Ronald Gasser, the man authorities say shot and killed former NFL player Joe McKnight, was released from custody overnight without being charged, Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office authorities said Friday morning (Dec. 2).
Gasser, 54, has not been formally charged, said JPSO spokesman Col. John Fortunato. Investigators are consulting with the district attorney's office on the decision whether to formally charge Gasser, Fortunato said.
As the investigation into McKnight's death continues, Fortunato asked anyone with information about the shooting to contact department homicide detectives at 504-364-5393.
McKnight, 28, was shot about 3 p.m. Thursday (Dec. 1) at the intersection of Behrman Highway and Holmes Boulevard in Terrytown. A witness, who declined to give her name, said she saw a man at the intersection yelling at McKnight, who was trying to apologize. The man shot McKnight more than once, the witness said. She said he shot McKnight, stood over him and said, "I told you don't you f--- with me." Then the man fired again, she said.
Authorities named the shooter as Ronald Gasser, 54, and said he stayed at the scene and turned his gun in to officers. Gasser was in custody and was being questioned, Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand said. The sheriff said McKnight did not have a gun, and deputies did not find a gun outside McKnight's vehicle.
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Who would be fighting who in a civil war?
Again, I'm not saying there will be a civil war (though it's obviously not impossible), but if we're pretending there will be, don't you think the divisions are generally pretty obvious? Of course, it could be a state thing I guess. But most civil wars around the world seem more defined by beliefs or ethnicity (sadly) and not by lines on a map (the American civil war was more an exception rather than the rule) .... so who knows? Anyway, I'm really just saying shit might really be changing in America again. There are definitely some signs pointing towards that theory.
I don't think it's realistically possible for civil war to occur in this country.
I bet that's what a lot of people have thought before civil wars happened in their country.... I'm sure most of the crazy shit that happens all over the world seems impossible to a lot of people before it happens. Again, I'm not saying it's going to happen... I'm just saying that crazier things have happened, and I think modern American society has kind of lulled everyone into the mindset of "that's impossible". Well, actually, no it's not.
exactly, its strange times when a presidential candidate can gain supporters directly in proportion to amount of lying he does.
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Who would be fighting who in a civil war?
Again, I'm not saying there will be a civil war (though it's obviously not impossible), but if we're pretending there will be, don't you think the divisions are generally pretty obvious? Of course, it could be a state thing I guess. But most civil wars around the world seem more defined by beliefs or ethnicity (sadly) and not by lines on a map (the American civil war was more an exception rather than the rule) .... so who knows? Anyway, I'm really just saying shit might really be changing in America again. There are definitely some signs pointing towards that theory.
I don't think it's realistically possible for civil war to occur in this country.
I bet that's what a lot of people have thought before civil wars happened in their country.... I'm sure most of the crazy shit that happens all over the world seems impossible to a lot of people before it happens. Again, I'm not saying it's going to happen... I'm just saying that crazier things have happened, and I think modern American society has kind of lulled everyone into the mindset of "that's impossible". Well, actually, no it's not.
exactly, its strange times when a presidential candidate can gain supporters directly in proportion to amount of lying he does.
Guess you better think twice about banning those assault weapons if you are planning on stocking up for a civil war then, right? Your rubber band gun probably won't get you very far..,
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Who would be fighting who in a civil war?
Again, I'm not saying there will be a civil war (though it's obviously not impossible), but if we're pretending there will be, don't you think the divisions are generally pretty obvious? Of course, it could be a state thing I guess. But most civil wars around the world seem more defined by beliefs or ethnicity (sadly) and not by lines on a map (the American civil war was more an exception rather than the rule) .... so who knows? Anyway, I'm really just saying shit might really be changing in America again. There are definitely some signs pointing towards that theory.
I don't think it's realistically possible for civil war to occur in this country.
I bet that's what a lot of people have thought before civil wars happened in their country.... I'm sure most of the crazy shit that happens all over the world seems impossible to a lot of people before it happens. Again, I'm not saying it's going to happen... I'm just saying that crazier things have happened, and I think modern American society has kind of lulled everyone into the mindset of "that's impossible". Well, actually, no it's not.
exactly, its strange times when a presidential candidate can gain supporters directly in proportion to amount of lying he does.
