Automatic Weapons

[Peter]

The Auto 9 is fictional, but based on the real life Beretta 93R, which could be set to either fire a single round or 3 round burst.

Is it considered a good weapon or a pile of garbage?
I imagine it kicks quite a lot which is obviously not a problem for Robocop but is a problem for mere mortals.

 

[Safiel]

I think people are confused as to what constitutes an Auto weapon.

Or Automatic weapons.

I will run through it real quick:

Fully automatic: Weapon fires either a 3 round burst or continuously until ammunition is exhausted on one pull of the trigger. Weapon is re-cocked by the recoil, though it may need to be initially cocked by the user. May occur as machine guns, rifles or pistols.

(And, as I have previously explained, today these weapons are all but non-existent in crime in the United States.)

Semi-automatic: Weapon fires a single round on a single pull of the trigger and automatically re-cocks on recoil, may need to be initially cocked by the user. May occur as a rifle, pistol or rarely as a shotgun.

Single shot: Weapon fires a single round on a single pull of the trigger and must be initially cocked by the user and re-cocked by the user between shots. May occur as a rifle, shotgun or vary rarely as a pistol.

Revolvers: Revolvers can occur in single or double action. In single action, the hammer must be manually pulled back by the user prior to pulling the trigger. In double action, the hammer is pull back AND the weapon is subsequently fired on trigger pull. However, the difficultly of the trigger pull and lack of accuracy makes high speed use impractical, especially considering there are only 6 rounds available.

 

[Safiel]

Is it considered a good weapon or a pile of garbage?
I imagine it kicks quite a lot which is obviously not a problem for Robocop but is a problem for mere mortals.

I don't know much about. It went out of production in 1993 and no similar weapon replaced it, which leads me to believe it was not considered effective.

 

[L88]

Can we own auto firearms now?
When did this happen?

 

[L88]

The diet is self-controlled, one can't control who will use a semi or auto to kill massive numbers of people.
Autos are a way of life, are you suggesting fire arms are a way of life? Most deaths from autos are "accidents", most deaths from fire arms are deliberate.
Try better arguments, sheesh!

Which makes autos the most dangerous consumer product made.

 

[VanceMack]

One of the most agregious things about political issues is this thing about protecting opwnership of
automatic weapons for no stated purpose. Nobody needs an automatic weapon that can shoot 600
bullets per minute. There is no sport associated with this weapon. It's simple collusion between
Republicans and the corporations that make them. If you were a law-abiding citizen and had one of
those, what would you do with it besides put 30 bullets into a squirrel? So, the amount of distress of
not being able to own one of them is nothing compared to the kind of destruction and mass murder
someone could do. Vote against this kind of legislation.

So much you dont know...or maybe you do and deliberately ignore it. Which would be egregious.
1-I don't need an automatic weapon to shoot my semiautomatic weapons in rapid fire. I don't need a bump stock. I need a finger...and maybe a belt loop...but not even that.
2-Just because something says it CAN shoot at a high rate of fire, doesnt mean it does. 600 rounds a minute would warp or melt most commercial grade barrels. Most 50 round mags are awkward to use. Most 100 round drums are historically unreliable. Few commonly held weapons are belt fed.
3-Constitional rights are not predicated on need...however...you are 100% wrong when you say people dont NEED automatic weapons. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to hunt squirrels or even for home defense, though firearms are certainly good for that. The purpose isnt sport, though nothing wrong with shooting sports. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to secure the rights and protections of a free state against all manner of oppression.

As for your fear or distress...sorry...thats one of those things I like to call "your problem". My guess is you have watched too much Hollywood or listened to some anti-gun talking sheet.

 

[VanceMack]

I've often wondered about the gun used in the film Robocop.

It's a pistol that fires in ultra-rapid 3 round bursts and is pretty large as pistols go.
Is that pistol actually a thing and is it legal?

Auto 9

The Auto 9 was a highly advanced select-fire machine pistol with a 50-round magazine. It was holstered in a concealed alcove in RoboCop's thigh, together with at least one reload magazine in storage. The most commonly utilized fire setting was in a three-round burst mode; however, RoboCop had...

robocop.fandom.com

Picture this bulked up with a lot of plastics for moviedom.

 

[KevinKohler]

The diet is self-controlled, one can't control who will use a semi or auto to kill massive numbers of people.

So it's less about loss of life for you, and more about the intent behind that loss of life.
I suppose I consider that semantics. Dead is dead, and the intent behind the cause is less important than the result, imo.

Autos are a way of life, are you suggesting fire arms are a way of life?

For a lot of people, yes, firearms are how they provide themselves with meat.

Most deaths from autos are "accidents", most deaths from fire arms are deliberate.

Deliberate in that theyre suicides. You don't think people should be allowed to take their own lives?

also, this is another appeal to inent mattering more than the result.

Try better arguments, sheesh!

