For a story, if the government issues a ban on firearms, is a BB gun a firearm?
For a story, if the government issues a ban on firearms, is a BB gun a firearm?
In most countries and US states, if it fires a projectile via some sort of chemical or mechanical propulsion system other than human muscle, yes, it's a firearm. It matters not what the propulsion system is they class it as a firearm. Even spud guns are classed as firearms in most legal jurisdictions. Heck, some weird legal jurisdictions define a bow and arrows as a firearm as they use a mechanical propulsion system.
On the upside, many legal jurisdictions put minimal limitations on what qualifies as a reportable firearm. A common example is an air operated gun that fires projectiles under a certain size and under a certain amount of pressure are legal without any further restrictions while others come under tighter restrictions. As an example, when i was growing up the family had two air rifles, both fired a .22 lead pellet, one was listed as a reportable rifle due to the high pressure and the range it had while the other air rifle had only a third of the air pressure and was lucky to reach a target at fifty feet. Thus while the first was an air rifle and had to be accounted for and handled the same as a .22 rifle firing bullets the lower powered unit was classed as a kid's toy and had no restrictions on its usage. That was important as the low power unit could be lawfully fired in the backyard in the city while the high powered unit couldn't be fired within the city limits.
You should check the actual law for the state or country you're setting the story in.
In most countries and US states, if it fires a projectile via some sort of chemical or mechanical propulsion system other than human muscle, yes, it's a firearm.
In the US, only the use of a chemical propellant qualifies as a firearm. Air rifles are NOT firearms under US law.
ETA:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-me/legacy/2012/06/01/Summary%20of%20Federal%20Firearms%20Laws%20-%202010.pdf
Definition of a Firearm
For purposes of Β§ 922 and Β§ 924 violations 18 U.S.C. Β§ 921(a)(3) defines a "firearm" as:
A. any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
B. the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
C. any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
D. any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
In the US, only the use of a chemical propellant qualifies as a firearm. Air rifles are NOT firearms under US law.
Air rifles give the federal agencies severe heartburn. As does any antique firearm with a design prior to 1898. For purposes of Federal law as it applies to convicted felons, more than one case has been dismissed in court due to that. A prosecutor will lose the case if they attempt to bring charges up under that statute.
Not correct.
Air rifles, bb guns, black powder muzzle loading weapons, and MANY others do not fall in the category of a "Firearm".
Easy way to tellβ¦.
If you can order it from a company and have it delivered to your home, WITHOUT PAPERWORK, then it is not considered a firearm by the BATF.
If you can order it from a company and have it delivered to your home, WITHOUT PAPERWORK, then it is not considered a firearm by the BATF.
This is not correct.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-ammunition-gun-control-act-definitions
The term "Firearm" means:
1. Any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
Just because it's in an unrestricted category (antique firearms) under the NFA doesn't mean it's not a firearm. The definition above comfortably includes black powder muzzle loaders.
For a story, if the government issues a ban on firearms, is a BB gun a firearm?
Potentially, but not necessarily.
For example, in Japan, a BB gun is classified as a firearm, but an Airsoft gun is NOT. You can have pellet guns that fire both .177 pellets as well as BBs.
If you're simply making things up, you can have them do whatever you want. There've been kids who ate part of their Pop-Tarts so it vaguely resembled a pistol that have gotten into trouble for it. There was another kid this past fall that got kicked out of Zoom school classes because he had a BB gun on the wall in HIS bedroom, and the teacher filed a complaint about no weapons at school. And no, I'm not making either of those two things up, that's just the insanity of certain parts of American culture right now.
There've been kids who ate part of their Pop-Tarts so it vaguely resembled a pistol that have gotten into trouble for it. There was another kid this past fall that got kicked out of Zoom school classes because he had a BB gun on the wall in HIS bedroom, and the teacher filed a complaint about no weapons at school.
I seem to recall a kid got in trouble doing a 'finger gun'.
I seem to recall a kid got in trouble doing a 'finger gun'.
There are several reported incidences along those lines. Linked is one of the more extreme examples of that stupidity.
https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/01/15/parents-furious-after-young-boys-suspended-after-playing-with-imaginary-weapon/
It all depends on the weapon, to be honest.
Many do not realize, but at one time air rifles were actually used by many militaries around the world.
One of the most well known is the Girardoni. It was made by an Italian, and in the late 1700's Austria actually adopted it as a military rifle, and it was used in combat against Napoleonic forces.
