Agnostic.com
3 1

As a disclaimer, the following post contains an image that some might be sensitive to, but hope that most who view this post take the time to respond honestly. Also, again much thanks to those who took the time to interact on my previous posts in this group.

The attached image below is a photo of my Sig Sauer MPX. Just curious, what are some of your first thoughts upon seeing this, how would you the gun control activist classify such a weapon? The reason I ask this is, the next post I plan to do in this group is going to focus on how looks can be deceiving when identifying such weapons, and also how one's own emotions factor into the equation regarding those who propose more gun control legislation.

SpikeTalon 9 Dec 6
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

First impression, it is an assault weapon that has no civilian application. High capacity (more than 15 round) magazine, pistol grip with shoulder butt for a nice secure handling. Shortened barrel that improves the ability to wield the weapon, but cost accuracy. There is no reason anyone outside of a military should even touch this weapon, let alone own it. It is not a hunting weapon. If you feel you need this to defend your home, you have more serious concerns...

Rignor Level 7 Dec 7, 2021

Every assualt weapon I saw while in the military was fully automatic. Perhaps you know something I don't.

@Alienbeing I was assuming that the weapon pictured was not automatic. I would imagine that it would be difficult to handle in full auto, seeing as the rounds it takes looks to be full rifle rounds.

@Rignor FULL RIFLE round???? 😄 What exactly is a 'full' rifle round, as opposed to a partial, or perhaps a 'half' rifle round? You really don't know anything about firearms, do you? (don't bother, it was a rhetorical question) 🙄But you seem to think you're qualified to judge what should and should not be allowed to be owned by law abiding citizens... What a joke!

@Captain_Feelgood Rifle round vs pistol round vs bird shot (etc.. it could go on...). Vastly different muzzle velocity. Effects on the human body are drastically different. And on that, I am immensely qualified. As for what should be allowed to be sold to anyone, or wielded for that matter? You have your opinion as to what should be allowed, I have mine. I'd prefer not to have a full automatic high large caliber high velocity weapon being pointed at the guy in with the body armor who I am trying to hide behind.

@Rignor Thank you for the taking the time to give honest feedback, and unfortunately you pretty much answered as I thought you (or any other supporters of gun control who would have given feedback) would, so I didn't get surprised. I'm going to tag @Pralina1 and @Redheadedgammy in this reply as well being they voted on your reply, which I take to be a sign that they concured with your assessment. Based on what you mentioned above, I take it you aren't very familiar with guns or have much knowledge on the differences between firearm types?

Now, suppose I told you that the photo of my MPX above is actually a replica C02-powered pellet gun that shoots relatively harmless wadcutter pellets that at best would be good for shredding paper targets, and not nowhere near what could be considered an "assault weapon"? That is indeed the case by the way, it is just an airgun, and the point of this post was to show that those in the gun control movement are largely visual (and rather emotional) and judge these guns based on how they look on the outside, instead of taking other factors into consideration first. To be fair, no shortage of high emotions on the gun rights side either, but at least most of those on the gun rights side have direct knowledge on the various types of firearms (and airgun replicas) so as to arrive to logical conclusions.

How exactly does one reasonably conclude what does or does not constitute an "assault weapon"? Since 1986 and under the Reagan Administration no less the private ownership of fully automatic weapons has been illegal, and there is a big difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic. Out of all the physical characteristics you mentioned above, don't you think that perhaps there was more focus there on what the weapon looks like instead of taking other possible factors into consideration first? Magazine size, a folding stock, barrel length etc, do not necessarily make such a gun anymore dangerous than say a seven-round 357 Magnum revolver, both can be potentially dangerous yet neither one of them are necessarily what I'd call assault guns. Also, there is a specific reason why there are both Military and civilian versions of the same weapons, hint hint the latter of the two do not possess the full ability of the former.