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

So it's less about loss of life for you, and more about the intent behind that loss of life.
I suppose I consider that semantics. Dead is dead, and the intent behind the cause is less important than the result, imo.

What kind of argument is THAT? Equating someone dying from poor diet vs BEING KILLED by someone else. Are you even for real with this comparison??

Deliberate in that theyre suicides.

Still self-inflicted, not inflicted by someone else.

You don't think people should be allowed to take their own lives?

OMG, come on!! Now you are throwing strawman arguments out there? I don't think SOMEONE ELSE should be taking my life. If I want to take my own, I would hope someone would have a big enough heart to recognize the signs and help me. Not make snide remarks about how suicide is equal to being shot by someone else. The emptiness of your arguments is staggering. I hope I never become that callous about human life.

 

[RF667799]

What kind of argument is THAT? Equating someone dying from poor diet vs BEING KILLED by someone else. Are you even for real with this comparison??

Still self-inflicted, not inflicted by someone else.

OMG, come on!! Now you are throwing strawman arguments out there? I don't think SOMEONE ELSE should be taking my life. If I want to take my own, I would hope someone would have a big enough heart to recognize the signs and help me. Not make snide remarks about how suicide is equal to being shot by someone else. The emptiness of your arguments is staggering. I hope I never become that callous about human life.

View attachment 67572755

Talk to the gun control advocates and the Gun Control Industry. They regularly categorize suicides, accidents, and homicides as if they are all alike.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Talk to the gun control advocates and the Gun Control Industry. They regularly categorize suicides, accidents, and homicides as if they are all alike.

On THAT point you are right, sort of. Homicides IS murder, suicides and accidents aren't. Why do I say "sort of?" That would require a long psychological and sociological answer. Short version: without a gun suicide is harder to commit and other methods are more reversible than a bullet to the head and accidents by gun wouldn't happen without the gun, now would they?

But this is all semantics. It's all "all or nothing" for some folks. This "belief" that Libruls and Dimocrats will take your guns, it is a lame argument. It's only the type of weapon that are the question. If one needs an AR-15 to go hunting I have to wonder if they really are a hunter or just like feeling like one. Big diff.

 

[RF667799]

On THAT point you are right, sort of. Homicides IS murder, suicides and accidents aren't. Why do I say "sort of?" That would require a long psychological and sociological answer. Short version: without a gun suicide is harder to commit and other methods are more reversible than a bullet to the head and accidents by gun wouldn't happen without the gun, now would they?

Jumping off a bridge is reversible? For who? Superman?

But this is all semantics. It's all "all or nothing" for some folks. This "belief" that Libruls and Dimocrats will take your guns, it is a lame argument. It's only the type of weapon that are the question. If one needs an AR-15 to go hunting I have to wonder if they really are a hunter or just like feeling like one. Big diff.

The gun control advocates make arguments that include the idea that if they can take one sort of gun, they can take any and all. They often refer to any incremental increase in regulations as "baby steps"--- steps that are necessary before really motivating, eh?

AR-15s make one "feel like a hunter"? If one is hunting, then one is a hunter by definition. AR-15... Browning Auto-5...Colt Python... crossbow. Just a few of the things one might carry while hunting.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Number of deaths rooted in poor diet > number of deaths from fire arms of any and all kinds.
Number of deaths from auto accidents > number of deaths from fire arms of any and all kinds.

The reason this would be considered stupid is that everything you mentioned were not intentionally invented and improved upon to kill and wound other living beings in a matter of moments.

While anything can be weaponized, not everything is meant to be a weapon (in case you want to bring up the lame ass banning hammers argument).

What you showing to us a false analogy fallacy.

 

[RF667799]

The reason this would be considered stupid is that everything you mentioned were not intentionally invented and improved upon to kill and wound other living beings in a matter of moments.

That's a feature, often employed by peaceful people. If we accept your sketchy assertion.

While anything can be weaponized, not everything is meant to be a weapon (in case you want to bring up the lame ass banning hammers argument).

Suppose we accept your rhetoric. What relevance does it have? What's the importance of something meant to be used as a weapon, if everything can be used as a weapon?

What you showing to us a false analogy fallacy.

 

[Lees]

You can own an automatic weapon in the U.S. today. But you better have the correct paper work. And you better have a lot of money.

Lees

 

[L88]

The reason this would be considered stupid is that everything you mentioned were not intentionally invented and improved upon to kill and wound other living beings in a matter of moments.

While anything can be weaponized, not everything is meant to be a weapon (in case you want to bring up the lame ass banning hammers argument).

What you showing to us a false analogy fallacy.

That's an emotion, not a reason. Not many firearms are used for killing anything. Many are designed and used for target shooting. Some are owned for self-defense. Do you believe every gun owner wants to kill another person with their gun?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The reason this would be considered stupid is that everything you mentioned were not intentionally invented and improved upon to kill and wound other living beings in a matter of moments.

