4 ms·
FWIW "High Capacity Magazine" is a loaded term. The AR system was issued with 30 round magazines so, these are normal capacity. But calling them "high capacity
by nirvana 14y ago
FWIW
"High Capacity Magazine" is a loaded term. The AR system was issued with 30 round magazines so, these are normal capacity. But calling them "high capacity" is what people who want to ban them do to pretend like there's something unusual about them.
For anyone whose wondered why "gun nuts" want these "high capacity" magazines, the answer is very simple: Loading a mag is often a pain in the butt. It's a lot more fun to go to the range with a bunch of loaded magazines, shoot for several hours and then go home, rather than be loading magazines every 5 minutes. It's that simple. (Though of course there are cases where people have needed the higher capacity, like the recent news story about the shop-keeper who defended his store and customers with a pistol with 17 rounds.)
"Assault Weapon" is another made up term to make guns sound scary.
Most people seem to think there are people running around with full auto machine guns out there.
In the 1990s the ban on "assault weapons" prohibited cosmetic and safety items, not anything that made guns more lethal. (EG: flash suppressor lets you not get blinded when shooting at night, "grenade launchers" are just tubes on WWII era weapons, grenades themselves long being made illegal, but the media loves to talk about the police discovering "grenade launchers", pistol grips and collapsable butt stocks are just ergonomics, the former promoting better form.)
Lately the popular term is "assault rifle" which have been effectively banned since 1934, and their manufacture totally banned since the mid 1980s. Plus if we're strictly speaking that term only applies to a particular rifle produced in germany in WWII.
The reason for this dishonest use of political terms is really easy: There's effectively no difference between an AK-47 and a hunting rifle, except that the AK has been demonized.
Previously demonized weapons:
The "sawed off shotgun" which was a modification made by italian shop owners who wanted to be able to defend themselves against the mafia shaking them down, but didn't want to penetrate the wall and hit innocent bystanders. Thus shortening the barrel, which produces a wider spread and less collatoral damage. The mafia couldn't have that, so they got their politicans to demonize and then ban them. Racist gun control.
The "saturday night special" was nothing special at all, just the more popular firearm for poor black people living in dangerous areas to defend themselves. They couldn't afford more expensive firearms and they had a real need to defend themselves from the criminal elements, but we couldn't have that, could we? It's not a coincidence that the ghettos have become overrun with violence since the "saturday night special" was criminalized.
I could go on, the entire gun control political movement is based on misrepresentation (eg: "glocks are all plastic and undetectable by airport scanners!" which has never been true) and the ignorance of the general public.
Guns kill people like spoons make people fat. It's non-sensical, and proof positive that politicians don't have your best interests at heart when they say "oh, little girl, you should just get raped, rather than defend yourself with a pistol", which is what they're doing here.
- jack-r-abbit 14y agoGuns kill people like spoons make people fat. OMG... I love this! Perfect analogy, IMO.
- Guillaume86 14y agoYeah everybody use a gun several times a day to fullfil a basic need, make sense.
- jack-r-abbit 14y agoYeah everybody totally miss the point that tools can only cause as much harm as the hand that holds them will allow.
- temphn 14y agoRelatedly, the thing I don't get is why people think preppers are so crazy. Didn't Vancouver and London just have serious riots in 2010 and 2011 respectively? Didn't the US have massive unrest in Katrina in 2005 and LA in 1992? Didn't most countries around the world, including Germany, Japan, Russia, and China have seriously tyrannical governments within living memory? You'd have to do the calculation but probably 50% or more of the world's population has lived at some point under a tyrannical government. Many progressives agree that the US military has committed atrocities overseas. They have seen Bush and Obama's unstinting increase in executive power, they know about the existence of kill lists that allow Predator Drone-based attacks on any American citizen suspected of being a terrorist, and they've seen the coverups revealed by Pfc. Manning. So, whether or not you agree there is a nontrivial chance of significant financial instability in the near future, why is so much blind trust placed in US society, government, and military? We've seen civil society break down all over the world, live on our TV. The Anglosphere has been mostly immune over the 20th century, but it can happen here.
- achy 14y agoThat analogy is ridiculous. It's more like having a tub of ice cream and a spoon available at all times. It doesn't make you fat, but if you're depressed or vulnerable, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to take a bite.