It was .46 caliber, and was lethal at ranges of around 125 meters. It was silent, did not use powder, was smokeless, and was the first "repeating rifle" as up to 30 rounds could be fired without recharging the tank.
Lewis and Clark even took one with them on their journey West, and it was frequently shown to various tribes. The fact that it could fire 30 rounds without reloading had a larger impact on them than their regular firearms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI
The 'BB gun' is a weapon, no question. The issue with it is most users don't treat it as such and can be 'willy-nilly' with it. Same goes for pellet guns. I took one of those to the face as a highschooler because my neighbor was an idiot. (pistol).
I will tell you right now, the police showed up and needed a statement as to why I had to have a led shot removed from my jaw.
The 'BB gun' is a weapon, no question.
The question in the OP was not "Ia a BB gun a weapon?"
The question was "Would a BB gun fall under a ban on firearms?"
Weapon is a very generic term.
Firearm while still fairly general is a lot more specific than weapon.
There are lots of weapons that are not firearms.
A knife is a weapon. It is not a firearm.
A bow&arrows is a weapon. It is not a firearm.
Yes, a BB gun is a weapon. No, at least under US law, it is not a firearm and would not fall under a ban on firearms.
Anything you can see or touch can be a weapon.
I can see and touch a marshmallow. Now explain to me how it can be a weapon (without an ancient deity making it 80 feet tall). :)
"Is mallow the same as marshmallow?
Common mallow (Malva neglecta β how appropriately named) and little mallow (Malva parviflora) belong to the same family of plants as marshmallow and hibiscus. (Speaking of marshmallow, the confection eaten today was originally made from the sap of the roots of mallow grown in marshes, hence the name."
I can see and touch a marshmallow. Now explain to me how it can be a weapon (without an ancient deity making it 80 feet tall). :)
It would be hard to breath with a marshmallow jammed into your throat.
Granted that's a stretch, but it could happen. A higher probability of something else in the vicinity that would make a better choice.
It would be hard to breath with a marshmallow jammed into your throat.
True, or mashed into the eye would make vision a bit difficult until cleared.
True, or mashed into the eye would make vision a bit difficult until cleared.
If your hands have that kind of access to their face, taking out their eyes would be a simple matter of jamming in your thumbs. No other object required.
A jab to the solar plexus can make a person gasp for air. Any foreign object (marshmallow included) becomes a deadly weapon at that time.
I think the biggest issue is western sensibilities. Most people just don't think like that. That mental barrier has gotten a lot of people dead when they are attacked. A mental exercise I was taught was to note everything when I entered a new area or room. Then think how those objects could be used to kill every sob in the room or area. If and when the need occurs, you don't freeze as you've already a plan in mind.
ETA: Along with that is the understanding that in this day and age especially, there is no such thing as a fair fight. As well as if it's not worth dying or killing for, it's not worth fighting for. Better to avoid a fight as a result. Fights can turn deadly in an instant. Someone getting their arse handed to them may up and decide to pull a gun, knife, or club rather than lose a fight.
If your hands have that kind of access to their face, taking out their eyes would be a simple matter of jamming in your thumbs. No other object required.
True, but a lot depends on what level of DNA evidence you want to leave behind, and what level of damage you want to do.
and what level of damage you want to do.
If matters have reached that point of violence, holding back can get you killed.
Ian Fleming wrote about using common objects as weapons; things like pencils, pens, rolled up magazines, etc. He picked up quite a lot of that info during his short stent at CampX in Canada during WW2. And don't forget that marshal artists are sometimes classified as lethal weapons because of their training and treated more harshly if prosecuted for taking someone down.
marshal artists are sometimes classified as lethal weapons because of their training and treated more harshly if prosecuted for taking someone down.
I've heard that before, but I've never seen a verifiable case of it.
@fool42
marshal artists are sometimes classified as lethal weapons because of their training and treated more harshly if prosecuted for taking someone down.
I've heard that before, but I've never seen a verifiable case of it.
I doubt a 'marshal artist' can be classified as a lethal weapon. A 'martial artist' has more of a chance :D
This might shed some light on it: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/black-belt-laws-684224.html
After reading that link, it seems clear that martial artist registering as deadly weapons is a myth in the states. Is it true anywhere else in the world?
I've heard that it is NOT a legal requirement there, but in the Philippines and some other Asian countries it's a status thing to register with a certain agency.
