Talk:Gun

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Dick Jokes[edit]

Hey how's about we cut the redirect on Gun to Penis, and instead get into the Weapon Of Gub debate? DogP 16:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I just realised I am probably one of the few people here that owns a gun. Tyrannis (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you are, I know of at least two others. Also I know of many local friends who concealed carry because they can. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition and rate-of-fire[edit]

Is a selectable rate of fire necessary? I would say semi-automatic, capable of shooting a rifle cartridge, pistol grip and designed for combat rather than hunting are enough. AR-15s, which most would consider assault rifles, are only sold to the general public as semi-auto. Small point, but wanted to discuss before editing. Petey Plane (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The selectable point is to encompass military grade weapons like the M-16 (which is also an AR-15) into the mix because it is an assault rifle. As for the pistol grip, even that isn't necessary since the FRS-15 exists and there are many other custom kits like it. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
And same for an SKS, as far as the grip goes, now that i'm thinking about it. Petey Plane (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Although the term "assault rifle" has started to be used by the general public to include semi-automatic versions of these weapons, this usage is incorrect. c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Definition --Tracer (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect by what standards? Civilians aren't beholden to military terminology, especially when there are conflicting definitions used in law. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I actually agree with you, Weasel, but to play DA, wouldn't the group most familiar with something have the experience to set the baseline for performance? Petey Plane (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
If we put aside such issues as the "assault weapon ban", the technical definition of an assault rifle that I'm familiar with is roughly "selective-fire automatic rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge". The characteristic trait of the assault rifle, first put into mass use by the Third Reich with its Sturmgewehr 44 (direct translation: assault rifle 44) was to cut down the full-sized rifle cartridge of the day to create a weapon in-between the rifle and the sub machine gun. Note the distinction between the M-14 (often called a battle rifleWikipedia's W.svg) and the M-16 (assault rifle), even though the former was designed for full-auto fire. This also means that other full-powered cartridge selective-fire automatic rifles as the FN FAL and the CETME/H&K G3 are not technically assault rifles, but battle rifles, although I guess that in terms of gun control they may be lumped together. I would not include the SKS as an assault rifle as it was designed as a semi-auto from the outset, whereas the various civilian variants of ARs, AKs and what have you are basically deliberately "downgraded" (in terms of potential firepower) selective-fire weapons.
In general, I find the focus on assault weapons to be somewhat tangential to gun control anyway. It's simply an emotional appeal label that seeks to avoid actually asking the simple question: What kinds of weapons are we, as a society, happy with civilians possessing and under which circumstances? Personally, I reside in a country with extremely strict gun control and am pretty happy with it. While high-capacity magasine-fed automatic rifles or "civilianised" sub machine guns take the limelight at mass-shootings, I'm suspecting that it's pistols and revolvers that are actually inflicting most gunshot wounds. Thus, I'm happy to live in a country that generally bans both for ordinary civilians and puts strict limits on even when and where you can legally transport even "ordinary" hunting weapons (e.g. double-barrelled shotguns, repeating rifles, or semi-automatic rifles with a magasine capacity of no more than 1 round + 1 in the chamber). So, to wind my input up; coming up with various legalese (re)definitions of the term "assault rifle", or the even vaguer "assault weapon", seems to be a rather fruitless and pointless task. Start from the other end and decide what kinds of weapons you do want people to be able to acquire, then ban anything not fitting these standards. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
That's why weapons such as AR-15 rifles (however we define this category) are so relevant to the gun control debate: unlike pistols, revolvers, shotguns & conventional civilian rifles, they don't fit into any of the ordinary justifications for gun ownership. They're not personal defence weapons; they're not hunting weapons; & the claim that they're "sporting rifles" is pretty questionable. The major reason they are widely owned in the US is because of American gun culture with its macho power obsession & its zero compromise rhetoric on the Second Amendment. It's unsurprising that they're used so frequently in school shootings & other massacres, when gun culture fetishises these weapons so heavily, and when the perpetrators are basically using these weapons for the purposes they were designed (for the military) to do: killing or incapacitating groups of people rapidly & efficiently. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Then focus on what weapons you do want. Say, only repeating or semi-automatic rifles with a capacity of 5 rounds or less or whatever you think works. Set a similar, clear definition for hand guns and you won't have to waste time about first cooking up definition of an undesirable class of weapons to be banned, an effort further complicated by choosing to apply a label that already has a fairly consistent military/technical definition. This is not to mention that there is of course a not inconsiderable slice of then US population that does believe that a heavily armed civilian populace (when compared to most other advanced democracies) actually is a justification in and of itself. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Ruger 10/22 carbine
A Ruger 10/22 is a semi-automatic rifle with a ten-round rotary box magazine (higher-capacity aftermarket magazines are available) shooting the .22 long rifle cartridge. It has what's commonly called a pistol-grip stock, and is not really suitable for hunting (it's more of a plinking/small varmint rifle.)
It would take some serious cephalo-colonic occlusion to class it with assault rifles, but given the recent sorry state of US public discourse, I wouldn't bet against that. SmartFeller (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a semi-pistol grip, as is common on shotguns & rifles. AFAIK it doesn't feature in any common conceptions of assault rifles/weapons nor in legislation restriction them. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
This is also a Ruger 10/22. As a popular rifle, it has a variety of stylistic options, including such things as grips, stocks, rails, magazines, color, etc. It's still semi-automatic and shoots the .22 long rifle cartridge. Also, @User:Weaseloid above, what compromises do you think are appropriate regarding the Bill of Rights? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe it was a plain vanilla 10/22, freshly purchased, that was used in a 1985 mall shootingWikipedia's W.svg in the US. The weapon was so non-scary looking that a volunteer firefighter didn't believe it was real until after he took it away from the shooter. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki's missions[edit]

Is this article doing any of the following things?

