Yes, there would be a lot of bloodshed on all sides if gun confiscation were attempted, and there would likely be a rise in non-murder crime if the (probably completely impossible) near-total confiscation actually occurred. The reports don’t address this because these are social factors due to human psychology that people trained in analyzing virus vectors have no special insight into.
OK, then. Glad we got that all cleared up, I am much enriched by the experience of our interaction…oh, my, look at the time, really must be going now…
No, there would be a little.
Fair exchange, then. It is better to be beaten by a mugger than shot.
Such as?
These guns that hysterical ninny gun grabber wussies are misidentifying as “assault weapons”? How come they look so much like what they are not? What is the advantage? Do they perform better on the firing range in sports competitions, looking like military hardware? Better deer hunting, because deer die faster if they think they’ve been shot by something military?
I mean, it doesn’t change the ballistics any, doesn’t change the ammunition. But apparently if you want to market a gun to Americans, for some reason it helps if you make it look more like a military weapon.
Am I the only person who wonders why? if the performance characteristics are much the same between your Dad’s old .30-.30 deer rifle, why make the gun look like you just pried it from Rambo’s cold dead hands? Perhaps a marketing decision? Because the gun that looks that is more likely to sell? To the wholly rational American gun buyer.
Kinda like the motorcycle guy who tries to tell me that the really obnoxiously loud pipes are for safety. Uh-huh. Sure thing. Hugh Betcha.
I wasn’t saying you needed to offer a citation. I was using you as a citation in response to your own preceding question:
The initial AR-15 sales took off because a lot of us in the military wanted to be able to practice with the same firearm that we we trained with. Ammo supplies and trips to the range were limited (plenty of money for new subs, not much cash to pay for bullets at the range). Most of guys in my unit had an AR-15.
The only difference between the AR 15 and the M16 was that the M16 was full auto (and switching over to 3 round burst mode while I was in). Everything else was identical. So you could practice field stripping, carrying styles, shooting, accuracy, etc.
This helped create a market for it. Then people discovered that the pistol style grip and the plastic stock made it nice and lightweight - much easier to haul around than the Ruger Mini-14 (the Ruger had a wooden stock, also shot the .223 round, took magazines, etc.).
Then, like the mod options on a classic muscle car - the number of AR 15s in the marketplace meant that you had a ton of after market options. You could get different barrels, different stocks, and TONS of surplus military ammo, magazines, stripper clips, etc. Replacement parts were easy to come by.
It became the default “plinking” firearm for a lot of shooters. Most guys who served at one point have at least one in their collection. They trained on it, they know it, and the go back to it.
Now add in the knee jerk desire to on something that others want banned. Whenever a ban notice goes out, people start looking to buy that which is banned.
Finally - yes - I am sure a fair number of purchases are made due to them looking cool.
Ah - my misunderstanding. I thought you were commenting that I started the pig fight (which I really was NOT trying to do).
Thanks to a life that straddles academia and business, I get a close up look at the leaders in both. I don’t see that either side has a monopoly on intelligence at the top.
You ever heard of Waco Texas?
I’m not saying that everyone would be that way. Most citizens would acquiesce to the infringement of their right to bear arms if confronted with the option of shooting a policeman or giving up their gun but some otherwise law abiding people would be more reluctant and you only need a couple of instances (out of the over 100 million gun owners) of things going sideways resulting in a dead gun owner for people to get a lot more uptight about it, or worse yet a dead cop that results in much more nervous cops.
I agree, you just have to satisfy me that you are going to be able to take the guns away from the criminals.
Part of it IS functionality (having a pistol grip can be more comfortable), detachable magazines are a convenience (I’m not sure that the magazines have to be able to hold a thousand rounds, ten seems like enough if it really gets your panties in a twist, but changing magazines doesn’t take very much time).
A lot of it is very cosmetic (like the bayonet lock, noone ever intends to use that but they buy bayonets anyway). So what? I know people who pay a lot more for a car that has purely cosmetic features that don’t improve performance or comfort one bit.
Well, of course! If you’ve emptied your clip and Bambi’s Mom is charging for the kill, you’d be damned glad you have a bayonet mounted and ready!
Ever hear of Richard Poplawski?
Re Waco: I’m sure that the gun owners who are also fucking.children may be somewhat more resistant to official intervention.
Neither of these examples make me more disposed to the idea that everyone should have access to semiautomatic rifles.
Wait, are they magazines? Or clips? You’re probably right, but we need to be careful, here.