one is over their heads, and the third one is really far over their heads.
This is why they switched to the lighter 5.56 round for the M-16. It’s a lighter and smaller round, so that when you waste a ton of ammo shooting over their heads for suppressing fire it’s not such a strain on the cargo planes, ammo trucks, etc. to resupply you. Plus each soldier can carry more ammo. But the other important thing is that the lighter 5.56 round is MUCH easier to control for when you are shooting at the enemy in short bursts of full auto fire. To assist with this, the M-16 also has a bunch of design features specifically designed to keep the recoil forces in line with the rifle’s center of mass when pressed against the soldier’s shoulder.
Shooting directly at the enemy soldiers in full auto mode is a major part in the M-16 assault rifle’s design. Full auto mode is useful for suppressing fire, but that is definitely not the only purpose for full auto mode.
It gets a bad spin because anti-gun folks tend to use it knowing that it causes confusion and makes it sound like they are talking about automatic machine guns. Intentional misuse of terms like “semi-auto” and “assault rifle” is what leads to anti-gun people like our new member @Whickwithy to think that military assault rifles are legal (and are what are being used in most mass shootings) and that full auto machine guns are also legal.
To be fair, in my experience, most anti-gun people don’t want an education about guns or gun laws. They just want to ban guns.
My personal interest in firearms is more historical. Plus the engineer in me wants to know how things work. My gun collection is heavily weighted towards muskets, WW1, and WW2 weapons. I don’t own an AR-15 or anything modern other than a .44 magnum revolver (basically Dirty Harry’s gun) and a target shooting .22 pistol for target practice. I don’t have much interest in modern weapons.
I don’t tend to participate much in gun debates because most anti-gun folks have absolutely no interest in anything that I have to say.
I don’t consider myself to be a gun expert, but I am happy to educate anyone who is interested in learning. I hope that I do not do so in a disparaging or deprecating manner. That is not my intent.
It was also better suited to the Jungles of Vietnam. Lighter, etc.
True.
Mind you, I have repeatedly stated we need some moderate gun laws that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
The gun laws that Biden got passed will help with this.
Honestly, banning sales of “assault weapons” is okay by me, but I expect that after that doesn’t do anything significant to combat violent crime, more banns will be called for.
Is a shotgun wedding in the offing?
lol. 
Police checkpoints are fairly common in my state. The intention is to reduce the number of drunk drivers, but each stop obviously requires the presentation of a license. And you can bet that each license is run for outstanding warrants. The police officer will also most likely know immediately if you have a license to carry, even if you do not have or display a weapon at the time of the stop.
Our permits to carry concealed weapons require the person carrying a weapon to immediately inform any law enforcement officer who may approach him/her if she is carrying. The officer should not even have to ask about it.
Why would that be?
Well I suppose that it may depend upon which state you are in but in Oregon or Washington it is not required to inform the police when stopped. It is highly recomended but not required.
Do you have a duty to inform a police officer that you’re carrying a concealed firearm in Oregon? No. There is no duty to inform a law enforcement officer that you’re carrying a concealed firearm in Oregon
For precisely the reasons mentioned. For their own and bystanders’ protection, officers should be aware if the individual is armed. When this has happened to me, the officer usually just asks me where the weapon is located (“in a waist holster” or “in the center console of the car”) and asks me to stay clear of it. Didn’t ask me to give it up, empty it, or even relocate it. It’s much better than having the officer discover the weapon during the interview and license check.
But I did have a knife taken away from me one day. It was a nice one, too. No charges or anything, though it could have gone that direction. If it had been a butterfly or automatic knife, it definitely WOULD have gone that direction.
There are “must notify” states where you must tell the police you are carrying and “notify when asked” states which is a different group.
In Which States Must You Notify an Officer You’re Carrying? | USCCA (usconcealedcarry.com)
The must notify for NC is the following:
Any individual who has a concealed handgun permit must follow certain regulations concerning
its use. Not only must the individual carry the permit along with proper identification whenever
the handgun is being carried concealed, but he/she must also inform any law enforcement
officer who approaches him/her that he/she is in possession of a permit and a concealed
handgun. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.11(a). Failure to do so is an infraction. However, in lieu of
paying a fine for the first offense, the individual may choose to surrender his/her permit.
But that gun is for your protection right? You’re not a threat to the police officer are you? Why are they more important than you?
I literally cannot imagine a situation where I would be inclined to use a weapon against a police officer. But the officer is going to be a little stressed if he finds out in the execution of whatever actions he is taking that I have a firearm on my person or nearby. I don’t want to get hurt, he/she doesn’t want to get hurt, and neither of us wants any bystanders hurt. Therefore, where’s the problem? I’ve had two officers compliment me on the handguns and rigs I had and ask where I go to practice.
From the officer’s point of view, an encounter should be cool and the officer should be aware of possible threats. I’ve seen or been very aware of situations that quickly went to shit because the CCW permittee did not take the proper steps. I’ve had friends who had their firearms rendered safe and placed on the tops of their cars during the stop, but they got them back immediately afterwards.
I’ve never heard of a traffic stop where the car was attacked by zombies and the officer told the driver, “I’m damn sure glad you had a gun, too, so you could join in on shootin’ these Godless creatures a-right alongside us.” That’s a Hollywood thing.
When discussing the topic of this debate thread, America needs to address its gun hypocracy it is important to remember that America is like 50 different small countries with 50 different legislatures making 50 sometimes different versions of the law, with some federal laws.
The 10th constitutional amendment leaves most things up to the states unless clearly delegated to the federal government under the constitution. The federal government is not the all powerful overseer of the states. Makes getting anything done nationwide rather difficult.
I mean, I’m not going to shoot a law officer for being rude or disrespectful. I’m not going to shoot one because I’m being legitimately placed under arrest or I disagree with the charges. Exactly when am I going to need to protect myself from an officer as long as he has a legitimate reason to cuff me, restrain me, or take me into custody? Even if it’s not a good reason, the legal system give you plenty of opportunity to correct errors in a peaceful way.
And let’s not even get into the whole subject of serving (unpopular) papers on someone or domestic violence calls. Using a firearm in response to either of those is a lose-lose situation made under high emotional stress. Those situations never end well.