Guess you better think twice about banning those assault weapons if you are planning on stocking up for a civil war then, right? Your rubber band gun probably won't get you very far..,
i said i was considering it based on the psychotic nature of the people who seemed to be obsessed with them. only for protection. the ship has sailed on banning assault weapons. the patients have taken over the asylum.
^^^yeah, well the threat was probably laughable 10-20 years before it actually happened here in the US.
Who exactly do you think is going to start a new civil war? Better dust off that tin foil hat before answering.
try reading some of the stuff on Facebook.
Sounds like you have the wrong friends...
No, I've heard and read plenty of that talk too, on social media and on clips from interviews with Trump supporters outside rallies, and even from people in town hall type Trump events during the campaign. There really were a lot of people threatening such things, or at least expressing their willingness to take things that far (politicians have hinted at such sentiments too, unbelievably). I'm hoping that was just a lot of idiotic emotions talking during that fucked up campaign though.... That said, crazy shit like civil wars do indeed still happen all over the place, so I'm not totally sure why Americans seem to now think it can never ever happen to them again. Modern times and lives of convenience don't actually mean the end of extreme political and social upheaval. Americans shouldn't get TOO comfortable, considering what's happening in the US right now. Things have skidded sideways and I don't see anything getting back on track any time soon - I don't think that can be denied. I'm not saying a civil war is going to break out... I'm just saying that there is no reason to act like it's basically going to be business as usual in the years ahead and like something weird or crazy happening is an insane notion, given all the evidence. And if there is a another major terrorist attack on American soil any time soon, things could get pretty fucked up pretty damn fast.
Who would be fighting who in a civil war?
Again, I'm not saying there will be a civil war (though it's obviously not impossible), but if we're pretending there will be, don't you think the divisions are generally pretty obvious? Of course, it could be a state thing I guess. But most civil wars around the world seem more defined by beliefs or ethnicity (sadly) and not by lines on a map (the American civil war was more an exception rather than the rule) .... so who knows? Anyway, I'm really just saying shit might really be changing in America again. There are definitely some signs pointing towards that theory.
I don't think it's realistically possible for civil war to occur in this country.
I bet that's what a lot of people have thought before civil wars happened in their country.... I'm sure most of the crazy shit that happens all over the world seems impossible to a lot of people before it happens. Again, I'm not saying it's going to happen... I'm just saying that crazier things have happened, and I think modern American society has kind of lulled everyone into the mindset of "that's impossible". Well, actually, no it's not.
exactly, its strange times when a presidential candidate can gain supporters directly in proportion to amount of lying he does.
Guess you better think twice about banning those assault weapons if you are planning on stocking up for a civil war then, right? Your rubber band gun probably won't get you very far..,
i said i was considering it based on the psychotic nature of the people who seemed to be obsessed with them. only for protection. the ship has sailed on banning assault weapons. the patients have taken over the asylum.
Wait, wait, wait...but anti-gun folks say that it is dumb to have guns for protection. That "you'll shoot your eye out" to quote one of my favorite Christmas movies. You're starting to sound like a "gun nut". Hope you're good with all of your states strict gun laws, should make it really convenient to purchase a firearm and buy ammo to practice with. Btw, if you don't plan on practicing, please do not buy a firearm, it just makes responsible people look bad...And I hope you're not a marijuana smoker, because that would make you a criminal if you try to purchase one.
^^^honestly find guns boring. again, i am not seriously considering buying one, just wanted to vent the fact that the thought has crossed my mind recently where it never had before. i don't see anything wrong with rubber band guns either. if more kids were given those instead of game consoles filled with violence, we might not be wondering why our population is getting more and more ignorant everyday.
^^^honestly find guns boring. again, i am not seriously considering buying one, just wanted to vent the fact that the thought has crossed my mind recently where it never had before. i don't see anything wrong with rubber band guns either. if more kids were given those instead of game consoles filled with violence, we might not be wondering why our population is getting more and more ignorant everyday.
And more and more fat and anti-social. I'll agree with you there.
I see us getting less ignorant over time. Part about having the internet is that we now get to hear from these ignorant people, where before we didn't.
Funny how with all your spew of name calling you didn't answer my question. Tell me, what about a pistol grip makes it more deadly than a gun without one?
