# Wal-Mart to stop selling assault rifles!



## Ralphy1 (Aug 27, 2015)

The biggest gun and ammo seller in the U.S. will curtail sales because of what they say is decreasing demand, not political pressure.  However, demand is still there according to those in the know.  But for whatever reason, you would surely agree with me that it is about time for self-restriction by Wal-Mart is a great start...


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

What does 'curtail sales' involve?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 27, 2015)

Just the assault type rifles...


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

Not enough. No applause from me.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 27, 2015)

You must applaud any change that slows the crazy gun culture...


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

Tell me about this item, available cheaply at Walmart ($12.92)


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 27, 2015)

Well, you can't expect them to upset their NRA customers too much...nthego:


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

Are they what are known as dum dum bullets?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 27, 2015)

I am no authority on guns and ammo, but I believe that the dum dum bullet is illegal as it expands on hitting a body and shreds a path rather than just taking a straight path...


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 27, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Are they what are known as dum dum bullets?



Yes that is what I have heard them called.... or more accurately.. I always thought that dum dum was a hollow point.  But I'm not an ammo expert.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

Legalities



> The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in _international warfare_ of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.[SUP][3][/SUP] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that are prohibited by the Hague Convention and the United Nations.[SUP][_citation needed_]
> [/SUP]
> Despite the ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of bullets used by civilians and police,[SUP][4][/SUP] which is due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]
> 
> ...



So although they are prohibited for the military, civilians can buy then.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 27, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Legalities
> 
> 
> 
> So although they are prohibited for the military, civilians can buy then.



Why yes!!   That's our 2nd amendment right doncha know....


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 27, 2015)

I will never understand the gun thing.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 27, 2015)

It is a guy thing.  Little boys start with cap pistols and move on from there...


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 27, 2015)

Surely you mean an American guy thing? Other countries not so much.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 27, 2015)

Me thinks that it is in all cultures if it is legal.  Look around the world and you will find boys and men playing with guns, and in a deadly way...


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 27, 2015)

says a lot doesn't it...


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 27, 2015)

Yup, but men are just victims of their biology, or are we?


----------



## rt3 (Aug 27, 2015)

The device you are looking at is used by shooters who use black powder or ancient firearms for hunting. They are single shots and loaded from the barrel in the same manner as primitive weapons used by the founders of the country. Muzzleloader ss can hunt 2 weeks before regular season and enjoy the advantage. Muzzle loaders use large soft lead bullets that deform easily. This tool "straightens" out the bullet and realigns it. Hollow points as you describe dum dums is a good laugh, are very common and civilian use has nothing to do with military conventions. Metal jacketed bullets used by the military are extremely dangerous as they shoot thru cars, buildings etc.
Billing Walmart as the largest retailer is not accurate. The largest seller is Davidsons. These articles clump all shooting sales together, while Davidsons only sells guns. This is really good news for small shop owners as now they can compete better. Walmart will still sell handgun ammo at discount etc. 
you cannot define an assault rifle, it is a media term used by anti gun freaks to raise emotional levels. The ar 15 described in the article is now Americas favorite gun thanks to Obama, Hilary etc. the used to run about $1000, but because of the incredible demand and increase in factory output you can get one for about $500 from a small dealer. Walmart cannot compete in this market and has bowed out. God what a great country.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 27, 2015)

Ralphy, I think testosterone plays a part, but I believe the decider is culture.


----------



## applecruncher (Aug 27, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Me thinks that it is in all cultures if it is legal. Look around the world and you will find boys and men playing with guns, and in a deadly way...



Girls too.  As a kid we played with cap guns.  I still remember the burning smell as shots were fired.

I also remember a drunk uncle coming into our house when were eating dinner, brandishing a gun, and my dad knocked the daylights out of him, took the gun, and physically tossed uncle on the lawn and called the police to come get him.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 27, 2015)

Gunphobia is also a culture.

"Fear of weapons is a sign of retarted ****** and emotional maturity" Sigmund Freud.

blaming hormone levels is ok but let's do it across the board. The decreases in estradiol level, progesterone in peri and post menopausal women, and at the same time increases in free circulating testosterone gives participants in this category irrational thoughts.


----------



## Don M. (Aug 27, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Tell me about this item, available cheaply at Walmart ($12.92)
> 
> View attachment 20802



Allow me to clarify this little device...for the "uninformed".  This device allows a "Black Powder" shooter, who casts his own lead ammunition, to hollow out the rear end of the bullet, so as to make it seat better in the barrel of his Black Powder rifle.  Virtually every one of these Black Powder shooters are either hunters or "historical shooters" who like to re-enact the days of the colonial era, etc.  

I am not aware of ANY illegal incidents Ever occurring by one of these shooters, or their use of such a weapon.  These types of firearms would Never be considered as a tool to commit a crime or murder, as they are single shot, and require quite a bit of time to reload each individual shot.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 27, 2015)

It seems like we have all been down this road many times before...


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 27, 2015)

rt3 said:


> "Fear of weapons is a sign of retarted ****** and emotional maturity" Sigmund Freud.



So is fear of cigars, according to him ...


