Just my perception that the two classes of people-- “crazy people” and “people who believe that they need automatic weapons to fight rodents” – might just possibly overlap more than Tomcat implied. Hence the quote from Caddyshack.
*Gun control won’t stop crazy people from killing-- besides, I need my gun to keep the Hollow Earth beings from controlling my thoughts! *
Well, that’s too bad. But you’re essentially admitting it’s a prejudice.
I used to go to a military rifle enthusiast shoot every year, where we had just about everything you could imagine. Plenty of GPMGs, belt fed machine guns, miniguns, etc. And tons of the modified variants of military rifles that we’re discussing here. And honestly for the most part the were the nicest group of people that I’ve ever been to any sort of convention with. As an example - someone screwed something up with some pyrotechnics - not firearms related, and put a dent in some guy’s SUV. So the guy who organized the event asked for help, walked up and down the line, and almost everyone chipped in to give the guy enough money to fix it up.
There’s a sense of comradarie, I suppose, because people like us are often misperceived by the public at large, and scorned by the typical “what do you need that for?!” hunting crowd. We’re often left hung out to dry by the NRA, and stodgy old duck hunter types would probably rather take a side with Sarah Brady than us.
But they were 2-3 day events, with camping, and lots of interaction, and I never saw anyone get into a fight or get beligerant about anything. They weren’t crazy, or wearing aluminum beanies on their head, talking about what the government was doing to our precious bodily fluids. They were normal people - nicer than average, even - who almost certainly never did anything to do with violent crime in their lives, who happened to have an appreciation for the history, aesthetic, and design for that kind of weaponry. It’s not really different from some kind of medieval convention for people who really dug big axes, or something.
Despite being surrounded by thousands of guns and people I didn’t really know, I felt far, far safer than I would just amongst a crowd of average people.
Assuming people are crazy or have some ill-intent because they happen to appreciate military firearms is a baseless, irrational prejudice. I’d like to think that I’ve conducted myself in this thread in a logical, honest, and reasonable manner - do you think I’m a raving nutcase?
Because you objected to my response to Tomcat, is all. I’m pleased that we agree on this point.
Can’t you make a conventional hunting weapon look just as scary by painting flames and skulls all over it?
More seriously, can modified weapons be readily ‘un-modified’ so that they do in fact function as an AK-47? If they’re genuinely no different from a hunting rifle, then I see no reason to treat them differently than a hunting rifle.
Hey, I appreciate military hardware, too. I just prefer that it stays in the hands of the properly trained and organized military, and not in the hands of someone who will use it to turn “varmints” into a substitute for tomato paste.
Ah, I think I misread your tone. I thought you were implying that someone hunting with an AK-47 clone would inevitably result in massacres.
As far as scariness goes, I guess that’s up to personal perception. People tend to think that military hardware is inherently more lethal than civilian weaponry. But the reality is that the military has been steadily decreasing the lethality of their weapons for considerations such as weight, controllability for suppressive fire, etc. whereas hunting weapons are designed to take down people larger than humans, and hence, tend to be more deadly.
The media feeds into this by creating the impression artificially that AK-47s legally bought (probably with the much-repeated but completely fictitious “gunshow loophole”) by drug dealers and criminals are a huge danger on our streets and something that has to be dealt with, when the reality is that criminals almost exclusively use handguns.
No. To be honest, I’m very familiar with the rifles and wouldn’t be able to do it myself even with a machine shop. I wouldn’t really even know how. I have a vague understanding from diagrams about what’s missing to make it functional in that way, but I’d have no idea how to act on it if I were so inclined. And I’d say that the vast majority of people know less than I do.
And if I recall correctly, the receivers are stamped or machined in such a way as to preclude you from being able to just pop in missing parts to modify them to being fully functional. So even if you were to acquire the proper sears and such, they wouldn’t be installable on the rifle.
Go back to my earlier post about the AR-15 and mini-14.
Would you consider someone hunting varmints with the mini-14 to be a crazy gun nut?
How about the AR-15?
You’re right, it is extremely difficult to modify an AK-47 to full automatic, and the information is extremely hard to find.