Pistol grips have been used because some think they make it easier to carry or hold a gun. That doesn't mean easier to kill people with it But it is fact it is much less accurate to shoot with a pistol grip, harder to control. That's not even a debate. There is nothing innately deadly about a pistol grip or the use of one on a rifle. I'm not sure why that is "disgusting."
I'm for gun control, just ones that make sense. I think a new law in California that was just passed was a gun one. It eliminated a loophole that allowed some, with minor alterations, to have a removable magazine. Previously a magazine was not considered removable if it required a tool to remove, it was considered attached at that point. So people started making the button to detach the magazine so small it could only be pushed with a small pointed object, like the tip of a bullet. So all they had to do was use the bullet to push the button and it was completely legal. I think fixing that loophole is completely the right thing to do.
I still believe pistol grips don't make a gun any more deadly, and therefore are pointless to ban. And I seriously doubt anyone has ever died as a result of a pistol grip that would not have been killed/injured otherwise.
Please provide me with some of your research you quoted that indicates how deadly a pistol grip is. I would really like to hear some expert opinion about hos it has killed people.
^^^ Your claim (that even you know is false) was that grips have no practical function, not that it doesn't increase lethality. I refuted it. I'm not arguing for a ban on grips, I am arguing for gun advocates to have an honest damn discussion and stop bending the truth to suit their argument.
for a civil war to occur, I think the division would have to be largely defined by geography (north v south), which it no longer is.
so in essence you could have a war with no front lines...i.e. vietnam
I suppose. I guess I just see the chances of it happening are so remote.
yeah me too.
Going back to the other discussions: I'd invite anyone on these boards to the range and ask you to: 1. fire a weapon while shouldering it 2. fire a weapon from the hip
I'm in new jersey so we can use a 15 round magazine. we can fire weapons with a pistol grip and without...your choice. after experiencing 1 and 2 you will find out #2 is all hollywood and your accuracy will be total shit.
oh I forgot that one of my favorite hollywood gun moves is when they tilt their handguns to the side and fire.
Careful, you're about to be called "disgusting" for basing your opinion on actual experience and conversations with real people. Handguns with a magazine should be outlawed because they never run out of ammo in the movies!
I've only been shooting for 29 years....I'm probably not experienced enough to have any sort of opinion on this. Disgusting I am. It is amazing how a handgun with a 15 to 20 round mag in the movies lasts forever! lol
You can shoot for 1,000 years and still be dishonest. As I said to Master Windu, I just want some damn honesty in the conversation.
I am sick and tired of seeing enthusiasts who pore over websites, blogs, catalogs, and trade mags that obsess over the aesthetic and functional properties of every aspect of firearm appointments and attachments, turn around and use cognitive dissonance or outright lies to claim that those additions have no practical function. It IS disgusting.
for a civil war to occur, I think the division would have to be largely defined by geography (north v south), which it no longer is.
so in essence you could have a war with no front lines...i.e. vietnam
I suppose. I guess I just see the chances of it happening are so remote.
yeah me too.
Going back to the other discussions: I'd invite anyone on these boards to the range and ask you to: 1. fire a weapon while shouldering it 2. fire a weapon from the hip
I'm in new jersey so we can use a 15 round magazine. we can fire weapons with a pistol grip and without...your choice. after experiencing 1 and 2 you will find out #2 is all hollywood and your accuracy will be total shit.
oh I forgot that one of my favorite hollywood gun moves is when they tilt their handguns to the side and fire.
Careful, you're about to be called "disgusting" for basing your opinion on actual experience and conversations with real people. Handguns with a magazine should be outlawed because they never run out of ammo in the movies!
I've only been shooting for 29 years....I'm probably not experienced enough to have any sort of opinion on this. Disgusting I am. It is amazing how a handgun with a 15 to 20 round mag in the movies lasts forever! lol
You can shoot for 1,000 years and still be dishonest. As I said to Master Windu, I just want some damn honesty in the conversation.