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 27, 2015)

Ah, dear Siggy, now there  was a pathology worth studying! Lol.


----------



## fureverywhere (Aug 27, 2015)

"Fear of weapons is a sign of retarted ****** and emotional maturity" Sigmund Freud. 
Not using spellcheck is kind of retarded too...n' Sigmund had a habit so I take him with a grain of salt.

But seriously, what does it say about our society when people want to bicker about what sized guns they can own. I've read enough human interest stories about gun culture. It becomes with some people like "My guns bigger than your gun nyahnyahnyah". The guns that should be banned period are any type that make it too easy to get off repeat shots.

They make sense in combat obviously, but using them at your local mall or movie theater is just bad manners...so just make it a crime to even manufacture them.


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 27, 2015)

There is no law preventing the use of hollow point bullets.  A common load for say a .38 caliber would be a S@W special plus P.  It is a killer.  It is made for one thing only, killing the recipient.


----------



## BobF (Aug 27, 2015)

After reading this entire bunch of responses I say no one ever really described the product that WalMart is stopping from selling.

One is that it is not the same gun the military is using at all.   It looks like one but for one big difference.   This gun is single shot and does not shoot like a machine gun would do.   Each shot requires a finger pull of the trigger and only one shot goes off.    A second pull of the trigger will release the second shot.   And so forth for all bullets in the chamber.

The real military rifle would only take on pull and hold of the trigger and all bullets in the chamber will be fired in rapid succession till the chamber is empty.   Hunters and home protectors don't need the full military style of weapons and nobody sells them publicly that I know of.    Might be so, just don't know about those places.   Not sure if it would be legal to do so either.


----------



## fureverywhere (Aug 27, 2015)

There you go, yet another thing that should be regulated...so you're saying someone would not be going deer hunting with hollow point bullets right?


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Aug 27, 2015)

Heard the headlines from a number of media outlets, yesterday.  "WalMart to cease selling assault rifles" or "WalMart to cease selling AR-15 type rifles".  In all those reports, the reason for no longer inventorying them was low sales volume.

So, I pick up the USA Today at my hotel this morning.  "WalMart to cease selling modern hunting rifles".  Quite a difference.  For a while, thought I was reading the WSJ or listening to Faux Noise.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

As one of the "uninformed", I have had to do my own research to make sense of the various answers posted here.

I decided to look up "hollow pointed bullets Australia" to see what the situation is over here. This is one page that tells me that hollow pointed bullets are best used for smaller game.



> *      With so many choices these days , which projectile (bullet) to use for different hunting situations is something that can be confusing for new and old hunters alike. To decide which bullet is best for your situation , you have to know how they work. To try to explain this , firstly I will have to give you a quick Physics lesson (I'll try not to be too boring!).  *
> 
> Once a bullet is projected from the muzzle of a rifle , it possesses what is called _Momentum_. This is an energy that it possesses , and is affected by the mass of the bullet , and the velocity it is travelling at. *Now this is the important part:* when a bullet hits  a target (goat , pig , etc.) this energy (momentum) that it possesses is transferred on to the target. The effectiveness of the bullet is judged by the amount of energy that the bullet possesses , and how quickly this energy is transferred to the target. The slower the bullet transfers the energy (slows down) , the less effective the  bullet ; similarly the quicker the bullet transfers the energy , the more effective the bullet (the bigger the shock caused to the animal).
> 
> ...


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 27, 2015)

I read somewhere back in April that there was a NY church (Trinity?) that was threatening Wally-World with a lawsuit if they didn't stop selling guns of all kinds. Not sure how that turned out or whether it was related to WW's current actions ...


----------



## BobF (Aug 27, 2015)

Those churches do have that right.    But I doubt that their attacks will amount to much but defense cost to WalMart as until the Constitution gets changed WalMart can sell what ever the people are willing to pay for and that includes the guns.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 27, 2015)

I suppose that's true, but Trinity owns 14 acres of prime real estate in Manhattan worth hundreds of millions and they have a huge membership, so they're not exactly a tiny fly in the ointment either.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Those churches do have that right.    But I doubt that their attacks will amount to much but defense cost to WalMart as until the Constitution gets changed WalMart can sell what ever the people are willing to pay for and that includes the guns.


I understand that under the Constitution any citizen has the right to own a gun but where does it say that  anyone can sell them?

Just a thought. If I, as a non citizen want to buy a gun in the US and take it with me while I tour the country by car and bus, can I buy one legally?
I would want it for self defence, of course.


----------



## BobF (Aug 27, 2015)

Warrigal, that sounds like a attorney type question.   I don't think so if you are not a citizen or have a US address that the police can check on.   Ask an attorney.

You don't need a gun to travel and tour in the US.   Where did you come up with that idea?    Gun danger in the US seems to be in business districts from the hands of unregistered guns owners.    For the millions of registered guns in the US there is not much trouble at all.   I would have to look up the stats about the use of guns in the US.   I suspect that many killings are happening with unregistered guns.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

Have you seen the Aussie movie _Wolf Creek ?

_It is actually based on a real murderer who hunted people in northern outback Australia. 
The lonely roads are not necessarily safer than the urban ones.