Magazine bans or limits are largely a joke and not even a funny joke at that. A skilled shooter could do just as much damage with multiple ten-round capacity magazines as they could with two or so thirty-round magazines, as most skilled shooters could reload in mere seconds. Stocks and arm braces, depending on the individual shooter, can be mostly for looks, as any reasonably strong individual certainly would not need such in order to use said weapon. Same is mostly true with barrel length, while a shorter barrel would mean easier concealment, I somehow doubt barrel length would get in the way much if someone were determined to conceal the gun.

The truly concerning part here is, that a good portion of those making the laws for us citizens are not the most informed on the things they desire to regulate, and that's what I take issue with. To put this situation in contrast... doesn't it make you angry when mostly Republican male politicians make laws that restrict women's reproductive rights(for the sake of this conversation I'm going to assume you are pro choice on that issue unless you state otherwise), especially knowing they certainly are NOT the most qualified individuals to make such legislation? It sure makes me angry. Likewise, there isn't much difference with the gun control debate, most of these Democrat politicians are hardly qualified to make laws placing restrictions on gun ownership when their own knowledge on the topic is dreadfully inadequate. Hell, most of them apparently don't even know the difference between a clip and a magazine, think I knew the difference between those by age ten.

So who gets the privilege to determine what is and what is not a hunting weapon? Virtually any type of firearm could be used for hunting. That's certainly fine if you or anyone else believes that, just so that doesn't affect another's choice, as there are plenty of others out there who would disagree on that and they wouldn't be wrong either. Nevermind the fact that some of us gun owners like such rifles for sport shooting and not just for hunting. That sounds like a matter of personal opinion, which again is fine. Same with the personal home defense argument, what might be good enough for you, others may disagree. On the contrary, an AR-style rifle would be quite ideal in certain scenarios, take this one for example -[thetruthaboutguns.com]

One must take into account missed shots, as contrary to some popular belief in a real world gunfight even at close range it is possible to miss your target, so knowing such makes a thirty-round magazine sound not so bad afterall. With that said, you aren't entirely wrong on the more serious concerns part, as there are indeed some gun owners out there who are faced with more serious threats such as multiple home invaders etc, so to that extent you would be right.

The next post I do in this group, in maybe a day or so, will pretty much be a continuation of this one, the main focus being that looks can be deceiving, and laws affecting gun ownership should not be based off of initial impressions of the sort nor should how one emotionally feels enter into the equation either. We've seen what happens when certain politicians drag their emotions into the picture, it is a recipe for our rights to get eroded, and again to be fair both political sides are guilty of doing that. Lastly, what do you mean by a "full rifle round"? The Sig Sauer MPX that actually shoots bullets is chambered for three types of pistol caliber ammunition, as the MPX is technically classified as a pistol, or if a stock attached then it could be called a short barrel rifle (SBR), but it does not fire rifle rounds. Again, it's all about the looks, whether or not a gun looks scary and Military like or otherwise. Hope that cleared up some common misconceptions where that topic is concerned, and thank you again for answering me honestly. Please note my restraint on mainstream medias fanning the fire with outright misinformation and propaganda, which in turn have and continue to needlessly work some people up into a frenzy and make them fearful, which is a whole other issue altogether where the gun control debate is concerned.

@Captain_Feelgood I too asked him that question. That shouldn't surprise guys like you or me though, knowing how the gun control supporters tend to make terms up as they go along (think high capacity magazine clip, for example). My replica MPX above has a laser dot sight attached, I'm surprised no one thought that it was a mini missile launcher thingy...

@SpikeTalon You asked for "what are some of your first thoughts upon seeing this", and that is what I did. I looked at the photo, and with no prior knowledge of the weapon or assistance from research, I gave an impression of the possible "features". Judging by where the rounds would enter into the weapon, I judged the barrel length. Judging possible hand position I came to certain conclusions of potential uses of the weapon.

I am no expert in firearms, that is true. I am trained in what they do to people. However, if I were in the position to make laws regarding such weapons, I would consult with experts. That is how (I hope) our representatives operate. It may be naive and idealistic, but perhaps something for which society should strive.