I am sick and tired of seeing enthusiasts who pore over websites, blogs, catalogs, and trade mags that obsess over the aesthetic and functional properties of every aspect of firearm appointments and attachments, turn around and use cognitive dissonance or outright lies to claim that those additions have no practical function. It IS disgusting.
so in your infinite wisdom of firearms you are telling me that it's more accurate to fire from your hip? if you are inexperienced, rambo or in a hollywood movie you fire from the hip. you aren't going to hit the broadside of a barn firing like that. the pistol grip does not make a semi automatic rifle any more deadly. my m1 garand (look it up) is just as deadly as an ar-15. the pistol grip and black stock just makes the gun look scary. my m1 garand looks almost pretty with it's birch stock.
oh and I forgot to mention...they make ar-15's without a pistol grip...just as deadly as the one with the pistol grip.
for a civil war to occur, I think the division would have to be largely defined by geography (north v south), which it no longer is.
so in essence you could have a war with no front lines...i.e. vietnam
I suppose. I guess I just see the chances of it happening are so remote.
yeah me too.
Going back to the other discussions: I'd invite anyone on these boards to the range and ask you to: 1. fire a weapon while shouldering it 2. fire a weapon from the hip
I'm in new jersey so we can use a 15 round magazine. we can fire weapons with a pistol grip and without...your choice. after experiencing 1 and 2 you will find out #2 is all hollywood and your accuracy will be total shit.
oh I forgot that one of my favorite hollywood gun moves is when they tilt their handguns to the side and fire.
Careful, you're about to be called "disgusting" for basing your opinion on actual experience and conversations with real people. Handguns with a magazine should be outlawed because they never run out of ammo in the movies!
I've only been shooting for 29 years....I'm probably not experienced enough to have any sort of opinion on this. Disgusting I am. It is amazing how a handgun with a 15 to 20 round mag in the movies lasts forever! lol
You can shoot for 1,000 years and still be dishonest. As I said to Master Windu, I just want some damn honesty in the conversation.
I am sick and tired of seeing enthusiasts who pore over websites, blogs, catalogs, and trade mags that obsess over the aesthetic and functional properties of every aspect of firearm appointments and attachments, turn around and use cognitive dissonance or outright lies to claim that those additions have no practical function. It IS disgusting.
so in your infinite wisdom of firearms you are telling me that it's more accurate to fire from your hip? if you are inexperienced, rambo or in a hollywood movie you fire from the hip. you aren't going to hit the broadside of a barn firing like that. the pistol grip does not make a semi automatic rifle any more deadly. my m1 garand (look it up) is just as deadly as an ar-15. the pistol grip and black stock just makes the gun look scary. my m1 garand looks almost pretty with it's birch stock.
oh and I forgot to mention...they make ar-15's without a pistol grip...just as deadly as the one with the pistol grip.
I never claimed infinite wisdom, and I never claimed firing from the hip is more accurate. Both would be foolish claims. I have made the claim that grips have the potential make a weapon more deadly in a mass casualty situation, and that claim I will stand by. Gunners go on and on about aiming, and you never respond to questions about how much aiming is necessary in a crowded theater, school, night club, or concert venue. Did Lanza, Holmes, the Pulse guy, or Roof square up with good form and aim down the sights? Maybe, maybe not. You don't answer questions about the consequences that might arise in those same venues from features that make rifles easier to conceal and lighter with better motility and quicker reloads. You don't engage in honest discussion about firearm features when the topic is control, but amongst yourselves you debate and discuss endlessly about those features.
I understand you were using a figure of speech, but one can easily hit the broad side of a barn firing from the hip. Last year I shot an AR-15 Blackout with a foregrip...on the move and from the hip. I hit lots of trees, and trees don't grow at the density that people pack themselves into crowded public spaces.
Why do SWAT police and soldiers use rifles with grips? It must be because they look scary. It couldn't possibly be because they are a form with a function. Naww. No way. Dudes here shot guns their whole lives, they know better than the professionals.
Why do SWAT police and soldiers use rifles with grips? It must be because they look scary. It couldn't possibly be because they are a form with a function. Naww. No way. Dudes here shot guns their whole lives, they know better than the professionals.