I might need a gun in Arizona unless you can assure me otherwise.
If I need one for self defence, why couldn't I have one?

Perhaps I could bring my own gun with me?
Otherwise, why is my safety less important than that of a US citizen?

Just playing the Devil's Advocate for the sake of argument.
Humour me.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 27, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> I read somewhere back in April that there was a NY church (Trinity?) that was threatening Wally-World with a lawsuit if they didn't stop selling guns of all kinds. Not sure how that turned out or whether it was related to WW's current actions ...



they were trounced by Walmart, even in the state of NY. That had to hurt.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 27, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I understand that under the Constitution any citizen has the right to own a gun but where does it say that  anyone can sell them?
> 
> Just a thought. If I, as a non citizen want to buy a gun in the US and take it with me while I tour the country by car and bus, can I buy one legally?
> I would want it for self defence, of course.



it depends on the stste. The law actually is that anyone can make a gun, it's the transfer that is the problem. All manufactured guns are on file with BATF  and when transferred , to buyers , back ground checks are made at both the federal and local level.

Anyone with a CNC milling machine can set the machine up and not finish the receiver. You can go in pay, push the button have the machine finish, and at this time it needs no registration numbers. It doesn't exist. God what a great country.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Warrigal, that sounds like a attorney type question.   I don't think so if you are not a citizen or have a US address that the police can check on.   Ask an attorney.
> 
> You don't need a gun to travel and tour in the US.   Where did you come up with that idea?    Gun danger in the US seems to be in business districts from the hands of unregistered guns owners.    For the millions of registered guns in the US there is not much trouble at all.   I would have to look up the stats about the use of guns in the US.   I suspect that many killings are happening with unregistered guns.



the guns are registered they were stolen. Most of the killings mass ones in particular were done by the registrants themselves which is a supporting arguement that gun laws don't stop killings


----------



## rt3 (Aug 27, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Have you seen the Aussie movie _Wolf Creek ?
> 
> _It is actually based on a real murderer who hunted people in northern outback Australia.
> The lonely roads are not necessarily safer than the urban ones.
> ...



you could in Arizona but don't try it in an eastern democratic state.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

Interesting case. Trinity Church was a shareholder in Walmart and was not threatening a lawsuit. Rather, as shareholders they were seeking to have "the board  to oversee the sale of “products that especially endanger public safety and well-being, risk impairing the company’s reputation, or offend the family and community values integral to the company’s brand,” as the document first filed with the Security and Exchange Commission last year read." They had previously "submitted its shareholder proposal in December 2013 for inclusion in the Walmart’s 2014 proxy materials."

Walmart countered by "arguing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Trinity’s proposal would interfere with the company’s day-to-day operations. The SEC sided with Walmart, issuing a no-action letter permitting the retailer to exclude the church’s submission from its 2014 annual filings."

So, no lawsuit but a ruling from the Security and Exchange Commission.
Interesting though that Walmart has reconsidered its assault weapons sales.
They might be worried about personal liability suits on board members.

I guess the next step open to the church would be to divest its investments in Walmart.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...art-beats-out-church-in-court-over-gun-sales/


----------



## tnthomas (Aug 27, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I understand that under the Constitution any citizen has the right to own a gun but where does it say that  anyone can sell them?
> 
> Just a thought. If I, as a non citizen want to buy a gun in the US and take it with me while I tour the country by car and bus, can I buy one legally?
> I would want it for self defence, of course.



Gun laws vary widely from one state to another.   You can buy a gun legally in most venues, but many jurisdictions have specific rules regarding the transport of weapons.   However, carrying or transporting a *loaded *weapon is regulated closely in most areas.   In California(for example) a person faces the following constraints(just one of many penal code sections) on carrying a loaded firearm:

Per PENAL CODE 
SECTION 25850




> 25850.  (a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the
> person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while
> in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city
> or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area
> ...




The legal requirements are only meaningful to law abiding citizens that are also of sound mind.....


----------



## rt3 (Aug 27, 2015)

If you delve into the trinity case further you will find it was very much about handguns sales. The were simply out maneuvered by some of the best attorneys in the U.S. It was a question of how angry can you afford to be. Walmart is making no political statement and not fearing liability from stockholders, U.S. Corp. are not set up that way.

Interstate transport depends on state laws somewhat. Interesting the fed government stepped in to stop outrageous laws such as cal, new jersey and New York.,blocking their laws if certain conditions are met, unloaded in the trunk etc. This very law is used by the anti gun group reasoning that it is a loophole that allows the flow of guns into these states without registration from adjacent states which are less restrictive. This is a very big issue. The anti gun folks forget that only law abiding citizens follow the law as Thomas points out above. 
New Jersey lost a large suit 10 mil as I recall by arresting a lic. Concealed carry guy denying him of due process last year. I expect cal. Will be the next.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 27, 2015)

Again you and the media have used the term assault incorrectly, you nor anyone else can define assault type weapon.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 27, 2015)

Well, I haven't a clue about different kinds of rifles so I simply repeat what I have read.
I assume an assault rifle is one that is intended to only kill people, not elephants.
Otherwise I would call it an elephant gun.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 28, 2015)

Ah, but could an elephant gun not also be used to kill humans? 