My wife is from there and spoke with her father who is in the Manila government (pulis as in police). He's never heard of that? She Also translates for Chinese, Korean, Phillipines, and Japanese writers. None of her contacts have heard of it either. Though the Chinese writers have said, the police keep unofficial tabs on practitioners.
ETA: It could be something dating back to WW2 Japanese occupation of the P.I. though.
Where I heard about it was about 15 or 20 years ago in a long documentary about various styles of martial arts in South-east Asia. In it they covered several countries and about a dozen different combat styles, some were in cages and some were in rings like they use for boxing and wrestling. They also interviewed a few of the top people in each style, and a few of them mentioned how in their home country there was an organisation they could register with. They all said it was not compulsory, it wasn't a government agency, and the bulk of people who registered did it as a status thing while none of the top fighters registered with them as it was usually the second and third tier fighters and below who registered.
Thinking back on the show while typing I remember more of it and one of the organisations they registered with in one country was involved in organizing professional matches in that country. Anyone could sign up and fight in a competition, but if you were registered with them or an affiliated organization you could get a higher payout for the matches you won.
typo edit
That sounds like something a gambling hall would set up and use for promoting underground illegal fights. I could definitely see that being the source of the rumor.
ETA It may not be Asia either. If elsewhere, I'd put money on it being Brazil.
Capoeira Regional martial arts came to mind. It is classified as Brazilian National Cultural Heritage by UNESCO. I have some notes on that in my personal diary dating back to some early Petrobras contracts I worked.
Capoeira has its roots in the 1700's and was illegal there up until the 1930's. The gambling promotions I recall still had the the underground illegal vibe to them. Sent out an email to a contact in Petrobras that would know. Will find out.
See the John Wick 2 "killed 3 men with a f**king pencil" scene:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsuNowyCF0c
See the John Wick 2 "killed 3 men with a f**king pencil" scene:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsuNowyCF0c
I'll call your f**king pencil and raise you a teacup and a ration tin key.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmqqNrg2cKg
Any foreign object (marshmallow included) becomes a deadly weapon at that time.
I remember seeing a news photograph, many years ago, of Senator Strom Thurmond (spelling?) sitting in a chair on a stage where he was making a speech, surrounded by marshmallows that had been thrown at him. I suspect that photo is still online somewhere, though I lack the skills to find it.
He was calling for the deportation of John Lennon and advocating more bombing in Vietnam. Protestors bombed him with the marshmallows. The picture is easily found on DDG. "Strom Thurmond marshmallow" search string. Click on images tab and several pictures of the idiot surrounded by marshmallows on the stage floor pop up.
I suspect that photo is still online somewhere, though I lack the skills to find it.
google (Google or other search engine of your choice) 'Senator Strom Thurmond' to check the spelling of his name; add 'marshmallow' to the search string, then select 'image' search
A marshmallow to the eye by one of those high powered sling shots would definitely distract someone long enough to close and finish them. assuming a marshmallow was the only available ammo, lol.
I can see and touch a marshmallow. Now explain to me how it can be a weapon (without an ancient deity making it 80 feet tall). :)
Just use the marshmallow as a choking hazard. I can't remember exactly when it was either late 80's or early 90's a college student died from a marshmallow getting stuck in their throat during a contest to see who could put the most marshmallows in their mouth.
Maybe we should ask the marshmallow companies to add to the disclaimer ... I mean the bag states to keep away from children do to suffocation and choking hazards so maybe they should just say bag and contents with in my cause death.
Maybe we should ask the marshmallow companies to add to the disclaimer ... I mean the bag states to keep away from children do to suffocation and choking hazards so maybe they should just say bag and contents with in my cause death.
Nope, there are enough Darwin warnings out there as is.
Nope, there are enough Darwin warnings out there as is.
Exactly. I would think a warning on food items warning they could cause choking is redundant.
Might as well post signs around any source of water saying it could cause drowning.
Might as well post signs around any source of water saying it
Contains DiHydrogenMonOxide. :)
Might as well post signs around any source of water saying it could cause drowning.
I think the CIA are already aware of that property. They test it repeatedly when questioning suspected terrorists, :-(
AJ
I think the CIA are already aware of that property.
Believe that was also the U.S. Army
Exactly. I would think a warning on food items warning they could cause choking is redundant.
Might as well post signs around any source of water saying it could cause drowning.