On most hunting rifles the safety is on or very near the action which makes next to impossible to operate with your hand on the pistol grip. With the AR and AK style of rifle the safety is on or very near the pistol grip and can be operated with your thumb while still having your hand on the grip. not my words: For a fast shot on game, the conventional "classic" stock points more naturally. Both hands are in line with each other and the target, and the rifle becomes an extension of the body. Shotguns point the same way- spend some time on the skeet or trap range. Separate pistol grips are a feature that allows the designer to move the reciever back a little, creating a shorter overall length. In the AR/M16 series the straight-line recoil design (buffer tube running from reciever straight through the buttstock) necessitated a separate pistol grip an absurdly high sights.
straight from wikipedia: One of the reasons the pistol grip style is so common in machinery is because it is possible to ergonomically position the operating controls. For example, on the AR-15 and M16 rifle, a right-handed user's index finger can control the trigger and magazine release, while the thumb can control the safety or fire mode selector switch, all without needing to remove the palm from the grip.
a tad more research: However, as it turns out, vertical handgrips on long guns also put the wrist at the ideal angle when firing from the shoulder, allowing a more secure grip and a better trigger pull, and making it unnecessary to stick your dominant elbow up and out like a chicken wing when shooting from the shoulder. That's why almost all very-high-end European target rifles used in unlimited-class target shooting have either pistol grip stocks, or thumbhole/extreme Monte Carlo stocks that approximate pistol grip angles. hence the reason olympic biathlon rifles have a rifle grip.
Makes sense. I imagine with practice you could keep a rifle in position by wedging it into your shoulder and change magazines with your dominant hand without ever dropping the muzzle.
I am not necessarily for a ban on grips, I just find the notion that they serve no purpose maddeningly annoying.
I think the incentive to ban pistol grips on guns is more than aesthetics or practicality. A ban would render AR's, AK's and MP5 pattern rifles illegal.
Don't think of it as a ban on a feature, it's really an attempt to ban an entire class of firearm.
Post edited by dudeman on
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Funny how with all your spew of name calling you didn't answer my question. Tell me, what about a pistol grip makes it more deadly than a gun without one?
Pistol grips have been used because some think they make it easier to carry or hold a gun. That doesn't mean easier to kill people with it But it is fact it is much less accurate to shoot with a pistol grip, harder to control. That's not even a debate. There is nothing innately deadly about a pistol grip or the use of one on a rifle. I'm not sure why that is "disgusting."
I'm for gun control, just ones that make sense. I think a new law in California that was just passed was a gun one. It eliminated a loophole that allowed some, with minor alterations, to have a removable magazine. Previously a magazine was not considered removable if it required a tool to remove, it was considered attached at that point. So people started making the button to detach the magazine so small it could only be pushed with a small pointed object, like the tip of a bullet. So all they had to do was use the bullet to push the button and it was completely legal. I think fixing that loophole is completely the right thing to do.
I still believe pistol grips don't make a gun any more deadly, and therefore are pointless to ban. And I seriously doubt anyone has ever died as a result of a pistol grip that would not have been killed/injured otherwise.
Please provide me with some of your research you quoted that indicates how deadly a pistol grip is. I would really like to hear some expert opinion about hos it has killed people.
^^^ Your claim (that even you know is false) was that grips have no practical function, not that it doesn't increase lethality. I refuted it. I'm not arguing for a ban on grips, I am arguing for gun advocates to have an honest damn discussion and stop bending the truth to suit their argument.
Saying it's false doesn't prove it is false. But every tie I've asked for specifics or sources on why they should be banned you just repeat it, so I guess it makes it true for you.
Funny how with all your spew of name calling you didn't answer my question. Tell me, what about a pistol grip makes it more deadly than a gun without one?
Pistol grips have been used because some think they make it easier to carry or hold a gun. That doesn't mean easier to kill people with it But it is fact it is much less accurate to shoot with a pistol grip, harder to control. That's not even a debate. There is nothing innately deadly about a pistol grip or the use of one on a rifle. I'm not sure why that is "disgusting."
I'm for gun control, just ones that make sense. I think a new law in California that was just passed was a gun one. It eliminated a loophole that allowed some, with minor alterations, to have a removable magazine. Previously a magazine was not considered removable if it required a tool to remove, it was considered attached at that point. So people started making the button to detach the magazine so small it could only be pushed with a small pointed object, like the tip of a bullet. So all they had to do was use the bullet to push the button and it was completely legal. I think fixing that loophole is completely the right thing to do.
I still believe pistol grips don't make a gun any more deadly, and therefore are pointless to ban. And I seriously doubt anyone has ever died as a result of a pistol grip that would not have been killed/injured otherwise.
Please provide me with some of your research you quoted that indicates how deadly a pistol grip is. I would really like to hear some expert opinion about hos it has killed people.
