Guns: how much longer will it take ....

No it can't. You would need a completely different lower receiver.

It is more difficult that I led it to be, but, you don't need a new receiver. For an experienced machinist, it is still not all that difficult.

It isn't recommended a person use full automatic anyways. The gun is famous for rising while being fired. We were trained to turn the weapon on its side and "rake" the area being fired upon rather that ending up shooting bullets into sky where the shots are useless. Bursts of 3 to 4 rounds at a time are recommended. I understand there is a selection on the selector switch for "bursts" now.

You do. The AR-15 lower does not have the necessary attachment points. The entire thing would need to be re-engineered in order to modify it for fully-automatic.

Yep. That seems right.

If you want to provide a link, how about you provide the direct link.

Also, I don't see you disagreeing with the very, very obvious firepower and accuracy advantage offered by a rapid fire long arm over a handgun....

...all I see you saying is -'see my survey'.

So, how about you address the firepower disadvantage (and likelihood of death if they are running to confront that while being fired at)....and tell me that police aren't human, and wouldn't be worried about it. In the face of such utterly obvious firepower disadvantage and likelihood of death...why would anyone say it doesn't bother them / they aren't worried/otherwise?

To give you 2 clues how such surveys can be rigged and/or misinterpreted
- - your survey didn't directly ask them if they would be worried about confronting an active offender wielding a rapidfire longarm with only their service handgun (instead it asked about safety, which can be interpreted narrowly, or 'in the overall picture of all other issues you face')
-- each question tends to get interpreted in light of the question/s before it, or if categorised, by category (which some people then remove from the category after the fact to make it show a different thing. As I don't have the direct link to the study, I'm not saying this is what was done, I'm saying this is how 'surveys' get rigged)
- You should be able to think of others, but me thinking for you doesn't really help you question surveys that come out with results completely and utterly against human nature

Yeah, I already did. But since it goes against your beliefs, it's not something you want to hear. So you didn't see it . . .

I said that the police are probably not that worried about people owning semiautomatics. I provided the link to a survey that proves my point. But you believe that that survey isn't real? Or you believe the officers being surveyed don't really exist? So, which is it?

Yep, and I said the question in your survey was too vague, and provided very specific things that would cause them worry, with links showing it to be the case. You've avoided both the links and the reasoning throughout your responses.

(by the way, your link provided a link to the general site, and not directly to the survey. It was not a direct link. I didn't bother looking for it because it is your claim, so it is your responsibility to provide a direct link - as as anyone, including me, who makes a claim who is then asked for the source)

There's an active shooting going on in Chicago right now. Six dead, twenty four hospitalised.

By the way - the only two things police officers can properly speak to when it comes to safety (relevant to this conversation) regarding firearms, is:
- their own safety, which is what I addressed, but which wasn't specifically asked by your survey; and
- the safety of people in an active shooter situations, police would be qualified to talk about....but that too wasn't asked.

One thing police officers aren't qualified to answer, because it requires research (so only researchers, with access to a great volume of relevant data, could provide a close answer) is the overall safety of the public from banning ar15 style rifles (from memory)

where are all the "good" guys with guns?

You know they mentioned "assault" rifles specifically. Why are you pretending they didn't.

But just for the record, what was so vague about the questions. Which one really set you off?

You're so cute when you squirm.

https://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013-law-enforcement-survey.pdf

Look at questions number five and six. How in hell could they have been more specific? How would you have worded it?

I've had this discussion with BillM years ago. He knows that I used to have an M16 in my house...it belonged to my first husband who brought it home when we got married back around 1970.....He had been in the Army and I didn't know it was actually just volunteered out during a training exercise. Back then practically every man you knew had either served, was serving or was a father that served during WWII or Korea. Many peoples Dads and Uncles had gruesome souvenirs from actual war activity.

All those weapons people get frosty about when the big guns are referred to as automatic weapons, but they can actually be automatic ....... the polly pure hearts just don't like to call them "automatics" because it's not a fun term, you know, like "collections". If you ever heard one of those things get rapidly fired, you won't forget the sound. It's somewhat interesting when you hear it fired in the regular 'sites', but you won't like it at all if it's pointed at you.

And no, I no longer have the M16, I gave it to the State police around 1990 0r 91....I gave them that and the banana clips....I really just didn't want it in the house any longer.

Another bad guy with a gun not stopped by a good guy with a gun, but an unarmed "bad" guy shot 60 f@cking times by "good" guys with guns. But he was black so he must have been bad. America, you had your day, but you're f@cked.

I've seen members who I consider to be very left wing - for the US - support gun ownership, so it's not like this issue doesn't cross the political divide. I even remember one expressing the idea that it was a bad idea for the government to have all the guns.
Hey world, we've got the greatest democracy in history, so long as we can arm ourselves to protect ourselves from it.
Get f@cked.

Let me put it this way - the banning of any type of rifle (assault or otherwise) will have little to no effect on:
- Sexual assaults
- assaults
- domestic violence (maybe a very minor effect...maybe)
- violent crime where the favoured weapon is handguns or knives

Why? Because assault rifles/similar are virtually never openly carried by criminals (or the public), so are in the vast majority of cases a non factor in violent public crimes. However, these don't specifically account for the concerning crime when it comes to semi-auto assault rifles - active shooter crimes.

If the survey instead asked the questions I posed, you would get very different answers. Other specific questions could include:

- whether or not severely outgunned officers will go forward to try and stop an active shooter
- the likelihood of a member of the public being able to outrun a handgun wielder compared to semi-auto rifle wielder
- whether or not your Las Vegas style shooting (including the number of victims) is possible with a handgun

People are opposing military grade assault rifles for very specific reasons, not general reasons.

we might as well start calling each other 'target practice', because that's what we are...

What law would have stopped this? Not "might have" or "could have", which one "would have"? I'll wait while the hive mind gathers and 12 others reply for you.