Replies: Dominions Son
Ummm there pretty much are those signs located at every public beach or area for swimming
I would think a warning on food items warning they could cause choking is redundant.
Like, Warning, Coffee mat be hot?
Like, Warning, Coffee may be hot?
Yes. Somewhere there is a dumbass who sued over that. If you're ordering coffee, it should go without saying that it will be at least warm.
If you're ordering coffee, it should go without saying that it will be at least warm.
Since this came up, due to the lawsuit, the plaintiff did have some responsibility in the case. The biggest problem for the defendant was they had a history of serving coffee at exceedingly hot temperatures and had burned other people in the past with it, with records existing of that. Their defense was that most people didn't drink the coffee for almost ten minutes after getting it - which didn't go well, because it was just too damned hot to drink in the first place.
And at the same time, you can also order coffee and it'll be cold, with ice in it.
I would think a warning on food items warning they could cause choking is redundant.
There are an increasing number of groups calling for food items to carry prominent warnings of choking hazards. Many find these proposals hard to swallow.
Speaking of such things I remember a little while ago of seeing a warning label on a jar of peanut butter that read " May contain peanuts. "
The best way to deal with the truly stupid people is to remove all warning labels and let nature take it's course.
Speaking of such things I remember a little while ago of seeing a warning label on a jar of peanut butter that read " May contain peanuts. "
What you saw on the peanut butter jar was probably "may contain nuts." referring to tree nuts (cashews almonds, walnuts pecans...), not peanuts.
While not as common as peanut allergies there are people with tree nut allergies that can be just as serious.
And most plants in the US that process peanuts also process tree nuts. Without a complete segregation of employees and equipment, it's impossible to completely eliminate cross contamination.
Ah ok then thanks for the heads up.
No problem. Free biology lesson: Peanuts are legumes. They are nut like peas, not pea like nuts.
May contain peanuts.
If they ever put a warning sign up near the US Congress it should read: DOES contain nuts. - as there's no 'may' about it.
If they ever put a warning sign up near the US Congress it should read:
Contains morons.
a warning sign up near the US Congress
Most Legislatures need this warning. No point on just identifying the one in Washington, DC.
Most Legislatures need this warning. No point on just identifying the one in Washington, DC.
true, but I chose the option most people on the forum would relate to the best.
Good point but I think most of the world's politicos only act like they are stupid while they are doing what ever the hell they feel like doing.
Good point but I think most of the world's politicos only act like they are stupid while they are doing what ever the hell they feel like doing.
Then there is the US with our Dementia Patient In Chief.
How many times does Biden have to refer to VP Harris as President Harris before Democrats admit that it is more than just a misspeak that anyone could do and admit that Biden is showing obvious signs of cognitive decline.
How many times does Biden have to refer to VP Harris as President Harris before Democrats admit that it is more than just a misspeak
Apparently many times more than has already occurred. Personally, I hope his handlers can get him under control as the last thing the US needs is a cackler in chief.
Personally, I hope his handlers can get him under control as the last thing the US needs is a cackler in chief.
Personally I expect that at some point (likely around Jan 2023) Harris will invoke 25A against Biden.
Aside from Biden doing it, Harris referred to a future Harris administration on the campaign trail a couple of times during the general election campaign in 2020.
I almost expected her to do it right away, but if she waits until just past the mid point of Biden's term then finishing his term won't count against her for the purpose of the Presidential term limit.
but if she waits until just past the mid point of Biden's term then finishing his term won't count against her for the purpose of the Presidential term limit.
Plausible. However, the chances of her winning the election are about the same as a deer surviving hunting season with a target over its heart. She is not electable. If she had any chance, she would have won the primaries and nomination.
However, the chances of her winning the election are about the same as a deer surviving hunting season with a target over its heart.
I agree with your assessment. The question is: Is she capable of recognizing that?
If she had any chance, she would have won the primaries and nomination.
That may be true of Harris, but I don't think it's true as a general proposition. A significant number of US Presidents served as VP first.
The fact that they served as VP means they lost their party's primary at least once before they became president.
Since 1841 there has one been one VP elected president while serving as VP - George H.W. Bush.
A number have tried and failed.
If they ever put a warning sign up near the US Congress it should read: DOES contain nuts. - as there's no 'may' about it.
And the police in Australia?
And the police in Australia?
A sign reading: Police in uniform, Gestapo in plain clothes.