^^^ Your claim (that even you know is false) was that grips have no practical function, not that it doesn't increase lethality. I refuted it. I'm not arguing for a ban on grips, I am arguing for gun advocates to have an honest damn discussion and stop bending the truth to suit their argument.
Saying it's false doesn't prove it is false. But every tie I've asked for specifics or sources on why they should be banned you just repeat it, so I guess it makes it true for you.
I would say that pistol grips may have practical applications in some situations. They do not make a gun deadlier or more accurate or any of that bullshit. The number one thing that would make a riffle more accurate is a user that is proficient, second is the type of optics. Gun control advocates know that it would be dumb as shit to try and ban optics, so they try to make a case for way lesser, mostly ergonomic features. A pistol grip doesn't even compare to other items to increase accuracy that gun control advocates do not even touch on...why? Because the other features, such as slings and optics do not look as scary to people that are ignorant of firearm function. Maybe they figure that if they ban pistol grips that there would be no more "assault rifles" which New York has shown us that is simply not the case as engineers skirt those laws by creating new innovative rifles. The "solutions" have been largely counterproductive.
Funny how with all your spew of name calling you didn't answer my question. Tell me, what about a pistol grip makes it more deadly than a gun without one?
Pistol grips have been used because some think they make it easier to carry or hold a gun. That doesn't mean easier to kill people with it But it is fact it is much less accurate to shoot with a pistol grip, harder to control. That's not even a debate. There is nothing innately deadly about a pistol grip or the use of one on a rifle. I'm not sure why that is "disgusting."
I'm for gun control, just ones that make sense. I think a new law in California that was just passed was a gun one. It eliminated a loophole that allowed some, with minor alterations, to have a removable magazine. Previously a magazine was not considered removable if it required a tool to remove, it was considered attached at that point. So people started making the button to detach the magazine so small it could only be pushed with a small pointed object, like the tip of a bullet. So all they had to do was use the bullet to push the button and it was completely legal. I think fixing that loophole is completely the right thing to do.
I still believe pistol grips don't make a gun any more deadly, and therefore are pointless to ban. And I seriously doubt anyone has ever died as a result of a pistol grip that would not have been killed/injured otherwise.
Please provide me with some of your research you quoted that indicates how deadly a pistol grip is. I would really like to hear some expert opinion about hos it has killed people.
^^^ Your claim (that even you know is false) was that grips have no practical function, not that it doesn't increase lethality. I refuted it. I'm not arguing for a ban on grips, I am arguing for gun advocates to have an honest damn discussion and stop bending the truth to suit their argument.
Saying it's false doesn't prove it is false. But every tie I've asked for specifics or sources on why they should be banned you just repeat it, so I guess it makes it true for you.
I would say that pistol grips may have practical applications in some situations. They do not make a gun deadlier or more accurate or any of that bullshit. The number one thing that would make a riffle more accurate is a user that is proficient, second is the type of optics. Gun control advocates know that it would be dumb as shit to try and ban optics, so they try to make a case for way lesser, mostly ergonomic features. A pistol grip doesn't even compare to other items to increase accuracy that gun control advocates do not even touch on...why? Because the other features, such as slings and optics do not look as scary to people that are ignorant of firearm function. Maybe they figure that if they ban pistol grips that there would be no more "assault rifles" which New York has shown us that is simply not the case as engineers skirt those laws by creating new innovative rifles. The "solutions" have been largely counterproductive.
No idea why my quote button suddenly only started quoting part of the quote and the rest in my body. But here's my reply....
I agree with a lot of this, and you highlighted the problem with many of the gun laws that I have. Many people don't like assault rifles, so law makers, in an attempt to ban them, an aspects of an assault rifle. Or in essence, define an assault rifle by certain characteristics, one of them being a piston grip. The problem with this is not every gun with a pistol grip is an AK-47 with a hi capacity magazine. Or several other features I've mentioned like a floating barrel that is actually designed for safety and accuracy and not shooting a bunch of rounds get banned. They should stick with the functions of a gun that are deadly (or deadliest rather). I am all for banning hi-capacity magazines and detachable magazines on certain rifles. And if someone wants to use an "assault rifle" for hunting or sport, let them with their fixed magazine of 5 or 6 rounds. Because like you said, gun makers and enthusiasts just find modifications to make their rifles legal anyway when you focus on the insignificant functions of the gun.
I like Mace's suggestions above and agree with them.