There must be "a balance" that can be reached in regards to gun control. Taking into account the needs of those who desire protection, those who want to hunt, those who want to shoot for fun or sport, and those who don't want to be fearful of the next mass shooting. I am not opposed to gun ownership. I have actually experienced how fun guns can be. I've hunted. I've been target shooting. But I also don't want to have to keep treating people for "preventable injuries". Finding where that balance is seems to be the first major hurdle to sensible gun control.

What also must be considered are the causes of gun violence, outside of simple gun control legislation. Crime reduction, mental health awareness and treatment, drug abuse and the associated societal impact, domestic violence prevention, to name the big ones. In other words, I understand that gun violence is not solved by simply restricting gun ownership. For the most part, over the past few years, most of our politicians have simply gone with a set agenda. This goes for "both sides", and has led us to the situation we are in; a government that is completely ineffective. The first thing we can do is get this people out of office, and replaced with people who will actually listen to the issues, consult with people who know what they are talking about, and work towards a solution instead of perpetuating the problems.

@Rignor, @SpikeTalon what rignor said it covers me .
I have 0 knowledge of types of guns . There is probably no right of wrong guns . Some easier to kill massively . Same ways that simple medicine for maintaining heart function can be lethal in a blink of an eye if at wrong hands and wrong dose . How do we make sure that not asshole doctors are killing people and not asshole gun owners are killing people . For fun , or negligence , or emotions and psych issues . Whatever . How ? How we evaluate and regulate anything that has potential and / or authority to mistreat humanity ?

@Rignor I wasn't knocking you for giving an honest opinion, all I was saying though is that I wasn't surprised to read the points you made is all.

I agree on that part, but based on what I've observed over the years experts are more often than not consulted prior to making such decisions, although they should be. If the experts from both sides of the aisle were consulted like they should, our society would see considerably less discontent from the citizens.

Finding a balance is the trick there, you are right. However, my rights or choices do not end where someone else's fears pick up. It is plain wrong for some politicians to restrict women's reproductive rights just because they claim to be fearful that human life is being snuffed out, that's not a sound reason to support such restrictive legislation. Likewise, it's not right to place restrictions on private gun ownership/usage either based on fears of the unknown, especially when said measures by and large have failed us, as criminals care not for your rules. This may sound pessimistic, but given how emotionally charged this topic is I rather doubt we will ever reach a happy medium, one of where both sides are fully content. Again I ask, who exactly gets to determine what is and what isn't reasonable, and how do we know for certain who decides things can and will be fair? There are laws in place against drunk driving, and yet each year there are thousands who are killed needlessly because said laws don't appear to be helping enough. That's also a big concern, but I don't see enough talk on that issue and how to maybe improve things where that issue is concerned.

You are right, restricting gun ownership will not solve the problem of violence, as potentially violent offenders will simply find other means of carrying out their violent deeds. Society too often makes people feel guilty for seeking out mental health services, it's like such is still taboo for some curious reason, and also how seeking out such help could potentially mark a person for life (the stigma of being a mentally disturbed individual that is). Much work still needs to be done in that department. As for the last part of your reply, right again, politicians from both sides have been a problem and really need to go, but once again I somehow doubt anything will change there so long as the majority of the citizens keep voting for either of the two major political Parties. I do have a theory as to why our society has become so violent prone, but that wouldn't really be appropriate for this group, and I get the feeling that most people on here would simply ignore said theory in favor of believing whatever it is that aligns with their own views and that of which makes them comfortable. Lastly, good to hear that on your own experiences with gun usage, whether it be hunting or target shooting etc, it can be fun. A shame more of the gun control advocates out there don't keep a more open mind on that matter.

@Pralina1 I don't think more regulations are the answer, it's all too easy for people to simply ignore the laws. Look at drunk driving for example, look at all the laws on the books against driving under the influence, yet each year thousands are killed when someone gets behind the wheel while under the influence. I know most people probably wouldn't want to hear this, but I strongly think there isn't much we can do once certain things have been created that of which could cause harm or death to human beings, once something is created you can't simply uncreate it. It is a truly complex problem in which there are no simplistic solutions. On a side note, I commend you for believing responsible people should be free to own what they want as long as they are not impeding another's existence, I respect that, live and let live.