I propose a full ban on ALL butterfly guns.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 28, 2015)

I propose dropping a butterfly net over anyone who walks around with a loaded elephant gun. :grin:


----------



## rt3 (Aug 28, 2015)

I propose gun safety be taught at a grade school level as a required course. Anti gunners not allowing their children to attend would be disciplined with butterfly wippings. Also they would be registered and an instantaneous national data base would be implemented requiring their registration. 
Most elephants are killed by native poachers who use what you call assault rifles from the 80s CETMEs HK91s and full metal jacket military rounds 308 Rds which is a military "human" bullet not elephant rifles. 
In the U.S. The BATF defines the names of guns. Under the media definition a full automatic UZI would not be an assault rifle. Surely you can see the oxymoron.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 28, 2015)

We teach water safety over here. And road safety.


----------



## BobF (Aug 28, 2015)

And so do we Warrigal.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 28, 2015)

Concordance at last. :grin:


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 28, 2015)

How about sex safety?  Seems to be the rage here from elementary school on...


----------



## Denise1952 (Aug 28, 2015)

Walmart lies, as do many businesses that put big bucks before "serving" the people.  I still believe you get what you give out, so they'll probably "get" theirs.  Although I do respect so many, nice folks I know work there (well, they're there, you might have to catch them with a stun-gun to get help).

I change my mind a lot as some of you know, I hear it's a right for us gals, never heard that for the guys thoughlayful: so don't get any ideas  But I am not sure I go along with selling assault rifles to the general public.  But I also remember the American Indian trying to fight off  "us wonderful immigrants" with bows and arrows, against rifles.

I'm dangerous enough with my hands alone as they are considered lethal weapons by some:


----------



## rt3 (Aug 28, 2015)

amazing the BATF has no guns called assault rifle in their list of guns, but you continue to use it. Walmart announced they were stopping the sale of AR-15s and it was changes to assault rifles by the event driven media why aren't I surprised?

we could combine road rage, gun safety and driving into one on drive by shootings.


----------



## imp (Aug 29, 2015)

*My Curiosity Beckoned*

Went through the entire thread, usually avoid firearms-related argument. But, there remain misunderstandings and apprehension, most obviously. Thread sum-up:

1. Bullet: the actual projectile flying forth, NOT any of the other components needed to make up a ROUND of ammunition. 

2. Bullet type:  Mostly irrelevant. "Dum-dum", hollow-point, full-metal jacketed, non-jacketed, spire-point, "specialty" type, all commonly found for sale, and in general use by both Law  Enforcement agencies, and members of the "Gun Culture". Note: Specialty types have been targeted, mostly unsuccessfully, by vote-seeking politicians claiming an intent to illegalize them because they are "Cop-killer bullets".  Ridiculous, won't get my vote.

3. Bullet size: Range from quite small and light, to about 1/2-inch diameter, larger than that being governed by legislation. Absurd over-lapping of laws obvious on this one: shotguns commonly use a single very large chunk of material, instead of "shot", called a "slug", often almost an inch in diameter, yet completely legal. Many states only allow deer hunting with shotgun if slugs used instead of shot. Some disallow shotgun for medium to large game altogether.

4. Firearm ammunition containment: May be "single-shot", or "repeater". Repeaters include any arm which fires multiple times without reloading ammunition. Revolvers contain ammunition in their cylinder; semi-automatic (SA) pistols typically use a removable, reloadable "magazine" (it's NOT a CLIP!), SA "long-guns", shotguns, rifles, usually also use magazines. Some contain long tubes attached to the weapon, which act as non-removable "magazines". The remark made somewhere in this thread about "....how many bullets were in the chamber..." is technically incorrect. "Chamber" refers to the place in the arm where the round is actually fired. Only one round may be contained in the chamber.
5. Magazine capacity: Much furor, issue remains unsettled. Clinton's Crime Act made illegal, magazines capable of containing more than 10 rounds. Specifically, the ACT required Congressional Review, after 10 years, to determine the relevancy of "capacity" to crime rate. Review never took place. 2003, big magazines became "legal" again. During those 10 years, the BILLIONS of large magazines available everywhere _remained legal! _A crazed individual, hypothetically, unable to obtain high-capacity magazines, could conceivably carry 20 of the "legal" 10-round variety pouched on his person, and fire 200 rounds.

6. "Assault Rifles": Term thought to have originated when German soldiers entered a battle using a new, lighter version of fully-automatic rifle (i.e., "machine-gun"), in that "assault". Thus, by definition, no Assault Rifles have ever been sold to the public. They would fall under the National Firearms Act as machine guns. The "Assault-Style" rifles sold under that nomenclature, are actually no  different than any of the many other similar semi-automatic rifles offered to the public.