In the mass muder spree events... it's all about reloading. If you don't have to... killing is much easier. If a hunter can't get the job done with 5-6 bullets... they shouldn't be hunting.
I like Mace's suggestions above and agree with them.
In the mass muder spree events... it's all about reloading. If you don't have to... killing is much easier. If a hunter can't get the job done with 5-6 bullets... they shouldn't be hunting.
I mostly agree, but with magazines being so cheap and readily available for so long, I do not see much point in putting effort towards that fight. Not to mention, I do have issues with making things illegal that people have already purchased legally. The ship has sailed on getting rid of these things. It is also another accessory that can be easily made by a 3D printer, so there is that.
You can't not outlaw something because you think people will find ways to get it anyway, otherwise nothing would be made illegal. I understand about making things illegal after they were bought, that's why many of these types of scenarios have a grandfather clause. I don't know the details, but I know due to a new revision of a gun law that was just passed my brother and a close friend were telling me they have a gun that will have to now be registered as an assault rifle. They can keep it, but never sell it or transfer ownership, and when they die the gun must be destroyed. That's how you'd have to do this. And if you make rifles that accept a removable magazine illegal, you wont have to worry about people making one with a 3D printer.
You can't not outlaw something because you think people will find ways to get it anyway, otherwise nothing would be made illegal. I understand about making things illegal after they were bought, that's why many of these types of scenarios have a grandfather clause. I don't know the details, but I know due to a new revision of a gun law that was just passed my brother and a close friend were telling me they have a gun that will have to now be registered as an assault rifle. They can keep it, but never sell it or transfer ownership, and when they die the gun must be destroyed. That's how you'd have to do this. And if you make rifles that accept a removable magazine illegal, you wont have to worry about people making one with a 3D printer.
Except that you can also make lower receivers that accept detachable magazines with a 3D printer, lol. My point is that law abiding people are probably going to follow laws, but it is impossible it keep these out of the hands of people if they really want them. Much like prohibition of anything, it just doesn't work and drains taxpayer funds to enforce and encourages illegal profitable black markets. I guess that I'm one that believes more and more laws are not the answer, education and awareness is the only thing that's going to stop a mad person from doing lawless things. There were articles that said that there were enough rifles sold on Black Friday alone to arm the marines...that tells me that the battle against guns is essentially lost.
Comments
Tell me, what about a pistol grip makes it more deadly than a gun without one?
Pistol grips have been used because some think they make it easier to carry or hold a gun. That doesn't mean easier to kill people with it But it is fact it is much less accurate to shoot with a pistol grip, harder to control. That's not even a debate. There is nothing innately deadly about a pistol grip or the use of one on a rifle. I'm not sure why that is "disgusting."
I'm for gun control, just ones that make sense. I think a new law in California that was just passed was a gun one. It eliminated a loophole that allowed some, with minor alterations, to have a removable magazine. Previously a magazine was not considered removable if it required a tool to remove, it was considered attached at that point. So people started making the button to detach the magazine so small it could only be pushed with a small pointed object, like the tip of a bullet. So all they had to do was use the bullet to push the button and it was completely legal. I think fixing that loophole is completely the right thing to do.
I still believe pistol grips don't make a gun any more deadly, and therefore are pointless to ban. And I seriously doubt anyone has ever died as a result of a pistol grip that would not have been killed/injured otherwise.
Please provide me with some of your research you quoted that indicates how deadly a pistol grip is. I would really like to hear some expert opinion about hos it has killed people.
^^^
Your claim (that even you know is false) was that grips have no practical function, not that it doesn't increase lethality.
I refuted it.
I'm not arguing for a ban on grips, I am arguing for gun advocates to have an honest damn discussion and stop bending the truth to suit their argument.
As I said to Master Windu, I just want some damn honesty in the conversation.
I am sick and tired of seeing enthusiasts who pore over websites, blogs, catalogs, and trade mags that obsess over the aesthetic and functional properties of every aspect of firearm appointments and attachments, turn around and use cognitive dissonance or outright lies to claim that those additions have no practical function.
It IS disgusting.
if you are inexperienced, rambo or in a hollywood movie you fire from the hip. you aren't going to hit the broadside of a barn firing like that.
the pistol grip does not make a semi automatic rifle any more deadly. my m1 garand (look it up) is just as deadly as an ar-15. the pistol grip and black stock just makes the gun look scary. my m1 garand looks almost pretty with it's birch stock.
oh and I forgot to mention...they make ar-15's without a pistol grip...just as deadly as the one with the pistol grip.