Utterly implausible but yet valid example: place a marshmallow into the path of the ISS (obviously with unmatched velocity), however one wishes to do that, for the intended purpose of harming the ISS crew. Viola, marshmallow weapon.
Even a fleck of paint is a weapon if moving at a high enough relative velocity and without an effective atmosphere to slow or destroy it.
On earth, in atmosphere? Much harder. Maybe if you could accelerate it to a plasma over a very short distance.
Utterly implausible but yet valid example: place a marshmallow into the path of the ISS (obviously with unmatched velocity), however one wishes to do that, for the intended purpose of harming the ISS crew. Viola, marshmallow weapon.
Even a fleck of paint is a weapon if moving at a high enough relative velocity and without an effective atmosphere to slow or destroy it.
It's not just raw mass/velocity that matters for a projectile weapon, it's energy transfer from the projectile to the target.
The marshmallow will absorb all of the impact energy by going splat.
This can be a problem on the other end of the scale with hard projectiles and soft targets.
The projectile blows through the target and still holds most of it's energy. Because of this it can end up doing less damage to the target than a lower energy projectile that could dump all of it's energy into the target.
The marshmallow will absorb all of the impact energy by going splat.
This can be a problem on the other end of the scale with hard projectiles and soft targets.
So. In your opinion, is a toasted marshmallow smore or less likely to cause damage?
So. In your opinion, is a toasted marshmallow smore or less likely to cause damage?
Depends, is it still warm? If yes, the inside is molten and even softer than an untoasted marshmallow so it would do less damage.
On the other hand, a flaming marshmallow might do even more damage provided the target is flammable. :)
Not in an orbital-velocity-speed collision. Significant damage has been done by things that both have far less mass and would go splat (again, paint flecks have holed satellites).
The splat isn't enough to save anything. Not that it would splat, necessary - a marshmallow in orbit would either explode (creating a far more dangerous debris field - back to those paint flecks) or freeze solid (no splat).
On Earth, it's a totally different matter. There's no practical way to create a fast enough marshmallow. You'd have to do something else nasty with it.
again, paint flecks have holed satellites
Paint flecks are much harder than a marshmallow.
Paint flecks are much harder than a marshmallow.
Irrelevant to the argument. By the time it was subjected to vacuum, it would be much harder than a marshmallow in atmospheric norms.
Irrelevant to the argument. By the time it was subjected to vacuum, it would be much harder than a marshmallow in atmospheric norms.
You are correct, I wasn't thinking about what exposure to vacuum would do to it.
Would it actually flash freeze in space? It wouldn't be like dropping it liquid nitrogen. The only way for it to shed heat would be by radiating it away.
Irrelevant to the argument. By the time it was subjected to vacuum, it would be much harder than a marshmallow in atmospheric norms.
You are correct, I wasn't thinking about what exposure to vacuum would do to it.
Would it actually flash freeze in space? It wouldn't be like dropping it liquid nitrogen. The only way for it to shed heat would be by radiating it away.
Would it actually flash freeze in space? It wouldn't be like dropping it liquid nitrogen. The only way for it to shed heat would be by radiating it away.
Depends on what side of the planet it's on. If the darkside, there is no source of external heating.
There are three ways to make heat go from one place to another:
1. conduction (touching something)
2. convection (fluids moving around)
3. radiation (emitting light infrared/thermal in this case)
Any remaining fluids in the marshmallow will give a path for conduction and convection. The end result will happen very rapidly (flash).
Also at those kinetic energies it can just go boom on contact, even soft. Actually, there's likely no time for plastic deformation anyway.
Orbital velocity isn't the primary driver of the kinetic energy of the impact.
What drives the kinetic energy of the impact is the difference in velocity of the two objects.
If you are talking about using a marshmallow as a weapon, not an accidental impact, the cost of putting one marshmallow in the same orbit as the ISS moving in the opposite direction would be ridiculous.
A much more likely scenario is launching the marshmallow in some manner from another platform in the same or a similar orbit as the ISS, in which case, the velocity difference between the ISS and the marshmallow would most likely be much lower.
if the launch platform was in the same orbit moving in the opposite direction, the ISS would have a much bigger problem than the impact with the marshmallow.
For an accidental impact, the velocity difference could be anywhere between barely above zero (the ISS was moving slightly faster and ran into the marshmallow) to twice orbital velocity(same orbit opposite directions).