As an Engineer, firearms are of intense interest to me, because of the endless variety of ingenious mechanisms which have been conceived, designed, built, and used in them. I have never hunted game, do not believe in the killing of defenseless animals, including human animals. Thus, there may be credible thought  given to encouraging the occasional individual bent on using a firearm to kill innocent folk, to rather be certain he/she stalk only well-armed folks.   imp


----------



## rt3 (Aug 29, 2015)

Technically the term is select Fire BATF doesn't use the word machine guns.

in reflection to #5 and the banning of high capacity magazines.
1.5 million owners in New York and conn. An additional 2 mil in wash. Colorado stand in civil disobedience waiting for the fed government to try and enforce this. 
92 sheriffs dept. in these states have written Dept. letters to Obama stating they will not enforce that law.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 29, 2015)

A machine gun can be made from any magazine fed gun by removing the hammer disconnect. The trouble is , it empties the entire magazine.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 29, 2015)

I've read all of that technical information but it has done my head in. 
It all sounds so bloody dangerous, and I use the word 'bloody' in its literal sense.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 29, 2015)

It's really simple just think of Monty Python
whats the speed of an unladen swallow. ( you can't have that gun it shoots too fast)
african or European     (Assault rifle or hunting rifle)
What difference does it make? 

Well a King has to know these things. (It's all about control)


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 29, 2015)

Monty Python logic and humour is appropriate when considering the mentality of gun culture.
It is totally bizarre to the uninitiated.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 29, 2015)

... yet like most good humor it is based mainly upon fact and truth ...


----------



## imp (Aug 29, 2015)

rt3 said:


> A machine gun can be made from any magazine fed gun by removing the hammer disconnect. The trouble is , it empties the entire magazine.



Call them whatever you wish! As far as I'm concerned, what BATFE does, thinks, or says is mostly unimportant. Keep in mind, if ya wanna go even further, many select-fire weapons have no hammer disconnect, or even a hammer, for that matter. Ya know of any?     imp


----------



## imp (Aug 29, 2015)

*Is "Banning" Effective?*

Can "banning" private possession of any tangible material or object really be effective in pursuing some "purpose"? Controlled  substances are banned, and therefore presumably unobtainable; yet, we fight a "war on drugs" continuously. Consumable alcohol was "banned", that one created a near-second civil war. Firearms, then. Many types are already banned in various jurisdictions, yet those same jurisdictions "enjoy" some warped benefit: the highest crime rates. Would their crime rates soar even higher if the bans were lifted?

I've mulled this over for years. Given an individual who, for whatever reason, chooses to lethally attack another individual, and further given that this criminal has at his/her disposal, a group of tools capable of lethal attack on another, a firearm, club, knife, screwdriver, shovel, vehicle: would the crime not be committed if the firearm were removed from the "mix"?    imp


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 29, 2015)

Hmmm. Actually the more I read, the more I understand Monty Python, and the less I understand other things.


----------



## imp (Aug 29, 2015)

Well, I had to look up "Monty Python", and as a result, conclude I am simply too dense to equate a comedy show which ultimately provided _absurdist _philosophy to an issue such as firearms.    imp


----------



## rt3 (Aug 29, 2015)

imp said:


> Call them whatever you wish! As far as I'm concerned, what BATFE does, thinks, or says is mostly unimportant. Keep in mind, if ya wanna go even further, many select-fire weapons have no hammer disconnect, or even a hammer, for that matter. Ya know of any?     imp



miniguns, and electrical discharge primers use non mechanical controls.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 29, 2015)

IMO, Imp, it is about black humour, aka "Theatre of the Absurd," a time honoured satirical/ironic method of poking fun at or exposing various societal peculiarities. Still illegal in some repressive nations, ie Iran. I suspect that to many on both sides of the gun issue, the situation has it's absurdities.


----------



## fureverywhere (Aug 29, 2015)

Something that illustrates where we are. A group in Newark was trying to roust up spirit just for today. Just for twenty four hours no murder. The first shooting at 9am, the second at 12. Is that sad or what?


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 29, 2015)

Heartbreaking Fur.


----------



## imp (Aug 29, 2015)

rt3 said:


> miniguns, and electrical discharge primers use non mechanical controls.



Ya missed it, I'm surprised! Firing from an open bolt, no "hammer", disconnecting means if provided works similarly, can have a movable firing pin, as in original Thompson design, or fixed firing pin as in MAC-10. THOSE I like!    imp


----------



## imp (Aug 29, 2015)

*Government Double-Standard*

So long as government reserves the right to "make war" against it's enemies, as well as reserves the right to make and have firearms, which it can issue to it's citizens as Soldiers representing "their country" (or is it their government?), and force them to use such issue weaponry to kill others, as well as being maimed and killed themselves, while denying it's citizenry at large the right to possess those same firearms, is to me, laughable, at best. Despicable, as worse. Such citizenry constitute subjects, not citizens.   imp


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 29, 2015)

Hmm. With or without guns, and this Canuck makes no secret of her antigun stance, I believe we are all to some degree "subjects" regardless. Perhaps increasing transparency in some areas may offset the secrecy in others. Power always flourishes  best in the dark.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 29, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> Something that illustrates where we are. A group in Newark was trying to roust up spirit just for today. Just for twenty four hours no murder. The first shooting at 9am, the second at 12. Is that sad or what?