While anything can be weaponized, not everything is meant to be a weapon (in case you want to bring up the lame ass banning hammers argument).

What you showing to us a false analogy fallacy.

The 2A rights don’t include the right to shoot (or shoot at) another person.

 

[VanceMack]

The reason this would be considered stupid is that everything you mentioned were not intentionally invented and improved upon to kill and wound other living beings in a matter of moments.

While anything can be weaponized, not everything is meant to be a weapon (in case you want to bring up the lame ass banning hammers argument).

What you showing to us a false analogy fallacy.

I'm with you. I make no bones about my ownership of firearms.
I own black powder firearms because they are fun to shoot. Its like shooting a bit of history. I use them regularly. Heck...I make my own perc caps and powder. I can spend a day out shooting black powder and its dirt cheap and a LOT of fun.
I own target firearms for distance shooting.
I own shotguns and rifles that are ideal for hunting.
I own handguns for personal defense.
I own...other types of guns...lets leave it at that...in the case of the gravest scenario. The Constitution was written to ensure that should we ever reach a point where the citizens of the country were needed to step up and provide for the common defense, we are to be capable. Heck..one of President Washington's addresses literally cited the REQUIREMENT for citizens to be armed...that their arms be well regulated (kept in good working order and the owner trained in its use) and that it be well apportioned...meaning sufficient ammunition stockpiles to be prepared to fight.

Every gun i have serves a purpose. most of them I hope I will not ever again have to use. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[KevinKohler]

The reason this would be considered stupid is that everything you mentioned were not intentionally invented and improved upon to kill and wound other living beings in a matter of moments.

While anything can be weaponized, not everything is meant to be a weapon (in case you want to bring up the lame ass banning hammers argument).

What you showing to us a false analogy fallacy.

Right, and as I said, that boils your argument down to...its not so much about the death. But about the intent behind the causes of the death.

 

[KevinKohler]

What kind of argument is THAT? Equating someone dying from poor diet vs BEING KILLED by someone else. Are you even for real with this comparison??

It's your position. Ultimately, the deaths aren't what bothers you, but the intent behind the causes of those deaths. Otherwise, the millions of deaths caused by high cholesterol would bother you more than the significantly fewer deaths caused by firearms. True, or not true?

Still self-inflicted, not inflicted by someone else.

OMG, come on!! Now you are throwing strawman arguments out there? I don't think SOMEONE ELSE should be taking my life. If I want to take my own, I would hope someone would have a big enough heart to recognize the signs and help me. Not make snide remarks about how suicide is equal to being shot by someone else. The emptiness of your arguments is staggering. I hope I never become that callous about human life.

View attachment 67572755

 

[Maidenrules29]

One of the most agregious things about political issues is this thing about protecting opwnership of
automatic weapons for no stated purpose. Nobody needs an automatic weapon that can shoot 600
bullets per minute. There is no sport associated with this weapon. It's simple collusion between
Republicans and the corporations that make them. If you were a law-abiding citizen and had one of
those, what would you do with it besides put 30 bullets into a squirrel? So, the amount of distress of
not being able to own one of them is nothing compared to the kind of destruction and mass murder
someone could do. Vote against this kind of legislation.

This is the wrong forum.

 

[Maidenrules29]

One of the most agregious things about political issues is this thing about protecting opwnership of
automatic weapons for no stated purpose. Nobody needs an automatic weapon that can shoot 600
bullets per minute. There is no sport associated with this weapon. It's simple collusion between
Republicans and the corporations that make them. If you were a law-abiding citizen and had one of
those, what would you do with it besides put 30 bullets into a squirrel? So, the amount of distress of
not being able to own one of them is nothing compared to the kind of destruction and mass murder
someone could do. Vote against this kind of legislation.

Have you ever fired an automatic firearm?

 

[InWalkedBud]

One of the most agregious things about political issues is this thing about protecting opwnership of
automatic weapons for no stated purpose. Nobody needs an automatic weapon that can shoot 600
bullets per minute. There is no sport associated with this weapon. It's simple collusion between
Republicans and the corporations that make them. If you were a law-abiding citizen and had one of
those, what would you do with it besides put 30 bullets into a squirrel? So, the amount of distress of
not being able to own one of them is nothing compared to the kind of destruction and mass murder
someone could do. Vote against this kind of legislation.

What on earth are you talking about? Automatic weapons were banned 40 years ago. While it is still legal to own one manufactured before 1986, regulatory red tape + scarcity = 20k just to say hello.

Fabricating an excuse ro piss & moan is lame, but at least it's childish.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This is the wrong forum.

It’s as easy to create an OP in and ignore replies as any.

 

[Maidenrules29]

So auto weapons were NOT used in school shootings? Yeah, ok

https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/115244/documents/HHRG-117-JU08-20221215-SD007.pdf

Did you even read your own info?