  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe merge with Gun? Petey Plane (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably the best option.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah merge with Gun. Though does further RationalWiki's fifth, unspoken mission: countering American conservatism. TeslaK20 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
How is it doing that? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it counters conservatism, rather, it counters media sensationalism. Petey Plane (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
How is it doing that? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
In that it examines the language being used by the mass media and provides context and insight into the discussion. Often times, terms-of-art make their way into the popular culture, and i think this page (or it merged with Gun), provides rational insight on the discussion as well as a space through which clear-minded and empirically backed insight on the reality of firearms within modern society. But, yeah, should be merged with Guns. Petey Plane (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that at all. The article doesn't say a word about media sensationalism & barely touches on the reality of firearms within modern society. What we should be looking at, if we cover this subject at all, is things like why some people want to own these weapons, why others want to see them banned, & the merits of both arguments. As it stands, the article dodges these issues in favour of facile semantics. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
i love the the word facile. It has very derisory sound that really scathing but you can still claim civilty. I use it to often. Inane is good if you want to mix things up. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

In the US "assault weapons" are often mischaracterized by the media in scare tactics. This article is informative and counters misinformation. Lord Aeonian (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't understand why a redirect from "assault weapons" to the same information under "guns" diminishes its effectiveness in achieving those aims. That way, there wouldn't need to be a discussion of different types of guns that are not assault weapons on a page named "assault rifle." If another important objective in educating the public is providing a complete framework for understanding the issue, sending everyone to a single place to learn about the topic seems reasonable. Working to counter mischaracterization needs to only be done on one page, and leaving it at a single page would help with maintaining intellectual consistency. If there arises a bad-faith attempt to slant commentary on this topic, having a separate page allows the editor to escape the scrutiny such commentary might face when presented within its relevant broader context, i.e. guns. I support merging this content with guns and deleting this page.--AnodyneApotheosis (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Another unspoken characteristic of the mission is countering bullshit. Media mischaracterization and scare tactics fit that right down to the ground. SmartFeller (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
it is depressing that debate over what constitutes an assault rifle is depressing as it means and assault rifle ban is literally the best we can hope for. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-auto versions deadlier?[edit]

One thing I'd like to see is any data on whether semi-automatic assault weapons are any more dangerous than other semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. "More dangerous" both in terms of their alleged ability to kill more people more quickly than other semi-auto rifles, and in terms of whether you're more likely to accidentally shoot something or someone you didn't intend to (e.g. does the pistol grip make you more likely to shoot from the hip, which is less accurate than using the gunsights?). NOTE: Whether assault weapons are involved in more homicides than other semi-automatic rifles doesn't necessarily mean they're deadlier, it might merely mean that they're popular, in the same way that McDonald's causes more obesity than Burger King even though their food is about the same. --Tracer (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a semi-automatic "assault weapon?" Americans can't legally own any weapon which can fire in a fully automatic mode anyway, which means actual assault rifles are already banned. Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually they can, technically. Due to the law making exceptions for guns produced before a certain date, you can legally own a minigun. Like, a gun that shoots 6000 rounds a second and will turn a small forest into toothpicks. Of course since no new ones can be produced there's only like 9 in existence that you can own and they are all in the half mil range, to say nothing of the cost of firing the thing. And a minigun is something that you can't hide in your back pocket regardless of how saggy your pants are. But in more realistic terms, you can also own a SAW (squad assault weapon), if you have the proper permits which unlike CCL are not given out like Halloween candy. Of course these are machine guns and not assault rifles.
Also flame throwers are legal, because fuck bees. Except in California, damn hippies.
But back on topic, a semi auto rifle is an assault rifle with a stock, while the semi auto weapon includes just about every handgun made since the civil war. StickySock (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

BoN edits[edit]

I'm not one to singlehandedly revert changes that add real information, but I feel like the obsessive detail about gun mechanics that the BoN has been adding is less useful and more time-wasting to the reader, and I'd at least like to raise the possibility of reverting. For convenience, here's their change-set as of this post ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You can ditch most of those, perhaps even all. RW is not an encyclopedia; we're here to look at the politics and culture of guns, not to list every type (with illustrations) of these largely defensive weapons. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 11:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I would manually remove the stuff that's overkill, rather than revert the whole shebang. Some technical info is actually useful — e.g., we have to agree that assault rifle bans cannot be meaningfully discussed without understanding some of the technical nuance to what specific sort of rifle that even is. I could cut a bit from the article myself and we could see if it's any better? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)