[ExI] Russians bots at work again?

[SR Ballard]

Spike, you keep “debunking” me by saying that things are accessories or not accessories. However, by doing that you ignore the fact that *I* am not disagreeing with you, merely describing the facts as I see them.

For many non-educated on gun topics, an “accessory” is an indispensable part of the “gun”.

I bet money that if you showed someone who wants to ban “assault rifles” an AR-15 with a black stock and a scope on it, and another one with a wood stock and no scope, they would label one as an “assault rifle” and the other as fine, as long as you don’t tell people they’re both AR-15s.

People have an emotional fear of “assault rifles”, due to school and workplace shootings, not data. I believe the data would indicate that the majority of firearm violence in the US is perpetrated using pistols/handguns. 

SR Ballard

> On Jun 27, 2020, at 2:10 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
>  
>  
> > On Behalf Of SR Ballard via extropy-chat
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Russians bots at work again?
>  
>  
> >…These features seem to be “assault”:
>  
> OK thanks SR, we can run with this ball.
>  
> The legislation was aimed at the most popular rifle sold in America today, the AR-15.  When the California assault rifle ban legislation came out it was clear enough they were trying to describe the AR-15.  If so, let us look at the list:
>  
> >…- black
>  
> Many AR-15s are black, but they don’t need to be.  Many non-AR-15s are black, but are not the target of the legislation.  In our world today, they definitely do not want to issue a blanket ban on black.
>  
> >…- plastic stick
>  
> I think you meant stock, but the AR-15 doesn’t necessarily have a plastic stock.  The stock on those is an accessory.
>  
> >…- camo pattern
>  
> Ja, it might have that or might not.  How you paint your rifle is your own business.
>  
> >…- scope
>  
> Any rifle might or might not have one.  My aged .22 rimfire bolt action has one.  A scope is an accessory.
>  
> >…- magazine higher than 20
>  
> Another accessory.
>  
> >…- fully automatic
>  
> Those are functionally illegal.  You can get one legally if you are rich and patient.
>  
> >…- calibers above .308
>  
> Ja, that doesn’t apply to the real target, the AR-15 which is a .223 caliber.
>  
> >…- side feeding
>  
> Sure.  Those are ammo-belt style used in larger caliber fixed placement systems, quite rare for amateurs, for you could fire thru a hundred bucks worth of ammo in a few seconds.
>  
> >…- hollow point
>  
> That is a feature of the ammo, not the rifle.
>  
>  
> https://www.usa-gun-shop.com/6-best-50-bmg-rifles-for-sale-in-2019/
>  
> >…Please note that in the term “assault rifle” assault means “tactical”, or “reminiscent of military equipment”, rather than referring to to the crime “assault/battery”. 
>  
> SR Ballard
>  
> I am with you there.  The legislators were looking for ways to talk around their real intent, which is to attack the industry at its most popular point.
>  
> My drive here is to point out that legislators do not write legislation.  They don’t even read it unless and until it passes.  They hire professionals to write legislation.
>  
> They couldn’t say “no AR-15” for that would single out a particular business, the Armalite Corporation, which would sue the legislature out of business.  It would be the equivalent of banning Maytag washer, which would then suggest they were in the pockets of Whirlpool.
>  
> Interviews with the legislators after the passage of the ban demonstrated they had no idea what they had just voted on.
>  
> spike
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200627/e639cfff/attachment.htm>