Unless you Google “AK-47 modification” and find numerous links to books and kits that do exactly that.
Well, I try to appreciate all sides of an issue, including that of the prairie dogs.
That’s reassuring. I seem to recall a relative crabbing about some legislation to prevent gun show enthusiasts from selling kits to modify such weapons back to full auto. Since I personally live some distance from that particular relative, I probably paid less attention than I should have. Most of my relatives are in fact crazy, though they don’t all collect weapons. Some collect Oldsmobiles.
Thinking it over, it occurs to me that there might be a legitimate concern over modified military rifles, even if they are functionally identical to hunting rifles. If there are regulations concerning unmodified rifles, then having the modified variety on the market could potentially complicate the enforcement of such regulations. If so, I could understand objections to the modified weapons, especially if the main argument for their sale is cosmetic/collectible. People aren’t allowed to go around dressed as police officers either, even if they do collect such memorabilia.
Ah, yes-the “slippery slope” argument. We can’t regulate anything, because then we’d have to regulate everything!
And it’s already illegal to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a fully-automatic rifle without the proper federal, state, and local background checks, finger prints, and tax stamp.
Not all states allow the possession of fully-automatic firearms, and in those that do, there are hoops to jump through to own one legally, and that includes the purchase of conversion kits. So far as I know, these ‘conversion kits’ are registerable items according to the BATF, and are treated the same way as an automatic rifle itself.
Imagine if the teacher in Osaka had had a gun…
Imagine what? Even more bullets flying around a class of schoolchildren?
Better yet, imagine if both the janitor and the teacher had killdozers.
And half of the children had AK-47s, and the other half had knives.
BUT! The half with AK-47s are Amish, and the half with knives are ninjas!
And then Godzilla attacks.
Thinking it over, it occurs to me that there might be a legitimate concern over modified military rifles, even if they are functionally identical to hunting rifles. If there are regulations concerning unmodified rifles, then having the modified variety on the market could potentially complicate the enforcement of such regulations. If so, I could understand objections to the modified weapons, especially if the main argument for their sale is cosmetic/collectible. People aren’t allowed to go around dressed as police officers either, even if they do collect such memorabilia.
[/QUOTE]
You misunderstand me. What did I say that remotely resembled a slippery slope?
Read my post about the AR-15 and mini-14. They are functionally identical rifles. They do the same things, they have the same capabilities. One, however, is an “assault weapon” because it looks scary, whereas the other one looks like a conventional rifle. I’m trying to hammer in that these differences you are striving to work up a fury over are purely cosmetic.
A person with an AR-15 is a crazy gun nut to you, someone you should regard with suspicion. Yet, I suspect, someone with a FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL mini-14 wouldn’t concern you a bit.
No, imagine if the knife-wielding lunatic had come face to face with an armed teacher before he had the chance to eviscerate any kids.
Er, crap, I screwed up when I was trying to combine my post.
I misquoted Terrifel. Just ignore everything above the quote box.
Here’s the other part:
I don’t really understand your objection. Fully automatic weapons are quite rare and easy to distinguish (you can hear them if they’re used, or you can simply see if they have a full auto firing position for the selector).
People can’t dress up like police and impersonate them because they could abuse the power with anyone who was convinced. I don’t understand what the analogy is here. Could you pretend to be an Iraqi insurgent with something that looks like an AK-47, I guess?
So the teacher in Japan would be bringing a gun into the classroom every day, in case a knife-wielding janitor shows up? If the laws were changed so that the gun were available for the teacher, wouldn’t it now be available for the janitor, too? Or are you proposing a law where only trained people can carry guns when they are on duty?
Which side are you arguing for, again?
I imagine that Japan’s incredibly low level of violent crime would probably be a lot higher overall if any random teacher could be expected to be packing heat.
Besides, any aficionado of Japanese cinema knows that even an army of people with guns is no match for an angry loner with an edged weapon.
I’m not taking any side in this particular issue, but why do you say this?
Isn’t it a bit too late to do anything about it if you are waiting to hear what they sound like when fired? And I won’t even go into the silliness of trying to examine someone else’s gun to see if the selector is switched to full auto firing position. My mind might be on other things at that fleeting moment.