You realize that encourages rather than discourages my opposition to the usage, right? 
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by Joel at 27/12/2012 01:25:15 AM
Kind of like how I complain more rather than less about people writing "definately" as the frequency increases. I understand (too well) haste and fatigue, but when I see consistent error, until it is clear someone just knows no better, it tends to be the LAST thing I see before coming to my senses holding a blood-stained dictionary. 
What can I say? As a charter and (I believe) last regularly active member of the Society for Better Spelling and Grammar, I am a renegade with naught to lose.... 
Well the Observable Universe is centered around us and IIRC there's a theory that holds angular momentum for the Universe, the Observable Universe, at any and all points must not simply be conserved but net zero, were that true one could argue the Universe did revolve around us. I think too much emphasis is placed on the whole center aspect, or lack there of, in most peoples thinking anyway. It locks people into mis-thinking the mediocrity principle is a scientific fact as opposed to a necessary assumption, akin to 'I think therefore I am', not intended as a proven fact but the assumption you have to work off of if you don't just want to spin your wheels in the mental mud.
The Observable Universe is a significant, but rather anthrocentric, distinction. Considering existence literally from a human perspective inevitably puts us at its center, but that is an arbitrary perspective with little logical justification or likelihood of accuracy. What do Dark Matter and Energy do to the Observable Universe?
As an aside, if we further simplify "cogito ergo sum" to a phenomenological rather than identity statement it is a rigorously established fact; debating it at all proves at least one phenomenon of SOME kind is occuring. Logically progressing from there to a particular identity is arguably as challenging as taking the same route from Deism to a particular creed, but the basic assertion of existence is unassailable. Details and definitions are the tricky (but fascinating) part.
It got better as both actor and character developed, but we literally just finished watching Nemesis, so I will hear not a word against my fellow Houstonian.
I suspect we're mostly saying the same thing here, at least if the context is that while individual models may be harder or easier - some very easy and some bordering on the impossible from a practical standpoint - fundamentally its very hard to prevent something that's conceptually straightforward from a mechanical perspective from being duplicated or altered, especially when extremely high quality standards aren't needed.
I misspelled "achievement." *self-flaggelates* I think we are essentially on the same page here though, yes. Since I am far more supportive of requiring legal competence for all weapons than of banning any, the semi/full auto distinction is more a matter of casual curiosity and pedantry for me anyway.
Pretty much, except that for many the specific changeover isn't moving an afterburner to a frame not designed for supersonic forces but more akin to modifying an existing stapler to use a different staple. Depending on the specific stapler and the desired staple type, this could either be dumb-easy or sufficiently difficult that it is far easier to build one from scratch or acquire one from alternative sources, or a toaster that does wider slices. No truly elaborate conceptual changes are necessary nor prohibitively expensive or specialized equipment.
My rule of thumb is anything that needs machining is not quick and easy for most people; anything else is practical for those knowledgeable enough to succeed.
Filing the sides back near the selector switch to make room for an auto sear is pretty routine. Not seeing the pin shortening but maybe they are planning a whole bolt modification, and my brain is running on fumes right now. Big thing here is that you always want to grain of salt people discussing M16/M4/AR15 conversions. It's not just that there's a lot of BS out there but that for its type and era it has absurdly well machined guts and just about everything that makes it good as a gun comes form that. So not only are they touchy compared to an AK but a lot of people would react as though you desecrated the thing if it wasn't a very smooth, professional job, like a if someone used a cheap brown polymer tarp to repair the roof on a classic convertible. Even if functionality mostly remains they'd nitpick it to death, partial for good reasons and partially just field-specific snobbery. The classic quality conversion you drill out a space for the auto sear and replace the trigger assembly.