@Rignor Your reply indicates you don't know much about the subject. First of all what is a "full rifle round" That is a new expression. Second since you say you assume it is not fully automatic, then it is NOT an "assualt rifle" because ALL assualt rifles are fully automatic. I challange you to show me even one that is not. Remember assualt rifles are those used in the military for assaults, not mis-named semi automatics that look similar.

P.S. Forget question #1. I just saw your explanation. That explanation is truly laughable. You proved you don't know what you are talkng about, no clue at all.

@Alienbeing I'm sorry... you don't know what the difference is between "full", "intermediate", and "magnum" is?? (hint, it's got to do with grains...)

And to think that an assault rifle can't be more effective as a semiautomatic means you like to poke holes in the air above your target. Good job missing with the third or forth round delivered down range. I assumed in was not automatic because of legality.

@Rignor Don't be so smug. I am positive I forgot more about guns and ammo than you ever knew. The first sentence of your reply is pure bullshit. NO ONE ever used that terminology. I challange you to prove otherwise.

Your last paragraph attempts (poorly) to change the subject. Note that the term "assualt rifle" was coined by the military to denote a fully automatic short rifle.

You really must try harder if you want to sound as if you know what you are talking about.

@Alienbeing Obviously this Rignor guy is clueless. It's sad to know people like that can vote. 🙄

@Alienbeing, I never claimed to have much knowledge about guns. Quite the contrary. I can give a FAT FLYING FUCK about guns. I Only give 2 shits about what kind of gun was used to injure the patients I have to treat. I care about the size of bullet and speed out of the muzzle. We use terms like "full rifle" as short for Fully Loaded Rifle Round, verses "mag rifle" for rounds with a magnum load. We use these terms to determine what the potential damage the bullet has caused.

As far as "...Your last paragraph attempts (poorly) to change the subject..." You brought it up, not me. And wanna know where I heard what I said regarding automatic fire and poking holes in the air? The person who taught me to how shoot and about gun safety... when I was a teenager. He also said "Only thing full auto is good for is suppression fire". His quote, not mine. He is the person who explained why the student who shot up my middle school was able to be so successful with just a semiautomatic rifle. He said It is all in the handling of the weapon, and not how much metal you put down range. Here's the AP link to an article about this incident. [apnews.com]

I was in 3rd grade at the time of this shooting. So not my school at the time, but the one I would be attending in a few years. When I got older, my response to this event was to learn to shoot. That is when I did some target shooting and some hunting. Once I moved away from there a few years later, and started doing what I do know, I realized arming myself and learning how to use such weapons may not be the best way to live.

Just in case you don't read the link... "The incident apparently began when the student, armed with a 9-mm semiautomatic assault rifle, confronted principal Don Rixon at a first-floor office in the two-story building..." This happened on 12/10/1985. What the story linked didn't mention at the time (it wasn't known) was the motive; the student was suspended from school by the assistant principal for having items he was not allowed in the building. And yes, that was in 19 FUCKING 85. And we've only gotten worse. These events were a rarity at the time.

The rapidly increasing rate of which we are killing each other with these weapons is staggering.. alarming... and quite frankly, outright fucking sickening. Guns are used for only one thing: killing. Guns have no other purpose. Sure, you might respond: what about target practice, hunting, defense of the home or self... The end result of those activities is still killing. Just because you haven't completed the act, and are only practicing the act, or threatening the act, doesn't take away from the fact that the "act" is killing.

@Captain_Feelgood I really hope that you don't mean that. Ammosexuals are the ones who will think gun control laws are not needed. I have seen to much in the past 26 years of responding to repeated tragedies to think gun control laws are not needed. I vote the way I do because I want this to stop. I don't want to have to pronounce one more child dead because some asshole thinks he knows how to handle his own gun. And yes, that is a VERY specific example. It is why I stopped shooting, and promised myself never to touch another loaded gun with the intention of pulling the trigger..

