Liz

If we put in a mag-lev system that averages 250 mph from station to station, an overnight sleeper train across the country becomes extremely attractive.

Ah my bad, I misread that.

The article is paywalled and the title doesn't make it clear which list you're talking about.

Dude, don't. This took 2 seconds to find. There's more that I'm aware of just from memory too. Also, the white guys thing.

Individual counter examples do not negate trend lines and you know it. I'll try to come back later when I'm on my computer and link a few government reports that clearly demonstrate the mass shooter phenomenon as we know it properly started in the 90s. I don't have the documents on my phone and I don't remember the titles so I can't Google them.

I don't consider fixing systemic issues in society to be a cop-out. I genuinely want to do all of those changes and more. There's plenty of people who would consider suggesting gun law reform a cop-out, since it's equally as unlikely to pass. Biden just suggested we bring back the assault weapons ban for the 70th time in his presidency (that's the actual number), so you can judge how well that's going.

Oh, no, it's not that I don't believe you. Just sounds like there's different opinions within the military on the usefulness of burst fire.

The M1a Springfield uses a totally different manual of arms than the M4/M16, especially when you fix the magazine.

If we're trying to square the 2nd amendment with reducing mass shootings (a very small but spectacular number of gun deaths) everything you listed would improve the situation slightly and there's little reason why we shouldn't have them. I'd throw in a storage requirement requiring guns and ammo be kept behind a lock. But mass shootings are much more of a social phenomenon than anything else. We've had access to capable guns for a very long time and mass shootings only became a thing in the 90s. That is, it's not inherit to humanity, it's cultural. (This should be further evidenced by the fact that they're all done by white guys.)

Now, that sounds like a cop-out, but it's not. It's saying that we know we can have a society with guns and without mass shootings because we used to have exactly that. Well, what did we have then that we don't have now? Lower inequality, higher union representation, more accessible housing, less media saturation, higher minimum wage, fewer monopolies, etc. I would suggest reading Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel to get an idea of the kind of person and situation that produces mass shootings. There's a racial component to it that won't (and shouldn't) change, but so much about our economic and social situation can change to get rid of mass shootings. Heck, even just Medicare for All would have a big impact, since it would make counseling free and accessible. Plus, all these social changes would have an even bigger impact in the other major areas of gun deaths, murders and suicides.

Aight, I've been told different from other folks who have deployed.

Anyway, this conversation is way off the rails. The point being that, if you consider the original intent of the 2nd amendment to be the only thing protecting a citizen's access to firearms, it would be much more correct to say the standard issue rifle would be the most protected firearm than any other.

Nobody actually uses burst fire. Does the Spear have burst fire? I haven't looked too closely because I seriously doubt they're ever actually going to make it the standard issue rifle.

The US military would one million percent prefer the population be trained and familiar on the standard issue rifle than on any other platform. (Arguments of the quality training put aside)

The issue becomes when things are developed with a mix of public and private money. I'm not saying we shouldn't tackle the issue, only that it can't be as simple as public money = public resource. If that were true, nearly all of us would be required to work for free, since we got the majority of our education through public funding.

Edit: It seems everyone ignored the generalization I was replying to. Yes, in terms of code it's actually relatively easy to require that a publicity funded project be open source and leave it at that. The business can decide if they want to write everything from scratch to protect their IP or if they want to open up existing code as a part of fulfilling/winning the contact.

In terms of other partially government funded projects, like the pharmaceutical example given, it's much more difficult to say how much of the process and result are thanks to public funding. That's really the only point I was trying to make, that it can get very hard to draw the line. With code, it can be relatively easy.

What? No it wouldn't? They hand grunts 30 round magazines for a reason. They used to give them 20 round magazines for the same rifle. Minimizing administrative tasks is good for your soldier.

Which arguably makes the AR-15 one of the most protected guns, if we're using the wording of the second amendment as the only justification for firearms rights.

I'm still absolutely flabbergasted they gave him that bonus. Like, legitimately, what success has the company had recently that was worth it?