In one of the umpteen thousand threads on the topic, one person responded with "I guess you could, if you started with a full-auto sear. Which kinda defeats the purpose..." Of course, AR-15s lead right back to our above discussion about the ease of "unconverting" a weapon originally fully automatic in the first place. Again, I have not spent much time looking, but each mention I have seen of converting a gun to full auto, even people just seeking instruction, always referenced automatics factory-modified to civilian semi-autos. I find that highly suggestive of the difficulty in converting a gun semi-auto by design, though perhaps it is just another case where it is easier and more sensible to buy what one wants instead of buying something one does NOT want and MAKING it into the desired item.
Well he could be 17, guns and gun culture have phallic appeal for a lot of people and teenage boys tend to need that and go that route. Also there's a god awful lot of 'experts' out there who have never even held a M16 or AR 15 and even most who have assume expertise even though they've no idea of the mechanics.
"Gun store commandoes," as I saw one responder put it. Another person told a would-be automatic owner that "If anyone should file down their firing pin, it should be you." Since federal law sets no age limit for private rifle purchases though, I cannot help thinking the questioners criminal history is the reason he is not allowed to have a gun. It is interesting that supporters of both gun rights AND gun control (and I hope I have demonstrated they are not mutually exclusive) oppose felons, the mentally ill and the incompetent having guns—yet only the latter seem willing to DO anything about it.
"Who does the screening?" always strikes me as a copout. Obviously, a government licensing authority, though I have no problem with a federal law empowering states to do that individually according to a uniform federal standard, so long as the feds fund each such state effort adequately (i.e. the last thing we need is a NCLB for guns.) In other words, gun screening would be conducted by the equivalent of the same people who screen explosives purchases, drivers licenses and everything else that constitutes a serious threat to public safety in the hands of incompetent and/or irresponsible owners.
I am not talking mandatory interviews; I am libertarian enough to accept "presumption of sanity." However, where a documented RECORD exists, I do not believe it unreasonable, invasive or unconstitutional to check that record. That is to say, it is not a matter of proving one is sane and law-abiding before buying a weapon (I would never place the burden of proof on an individual to show their rights should NOT be denied,) but verifying there is no recorded proof one is NOT sane and law-abiding. All 50 states prohibit convicted felons buying or even owning guns—but why bother if gun buyers are on the honor system? Every employer in America knows asking whether someone is a convicted felon is pointless if no one ever bothers to CHECK. We keep records of that for a reason, y'know.
Same with mental health: I think it reasonable to expect would-be gun owners release mental health records to a confidential state review board. Mental health treatment should not prevent the sale, but a record of diagnosed mental illness impairing judgement should. The board should also be required to purge its own records of peoples confidential data immediately after review. Psychiatric medicine is far from perfect but, as you say, is what it is; if you are worried about improper loss of civil liberties on that basis, worry more about people being involuntary committed than denied guns. I do not think the proper solution to mentally ill gun owners is "let them have guns, but kill them as soon as they attack someone."
What can I say? As a charter and (I believe) last regularly active member of the Society for Better Spelling and Grammar, I am a renegade with naught to lose.... I thought we long ago established the universe does not revolve around Earth OR Sol. It is one thing when the general public makes that common error, but I wince when Lt. Commander Data or Neil deGrasse Tyson does so. 
Well the Observable Universe is centered around us and IIRC there's a theory that holds angular momentum for the Universe, the Observable Universe, at any and all points must not simply be conserved but net zero, were that true one could argue the Universe did revolve around us. I think too much emphasis is placed on the whole center aspect, or lack there of, in most peoples thinking anyway. It locks people into mis-thinking the mediocrity principle is a scientific fact as opposed to a necessary assumption, akin to 'I think therefore I am', not intended as a proven fact but the assumption you have to work off of if you don't just want to spin your wheels in the mental mud.
The Observable Universe is a significant, but rather anthrocentric, distinction. Considering existence literally from a human perspective inevitably puts us at its center, but that is an arbitrary perspective with little logical justification or likelihood of accuracy. What do Dark Matter and Energy do to the Observable Universe?