If you are talking about using a marshmallow as a weapon, not an accidental impact, the cost of putting one marshmallow in the same orbit as the ISS moving in the opposite direction would be ridiculous.
Perhaps it was accompanying Russell's teapot and simply got knocked off course to one opposite that of the ISS by accident?
Perhaps it was accompanying Russell's teapot and simply got knocked off course to one opposite that of the ISS by accident?
Then it's not a marshmallow as a weapon.
They would only expand until the air inside them was sucked out. What remains will be smaller and flash frozen from the vacuum.
On Earth, it's a totally different matter. There's no practical way to create a fast enough marshmallow. You'd have to do something else nasty with it.
Just freeze it and use an air cannon to launch it.
Point. That would work.
While pondering this, I found a very, very long reddit thread about the energy content of a marshmallow moving at nearly lightspeed (spoiler: it's very large). So, we're not the first group of people to go off on this tangent.
A BB gun is not a firearm. A doctor reporting someone as having a pellet of shot removed requires a police response/investigation in most if not all jurisdictions. That does not make the BB gun a firearm.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?height=800&def_id=18-USC-1256923314-971201194&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:44:section:930
What it does do is meet the definition of dangerous weapon.
dangerous weapon
(2) The term "dangerous weapon" means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2Β½ inches in length.
For purposes of the "assault with a dangerous weapon" a BB gun qualifies as it can put out your eye, thus meeting the "serious bodily injury" qualification under the law. In no way does that make it a firearm.
Here is the legal definition for the state I live in:
A firearm is defined in section 4 of the Firearms Act 1996 "as a gun, or other weapon, that is (or at any time was) capable of propelling a projectile by means of an explosive, and includes a blank fire firearm, or an air gun, but does not include a paintball marker within the meaning of the Paintball Act 2018 or anything declared by the regulations not to be a firearm".
The easy way to answer your question is to walk into a school with a BB gun and wait to see the charges brought against you. Obviously, the prosecutor will try to convince a jury that a BB gun is a firearm; the defense will contend that it's not. Personally, I don't want to be the defendant in the middle of that argument.
The easy way to answer your question is to walk into a school with a BB gun and wait to see the charges brought against you
one of the charges will be the offense of taking a weapon on to school grounds - they even class knives as weapons and there was a story a couple of years back where I kid in the US got charged because he had a fruit knife in his lunch box to cut his apple up with.
they even class knives as weapons
Of course, that's today. When I went to school, kids had their rifle racks in the back windows of their trucks and no one cared. I wore a six-inch lockblade knife in a belt pouch for the whole time I was in high school. Nobody cared.
When I went to school, kids had their rifle racks in the back windows of their trucks and no one cared.
Well, that was before the woke leftists started getting control of legislators and organizing them to disarm the population so they can stage their armed takeover of a disarmed population.
There is probably nowhere in modern society where logic and reason are more lacking than in public schools.
There is probably nowhere in modern society where logic and reason are more lacking than in public schools.
Sadly, that rings true.
True enough but knowing of the stupidity of human beings I would not be all that surprised if both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer pulling fully loaded guns on one another and screaming like a bunch of spastic monkeys that they are right.
Pretty much everything I considered saying about this topic has already been posted by someone else.
The only thing I did not see were references to several times that school children have been arrested and charged for bringing toy guns, such as water pistols or a 1" (2.5cm) toy gun for a GI Joe "action figure"; MADNESS!
As to the OP, it is up to you as the author to determine if BB Guns would "qualify" as a "firearm" by the legislators in Your story.
They might forget, they might be anally specific, or whatever fits the needs of Your story. In some actual jurisdictions some laws specify Firearms as only being those that use gunpowder/black powder; others include air guns, including CO2, or mechanical power, etc.
Even in the same jurisdiction, some laws are specific and others are not. Far too rarely do legislators (or their twenty-something staff members) actually consult existing laws; resulting in contradictory and over-lapping laws, regulations, ordinances, etc.
In 2004 the ATF ruled a shoe string was a machinegun. It took until 2007 for them to clarify that a shoestring was only a machine gun when used to convert a semi-auto to full auto.
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
I watched an idiot at a range a while back using that method. The M1A he used it on, blew up in his face when it fired out of battery.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Best I've seen was a 'can't be told, can't be taught' who decided to reload for his new .270 Remington by filling the case with shotgun powder and squeezing a bullet on top. I'm amazed he kept his face.