In the end tho, here's the biggest rub... Gun Rights Activists and (how you call us) "Gun Control Nuts" want the same fucking thing. We both want whomever chooses to own a gun to be a responsible owner. We want these weapons kept out of the hands of children and those adults who would use them to commit these heinous acts. No Gun Control Advocate wants all guns take away. We understand that there are some who want to own a gun (or guns) for various reasons. Saying "Obviously this Rignor guy is clueless. It's sad to know people like that can vote" is just a juvenile attempt to minimize the views of those who appose what you believe, without even considering that those you appose may have valid concerns. You don't know my experiences. You make assumptions thinking you know all about my experiences. Then you insult me based on those assumptions. Grow the FUCK up.

@Rignor, @Capitan_Feelgood You (meaning @Rignor) are a self conflict. In one reply you smugly drone on, lecturing me about various types of ammunition, and in your most recent reply you say "I never claimed to have much knowledge about guns. Quite the contrary." Additionally the "we use terms" part of your reply is very telling. Who is the "we"? Is it others who are as uninformed as yourself?

Now that you admit you don't kow much, (it was always obvious) I wonder why you tried to present yourself as knowledgeable. I can only conclude you like to misrepresent yourself.

Now to the rest of your really childish reply, particularly your last sentence. You are a fraud, and the one who is childish is YOU. When caught, you cry, just lke a child.

Since you have no real knowledge of the topic to chose to discuss, I'll close. No need to waste my time.

1

YOU, YOu You war-mongering killer, lover of death, lover of blood and guts, mother rapers and father stabers, ,,, Alice will tell you all about it.. 🙄 🤣 .. You really need to post this on the 'gun control' page..

Well... can't you get anything you want at Alice's restaurant, lol. Before I was issued my gun had to go see the psychiatrist first, and when I got there told him man, I just wanna kill, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth, and found myself jumping up and down on his desk yelling kill kill kill! Before I knew it he was joining me and also jumping up and down on the desk yelling kill kill kill! Didn't realize it but an Army Sergeant was in the room next door and heard everything, walked over to me and pinned a medal on me and said you're our man for the job. What a time that was...

@SpikeTalon Oh hell,,, I just realized, this is the "gun control'' page.... I just assumed it was on a 'pro gun' page.. 🥴😎👍 Too funny!

@Captain_Feelgood Yeah, wondered why you mentioned about posting that in the gun control group, which is indeed what I did. Well, at least no one suffered a heart attack or aneurysm, as I thought that may have been the case whenever sharing a photo like that in a gun control group, so guess that's all good though.

0

Despite the pillow talking telling tales , it shows you never sleep alone.

Witty response, but any thoughts on the weapon itself though?

Recent Visitors 18

Photos 507 More

Posted by ButtercupI doubt she said it buts it's cute.

Posted by Smurfing101

Posted by DruviusAh yes, modern America.

Posted by Tejas

Posted by SwitchcraftSandy Hook 13th sad anniversary - 12/14/12

Posted by SwitchcraftSandy Hook 13th sad anniversary - 12/14/12

Posted by MoravianSad but true.

Posted by DruviusAlways loved this one.

Posted by TejasAnti trump pistol. Do you have mixed feelings about it?

Posted by TejasLook at this scary gun!

Posted by Tejas

Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.

Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.

Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.

Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.

Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.

  • Top tags#guns #NRA #video #laws #violence #guncontrol #massshooting #god #DonaldTrump #Police #world #children #religion #reason #Texas #hell #religious #friends #republicans #rights #death #vote #kids #Atheist #hope #USA #society #teachers #church #truth #florida #government #fear #money #belief #atheism #conservative #sex #Christian #agnostic #parents #earth #community #schools #culture #evidence #youtube #Christians #wife #murder ...

    Members 916Top

    Moderator