As an aside, if we further simplify "cogito ergo sum" to a phenomenological rather than identity statement it is a rigorously established fact; debating it at all proves at least one phenomenon of SOME kind is occuring. Logically progressing from there to a particular identity is arguably as challenging as taking the same route from Deism to a particular creed, but the basic assertion of existence is unassailable. Details and definitions are the tricky (but fascinating) part.
Also I've always felt Data's character was poorly done. Though through no fault of Brent Spiner, good actor, that man.
It got better as both actor and character developed, but we literally just finished watching Nemesis, so I will hear not a word against my fellow Houstonian.
I get the conceptual difference, but the means of acheivement are both mechanical and finite. Again, you know better than I, but I understood the firing pin, chamber and associated mechanisms to be inextricably involved also. Maybe we are just saying the same things differently, but one can easily keep the trigger depressed on every gun of which I am aware; the firing pin just will not keep moving, the shell casing will not continue to be ejected and new rounds will not enter the chamber.
I suspect we're mostly saying the same thing here, at least if the context is that while individual models may be harder or easier - some very easy and some bordering on the impossible from a practical standpoint - fundamentally its very hard to prevent something that's conceptually straightforward from a mechanical perspective from being duplicated or altered, especially when extremely high quality standards aren't needed.
I misspelled "achievement." *self-flaggelates*
I think we are essentially on the same page here though, yes. Since I am far more supportive of requiring legal competence for all weapons than of banning any, the semi/full auto distinction is more a matter of casual curiosity and pedantry for me anyway.Right, that last was my point on the AR-15 and all weapons initially designed as full auto military weapons and LATER produced in a modified civilian form. We could remove the afterburners and put in a different engine to produce a subsonic "civilian" F-16, but anyone with the knowledge could restore its factory specs relatively easily; strap its engine and afterburners onto a Piper Cub and the poor thing will just disintegrate. While any gun can theoretically be converted to full auto with sufficient knowledge and means, the original design has a big impact on how practical that is.
Pretty much, except that for many the specific changeover isn't moving an afterburner to a frame not designed for supersonic forces but more akin to modifying an existing stapler to use a different staple. Depending on the specific stapler and the desired staple type, this could either be dumb-easy or sufficiently difficult that it is far easier to build one from scratch or acquire one from alternative sources, or a toaster that does wider slices. No truly elaborate conceptual changes are necessary nor prohibitively expensive or specialized equipment.
My rule of thumb is anything that needs machining is not quick and easy for most people; anything else is practical for those knowledgeable enough to succeed.
Just guessing, but I think someone got the idea a shorter firing pin could not fully retract, and I saw someone opine that filing the sides would disable the disconnector.
Filing the sides back near the selector switch to make room for an auto sear is pretty routine. Not seeing the pin shortening but maybe they are planning a whole bolt modification, and my brain is running on fumes right now. Big thing here is that you always want to grain of salt people discussing M16/M4/AR15 conversions. It's not just that there's a lot of BS out there but that for its type and era it has absurdly well machined guts and just about everything that makes it good as a gun comes form that. So not only are they touchy compared to an AK but a lot of people would react as though you desecrated the thing if it wasn't a very smooth, professional job, like a if someone used a cheap brown polymer tarp to repair the roof on a classic convertible. Even if functionality mostly remains they'd nitpick it to death, partial for good reasons and partially just field-specific snobbery. The classic quality conversion you drill out a space for the auto sear and replace the trigger assembly.
In one of the umpteen thousand threads on the topic, one person responded with "I guess you could, if you started with a full-auto sear. Which kinda defeats the purpose..." Of course, AR-15s lead right back to our above discussion about the ease of "unconverting" a weapon originally fully automatic in the first place. Again, I have not spent much time looking, but each mention I have seen of converting a gun to full auto, even people just seeking instruction, always referenced automatics factory-modified to civilian semi-autos. I find that highly suggestive of the difficulty in converting a gun semi-auto by design, though perhaps it is just another case where it is easier and more sensible to buy what one wants instead of buying something one does NOT want and MAKING it into the desired item.