We are certainly not in Jersey.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 29, 2015)

imp said:


> Ya missed it, I'm surprised! Firing from an open bolt, no "hammer", disconnecting means if provided works similarly, can have a movable firing pin, as in original Thompson design, or fixed firing pin as in MAC-10. THOSE I like!    imp


My open bolt UZI has a trigger disconnect.


----------



## Robusta (Aug 30, 2015)

Wal Mart has never sold "assault rifles".


----------



## BobF (Aug 30, 2015)

Robusta said:


> Wal Mart has never sold "assault rifles".



Some have tried to get this message across for a long time now.    Some just do not listen to facts at all.   They just want to push their hate for anyone to have gun at all. 

Go look at #29 for my early on comments.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 30, 2015)

I have not seen any hatred on this thread. Robust disagreement definitely.


----------



## BobF (Aug 30, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I have not seen any hatred on this thread. Robust disagreement definitely.



It is not hatred for other posters, it is the personal hatred for guns in private hands.   Some how that seems to be something horrid to have people doing.


----------



## imp (Aug 30, 2015)

rt3 said:


> My open bolt UZI has a trigger disconnect.



True enough, no question. However,  you stated .....*"removing the hammer disconnect"*.....ya can't disconnect a hammer what ain't there! True enough, select fire requires a means of disconnection from the sear, which either releases a hammer or bolt. Do you like the UZI better than a MAC-10?    imp


----------



## rt3 (Aug 30, 2015)

I was instructed at Gun Site, and Thunder on the Uzi . Sorry about the confusion was thinking about the forks that hold the bolt in open bolts, fixed firing pins etc.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 30, 2015)

So, exactly what has Walmart done? What kind of weapons are they no longer selling?
Why are we so bogged down in definitions now? Distraction?


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 30, 2015)

Hmmm. While I certainly am a anti gun supporter, I do not feel hatred but fear and sadness at what that portends. Hatred breeds violence. I abhor violence more than most. I do not feed that dog.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 30, 2015)

I caught a little bit of this radio show the other night where host George Noory speaks to gun expert John Lott about the Walmart ban, the difference between hunting rifles and "assault" rifles, mentally ill people and general gun ownership...for anyone interested, here's a 30 minute audio.  http://crimeresearch.org/2015/08/cp...s-and-the-aftermath-of-the-virginia-shooting/


----------



## BobF (Aug 30, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> So, exactly what has Walmart done? What kind of weapons are they no longer selling?
> Why are we so bogged down in definitions now? Distraction?



They are just stopping to sell certain look alike to military assault rifles.   As I understand it they look like an assault rifle but are just one shot per trigger pull.   An assault rifle will fire continually as long as the trigger is held.   Not intended for civilian uses.

as·sault ri·fle
_noun_
noun: *assault rifle*; plural noun: *assault rifles*


a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 30, 2015)

They are exactly no longer selling AR-15s


----------



## imp (Aug 30, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> So, exactly what has Walmart done? What kind of weapons are they no longer selling?
> Why are we so bogged down in definitions now? Distraction?


Dame, below is an image of an AR-15 rifle, one of the rather older styles. Below that, the infamous AK-47. Looking closely at the top image, one can easily identify the "features" designated by "Authorities" denouncing such rifles as having "no sporting purpose". Collapsible stock, large magazine, pistol grip, muzzle "flash hider", bayonet lug (capable of bayonet attachment). At one point in the scurrilous fever-ridden "Clinton Crime Bill" era, our Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms was allowing rifles having one or two of those features to be sold, having all of them was forbidden. As you can see, these features, primarily military in nature for the most part, were alleged to lie outside of the Constitutional descriptions of an armed citizenry. Oh, yes, they are most BLACK in color, another no-no, wouldn't one expect?    imp


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2015)

Neither looks like a hunting rifle to me.
Why do people want guns like this?
What are they used for?


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 31, 2015)

Hmm. In most cases one or two  shots would be enough, don't you think Warri?  In a "normal" civilian setting, how dead is dead? "Hunting." In this instance perhaps the term might be extended to include various examples of homo sapiens? There are many schools of thought purporting to have solved the perplexing (to some at least,)  riddle of the glamour often accorded  to ownership of  guns such as these. Carl Jung would have a field day. Whatever the reason, some people feel the need to amass 
seriously scary firepower. Would you want them as neighbours? Imagine if they were having a seriously bad day!


----------



## rt3 (Aug 31, 2015)

Don't presuppose you get to decide what a hunting gun should look like. 

In in a civilian setting the plan is stopping the threat, if you were to check the stats you would find many cases of perps especially on drugs taking many more than 2 hits and still killing. Most civilian cases of handgun shootings shows high survival rates. The ar15 is and is easily shown to be the best weapon for small frame people to use and control. It was originated and designed by the Air Force as a sentry weapon for women on guard duty. 

I think Carl would probably go with something more in a camo. Why do women buy jewelery? Certainly one or two pieces would work. As for jeweries place in hunting-----
all my neighbors are armed, safe neighborhood.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 31, 2015)

The stereotypical bolt action hunting rifle used for the last 100 years are adaptation of Mauser 98 used by the Germans as their main battle rifle and Springfields used by the Allies. These were fed by stripper clips holding 10 rounds and are as fast as using box magazines. Most if not all hunting rifles were adaptations of military stuff. the current protests are simply an attempt to get all guns reclassified by antis under one registration system in a national data base. I have a pellet gun that looks like the above, but certainly wouldn't fit your mental concept of an assault rifle, yet it would be held to be one under the proposed gun law changes.