Both would be foolish claims.
I have made the claim that grips have the potential make a weapon more deadly in a mass casualty situation, and that claim I will stand by. Gunners go on and on about aiming, and you never respond to questions about how much aiming is necessary in a crowded theater, school, night club, or concert venue. Did Lanza, Holmes, the Pulse guy, or Roof square up with good form and aim down the sights? Maybe, maybe not. You don't answer questions about the consequences that might arise in those same venues from features that make rifles easier to conceal and lighter with better motility and quicker reloads.
You don't engage in honest discussion about firearm features when the topic is control, but amongst yourselves you debate and discuss endlessly about those features.
I understand you were using a figure of speech, but one can easily hit the broad side of a barn firing from the hip.
Last year I shot an AR-15 Blackout with a foregrip...on the move and from the hip.
I hit lots of trees, and trees don't grow at the density that people pack themselves into crowded public spaces.
It must be because they look scary.
It couldn't possibly be because they are a form with a function.
Naww. No way.
Dudes here shot guns their whole lives, they know better than the professionals.
not my words:
For a fast shot on game, the conventional "classic" stock points more naturally. Both hands are in line with each other and the target, and the rifle becomes an extension of the body. Shotguns point the same way- spend some time on the skeet or trap range. Separate pistol grips are a feature that allows the designer to move the reciever back a little, creating a shorter overall length. In the AR/M16 series the straight-line recoil design (buffer tube running from reciever straight through the buttstock) necessitated a separate pistol grip an absurdly high sights.
hence the reason olympic biathlon rifles have a rifle grip.
I imagine with practice you could keep a rifle in position by wedging it into your shoulder and change magazines with your dominant hand without ever dropping the muzzle.
I am not necessarily for a ban on grips, I just find the notion that they serve no purpose maddeningly annoying.
Don't think of it as a ban on a feature, it's really an attempt to ban an entire class of firearm.
^^^
Your claim (that even you know is false) was that grips have no practical function, not that it doesn't increase lethality.
I refuted it.
I'm not arguing for a ban on grips, I am arguing for gun advocates to have an honest damn discussion and stop bending the truth to suit their argument.
Saying it's false doesn't prove it is false. But every tie I've asked for specifics or sources on why they should be banned you just repeat it, so I guess it makes it true for you.
I would say that pistol grips may have practical applications in some situations. They do not make a gun deadlier or more accurate or any of that bullshit. The number one thing that would make a riffle more accurate is a user that is proficient, second is the type of optics. Gun control advocates know that it would be dumb as shit to try and ban optics, so they try to make a case for way lesser, mostly ergonomic features. A pistol grip doesn't even compare to other items to increase accuracy that gun control advocates do not even touch on...why? Because the other features, such as slings and optics do not look as scary to people that are ignorant of firearm function. Maybe they figure that if they ban pistol grips that there would be no more "assault rifles" which New York has shown us that is simply not the case as engineers skirt those laws by creating new innovative rifles. The "solutions" have been largely counterproductive.
No idea why my quote button suddenly only started quoting part of the quote and the rest in my body. But here's my reply....
I agree with a lot of this, and you highlighted the problem with many of the gun laws that I have.
Many people don't like assault rifles, so law makers, in an attempt to ban them, an aspects of an assault rifle. Or in essence, define an assault rifle by certain characteristics, one of them being a piston grip.
The problem with this is not every gun with a pistol grip is an AK-47 with a hi capacity magazine. Or several other features I've mentioned like a floating barrel that is actually designed for safety and accuracy and not shooting a bunch of rounds get banned.
They should stick with the functions of a gun that are deadly (or deadliest rather). I am all for banning hi-capacity magazines and detachable magazines on certain rifles. And if someone wants to use an "assault rifle" for hunting or sport, let them with their fixed magazine of 5 or 6 rounds.
Because like you said, gun makers and enthusiasts just find modifications to make their rifles legal anyway when you focus on the insignificant functions of the gun.
In the mass muder spree events... it's all about reloading. If you don't have to... killing is much easier. If a hunter can't get the job done with 5-6 bullets... they shouldn't be hunting.