Frankly, the last guy struck me (and, it seemed, most responders) as a dangerous idiot anyway. He prefaced his "question" by stating, "I am not allowed to own a gun anyway," so he is probably a convicted felon seeking advice on how to illegally make his illegally obtained semi-auto full auto. When more knowledgeable people explained why filing the pin would not do that even if it were legal, it quickly became apparent he was not so much "asking a question" as trolling for answers to dispute. Maybe it is a self-correcting problem, since he is most likely to ruin his illegal obtained weapons if left to his own devices, but reading through the thread I kept thinking, This is why we need to require screening, training and certification for gun purchases....
Well he could be 17, guns and gun culture have phallic appeal for a lot of people and teenage boys tend to need that and go that route. Also there's a god awful lot of 'experts' out there who have never even held a M16 or AR 15 and even most who have assume expertise even though they've no idea of the mechanics.
"Gun store commandoes," as I saw one responder put it. Another person told a would-be automatic owner that "If anyone should file down their firing pin, it should be you." Since federal law sets no age limit for private rifle purchases though, I cannot help thinking the questioners criminal history is the reason he is not allowed to have a gun. It is interesting that supporters of both gun rights AND gun control (and I hope I have demonstrated they are not mutually exclusive) oppose felons, the mentally ill and the incompetent having guns—yet only the latter seem willing to DO anything about it.
Anyway its not that I'm not a big fan of screening, training, and certification it's just that 'who does the screening?' aspect of things, training and certification are actually things I believe could be tackled sanely and reasonably. Even ignoring the government as enemy aspect, I don't think we could give a screening panel the tools to reliably do the job without really pushing the wall on important civil liberties that I do view in a very Patrick Henry way. I also don't really trust the psych field much either, their accuracy and effectiveness is a joke compared to hard sciences and it doesn't matter that its not really their fault, it is what it is. Even if we allowed them mandatory interviews on every citizen with police state levels of intel I doubt they'd achieve a level of accuracy good enough to drop the incidents by an order of magnitude. The screening being the most important aspect of removing the lunatics, psychos, and genuine murderous but sane bastards, and in my opinion being effectively impossible, I prefer to look at solutions for countering them and that to me comes into a more heavily armed and trained society encouraged through reasonable incentive and educaiton.
"Who does the screening?" always strikes me as a copout. Obviously, a government licensing authority, though I have no problem with a federal law empowering states to do that individually according to a uniform federal standard, so long as the feds fund each such state effort adequately (i.e. the last thing we need is a NCLB for guns.) In other words, gun screening would be conducted by the equivalent of the same people who screen explosives purchases, drivers licenses and everything else that constitutes a serious threat to public safety in the hands of incompetent and/or irresponsible owners.
I am not talking mandatory interviews; I am libertarian enough to accept "presumption of sanity." However, where a documented RECORD exists, I do not believe it unreasonable, invasive or unconstitutional to check that record. That is to say, it is not a matter of proving one is sane and law-abiding before buying a weapon (I would never place the burden of proof on an individual to show their rights should NOT be denied,) but verifying there is no recorded proof one is NOT sane and law-abiding. All 50 states prohibit convicted felons buying or even owning guns—but why bother if gun buyers are on the honor system? Every employer in America knows asking whether someone is a convicted felon is pointless if no one ever bothers to CHECK. We keep records of that for a reason, y'know.
Same with mental health: I think it reasonable to expect would-be gun owners release mental health records to a confidential state review board. Mental health treatment should not prevent the sale, but a record of diagnosed mental illness impairing judgement should. The board should also be required to purge its own records of peoples confidential data immediately after review. Psychiatric medicine is far from perfect but, as you say, is what it is; if you are worried about improper loss of civil liberties on that basis, worry more about people being involuntary committed than denied guns. I do not think the proper solution to mentally ill gun owners is "let them have guns, but kill them as soon as they attack someone."