----------



## BobF (Aug 31, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Hmm. In most cases one or two  shots would be enough, don't you think Warri?  In a "normal" civilian setting, how dead is dead? "Hunting." In this instance perhaps the term might be extended to include various examples of homo sapiens? There are many schools of thought purporting to have solved the perplexing (to some at least,)  riddle of the glamour often accorded  to ownership of  guns such as these. Carl Jung would have a field day. Whatever the reason, some people feel the need to amass
> seriously scary firepower. Would you want them as neighbours? Imagine if they were having a seriously bad day!



The question has been that these weapons that WalMart is no longer selling are not assault weapons.   That question has been answered over and over.   Specifically which weapon has also been answered in detail and with photo's.   Most of this should have brought this particular WalMart gun issue to an end.

So why not just start a new thread that says.   I hate guns, any guns.   And let this WalMart issue die as it should.

And just what is a hunting rifle to look like if some don't like the way they look today.    Do all cars look alike?    No, and never have.   But they are still cars, automobiles, transportation, no matter how they look.   Same with guns.   Always change for various reasons.   From powder and balls to the more modern types.   

And they are not military assault rifles.   Some are single shot, some are loaded with clips or chambers.   There are shotguns with single shot or several loaded under the barrel.   There are single shot rifles, and others with clips or magazines that carry various numbers of shots that can be loaded under or beside the chamber.   Pistols too, some with 6 shot chambers and others with clips in the handles that carry many more backup bullets.   

Each buyer can choose what they think they can use or need.   Single shot is dangerous if used to hunt large animals like bears.   Single shot is dangerous if protecting your home and family with the way some folks are acting.    One or two shots is not enough if more than one person is threatening.   Single shot is required for target shooting in gun clubs.


----------



## imp (Aug 31, 2015)

*"So why not just start a new thread that says.   I hate guns, any guns"
*
Because then I would be forced to take my pictures elsewhere!    imp


----------



## imp (Aug 31, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Neither looks like a hunting rifle to me.
> Why do people want guns like this?
> What are they used for?



I suspect there is a certain amount of "macho" involved due to their appearance. Aside from that fact, they are made lighter, lightweight materials used, plastics to an extent, and they "look military". "Military" seems to command respect from others, to a degree. Who does not, after all, "look up" to a Soldier?

They do not resemble rifles traditionally used by sportsmen (or women) to take game; however, after becoming popular following the Viet Nam conflict, and demand for the formerly-used M-16 rifle of our Armed Forces there became much less by them, gun-makers looked to continue production by selling to a civilian market, in a version of semi-automatic fire only, and they came to be known as "AR-15". At one point in time, when a large government contract was cancelled, the premier maker, Colt, filed for bankruptcy. 

I personally knew a number of sportsmen in Missouri when we lived there, who hunted deer using AR-15s. This is not generally recommended, as the round used is rather small and light for the purpose of "cleanly" killing large game. In fact, some states require a certain minimum caliber be used, usually .30 caliber, I believe. Being a non-hunter, I cannot relate hunting experiences directly. The so-called "assault-style" rifles are thus used for exactly the same purposes as any other rifle would be: competition target shooting, hunting, self defense, and of course, criminal activity. 

Most important: they are  _black _in color!    imp


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 31, 2015)

For the record, I do not hate guns, Bob. Sometimes their use is necessary. We just differ in our opinion re how and why and with what firepower that is appropriate.


----------



## rt3 (Aug 31, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> For the record, I do not hate guns, Bob. Sometimes their use is necessary. We just differ in our opinion re how and why and with what firepower that is appropriate.


 

heard that before, Clinton, Obama , what was that guy the head of the Justice Dept. gone now.   its all about control


----------



## imp (Aug 31, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> ...... Whatever the reason, some people feel the need to amass
> seriously scary firepower. Would you want them as neighbours? Imagine if they were having a seriously bad day!



A strangely courteous atmosphere hangs in the air at any "outing" where nearly all those present are armed. I first became aware of it when I began frequenting the large gun shows in Phoenix. Generally held over two-day weekends in large public show places such as the State Fairgrounds, attendance often exceeded 100,000 folks of all ages. Advertised numbers of firearms displayed for sale often exceeded a quarter-million. A fair percentage of people carried long-guns, others handguns in cases, or pouches, (or pockets, I suppose), many were not already armed, and simply went about looking and asking questions. Many were there specifically to buy. Other types of weaponry, such as knives, swords, machetes, blow-guns, and all types of memorabilia pertaining to military, were always widely present. Many kinds of ammunition were for sale.

All firearms brought to the show, both before opening time and after, were checked by police officers that they were unloaded, and where design allowed, the actions were secured by tie-straps. I was always amazed at the difference in general attitude displayed, compared with, say, that often seen in a large retail store or market. Everyone seemed to regard others as worthy of courtesy in every way. Though often very crowded, very little anger or lack of patience was seen. You would have to experience this, in order to believe it. 

Regarding armed neighbors, does the amount of "firepower" they possess really make any difference, as compared to, say, possession of one handgun, or rifle? The "what ifs" are innumerable: what if a neighbor has a "bad day", and has no firearm with which to carry out a berserk act? Would you be much less frightened of such an individual carrying a knife, axe, club, or whatever else had been at hand, instead of a firearm? I do not believe I would be less afraid.   imp


----------



## rt3 (Aug 31, 2015)

some folks here don't believe an armed society is an polite society.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 31, 2015)

IMO, Imp, we shall have to politely disagree. I come from a different culture where gun ownership is not considered  a constitutional right. Most Canadians are not armed, and prefer it that way. We are not an armed society, but everyone knows Canadians are polite! Lol.


----------



## imp (Aug 31, 2015)

rt3 said:


> some folks here don't believe an armed society is an polite society.



Polite is, as polite does. There are societies armed with other than firearms, and they may be no less polite; that I cannot say for certain.   imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 31, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> IMO, Imp, we shall have to politely disagree. I come from a different culture where gun ownership is not considered  a constitutional right. Most Canadians are not armed, and prefer it that way. We are not an armed society, but everyone knows Canadians are polite! Lol.



Many of us here in this country don't believe gun ownership to be a constitutional right either... unless of course you are a member of a well regulated militia..  SO.. I will politely disagree also..


----------



## imp (Aug 31, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> IMO, Imp, we shall have to politely disagree. I come from a different culture where gun ownership is not considered  a constitutional right. Most Canadians are not armed, and prefer it that way. We are not an armed society, but everyone knows Canadians are polite! Lol.



Yes, indeed! My own belief has always been, and still is, that there will NEVER be a society devoid of all firearms; it just cannot happen. Just as with any other "banned" item, there will always be certain numbers of clandestinely possessed firearms. As Hitler's troops went door-to-door confiscating arms, surely many remained in hiding places, intentionally. Then, the Fuehrer declared that for the first time in written history, a nation could live in safety! Thence, the War commenced. 

And, law enforcement as well as military forces, will always possess firearms. And, every so often, an individual so trustingly allowed exception, will invoke havoc, using Agency-issued "firepower", just as every so often, does an armed citizen so turn criminal.    imp


----------



## imp (Aug 31, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Many of us here in this country don't believe gun ownership to be a constitutional right either... unless of course you are a member of a well regulated militia..  SO.. I will politely disagree also..



Please be aware, I really _do _try to "feel" the feeling of others opposed to private firearms ownership. I can see that such feeling must be due to fear, if not entirely, then at least in part. What I cannot see, is exactly _why _there is no fear of the presence of any number of other potentially lethal tools. I have wondered about this for a lifetime.   imp


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2015)

imp said:


> As Hitler's troops went door-to-door confiscating arms, surely many remained in hiding places, intentionally. Then, the Fuehrer declared that for the first time in written history, a nation could live in safety! Thence, the War commenced.



Really? I never heard of this before. Can you cite an actual historian on this point or did you read it in an NRA publication?


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 31, 2015)

Hmmm. Rt, this therapist believes that your post also is all about about control. Interesting.


----------



## BobF (Aug 31, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Really? I never heard of this before. Can you cite an actual historian on this point or did you read it in an NRA publication?



Really a bad thing to do by using NRA in a spite note.   NRA is not a hateful group at all.   Just trying to defend the laws and lifestyles that have been around for hundreds of years.  The Germans did a lot of stuff that ignored personal privacy.   Would not be surprised if it is actually true.

Do you also hate the Swiss for their open gun ownership rules and lifestyles?


----------



## rt3 (Aug 31, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Hmmm. Rt, this therapist believes that your post also is all about about control. Interesting.




absolutely. if there is a gun around this therapist wants to be in control of it.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 31, 2015)

BobF said:


> Really a bad thing to do by using NRA in a spite note.   NRA is not a hateful group at all.   Just trying to defend the laws and lifestyles that have been around for hundreds of years.  The Germans did a lot of stuff that ignored personal privacy.   Would not be surprised if it is actually true.
> 
> Do you also hate the Swiss for their open gun ownership rules and lifestyles?



Spite note? Hateful group? I've been verballed.
My point is that they are not exactly objective in their publications. 
Real historians are more likely to give a balanced account.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 31, 2015)

Disagreement is not the same as hatred, nor is it spiteful. It is part of discourse. If we all continuously preached to the choir, conversation would die of boredom. Lol.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 31, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Disagreement is not the same as hatred, nor is it spiteful. It is part of discourse. If we all continuously preached to the choir, conversation would die of boredom. Lol.



You haven't gotten the memo...   A certain group can disagree and state their viewpoints and it's "debate" and "conversation"...  while another group, doing the very same this is being hateful, and foolish as well as guilty of personal attacks..  It's just the way it goes...


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 31, 2015)

QS, if that is indeed the case and some of us are relegated to "voices crying out in the wilderness," we shall need to make ourselves heard, politely and persistently, of course. Isn't that what free speech truly stands for in a "free society?"


----------