In 2007 Australian Customs banned importation of a Megatron Transformers toy because it converted into a toy gun.
http://www.theknightshift.com/2007/05/megatron-is-one-banned-bot-in-australia.html?m=1
Back in the day in Soviet Union it was in fact extremely easy to own a long barrel shotgun. All you had to do was to register with a local hunters club for hunting license and show up for range excercises once a year.
BB gun was next up, and those were around, in individual hands and for semi-public access in organizations. For what I know it was a weapon, formally, but attitude was very lenient. I don't actually know what the procedures was, but assume you had to be in the sport shooting system to legally own one. I know my cousin did, in his teens. (Well, his dad had quite large a weapons collection himself, but it was stressed the BB was son's.)
There was quite numerous (and mostly extremely shoddy looking) mini ranges around where anyone could come in from the street (including a ten years old kid unsupervised) and target shoot one of about four or five chained to counter BB guns for few kopeiks a pop (I don't really remember, but it was something like ten pellets for a quarter ruble (a medium loaf of white bread), and much cheaper per piece if you bought a big box (of hundreds), but you couldn't bring your own ammo in even if bought right there yesterday). If you were any good the supervisor would pitch a joining of a club. Those where under a structure that was ultimately under army umbrella, but a lot of sports in fact were (and even a popular moment lottery).
In theory my high school had such a range on its premises, and owned around 20 BB guns that had historically been used, among otherwise, for Pioneer (communist Scouts analogous) marching excercises, but by my time it was closed out of disrepair and loss of the person responsible for the guns, so they remained permanently locked away until the former range was reclaimed for a foreign language classroom (yes, it was that small) shortly after independence.
Owning a handgun as a civilian was way harder, but not that hard either. One had to certify as a security guard, or be in certain party positions (that counted as active officers though), or file a request of "credible threat" like because regularly handling large sums in cash. I know a boss of machine shop who carried a gun on grounds of such, and said gun nut uncle had a handgun too (and he also was in an executive position, but I don't know what the exact "need" on his permit was).
It was also customary for draft soldiers decommissioning as officers to steal their service sidearm. Yes, you read it right, it was both customary and illegal. But it was obviously tolerated, as rooted the whole thing was at the end, this was going on since late sixties as a minimum and I can't quite believe they could be that negligent.
A semi automatic small caliber carbine could be own as hunting or sporting weapon, but that come with quite a bit of paperwork a certified and inspected storage safe including. While above categories formally demanded such too, in practice it was never enforced for them alone. Add a carbine and the inspections become religious, of all your (legal) weapons.
Owning a proper rifle wasn't in fact impossible either, just very, very difficult, legally. Instead, for serious game (like bears) rifled barrel shotgun was a thing.
I just noticed on my jar of peanut butter that there is a warning that says
"this product may be produced where it comes in contact with nut products and may contain nuts."
I just noticed on my jar of peanut butter that there is a warning that says
"this product may be produced where it comes in contact with nut products and may contain nuts."
1. Peanuts are technically not nuts.
2. While less common than peanut allergies, there are people with tree nut allergies.
3. A lot of plants that make peanut butter also process tree nuts and it is impossible to guarantee no cross contamination.
You will see similar warnings (about peanuts) on packages of tree nut products for exactly the same reasons.
I just noticed on my jar of peanut butter that there is a warning
If they did 'truth in advertising' warnings on everything, can you imagine what sort of warnings they'd have to put on the members of the US Congress!
If they did 'truth in advertising' warnings on everything, can you imagine what sort of warnings they'd have to put on the members of the US Congress!
They would need a 4K page document for all the warnings.
They would need a 4K page document for all the warnings.
I think one warning would suffice:
Warning! This member of Congress is a lying sack of shit. Do not believe any grandiose statements made by this member of Congress, as he is being bribed by lobbyists.
I think one warning would suffice:
Warning! This member of Congress is a lying sack of shit. Do not believe any grandiose statements made by this member of Congress, as he is being bribed by lobbyists.
And what kind of warning should corporations get - big banks, for example, or Microsoft. Facebook?
And what kind of warning should corporations get - big banks, for example, or Microsoft. Facebook?
For some of them there should be a warning that you are doing business with a criminal organization.
And what kind of warning should corporations get - big banks, for example, or Microsoft. Facebook?
Warning: Interactions with these named organizations may be subject to US prosecution under RICO statutes.
If they did 'truth in advertising' warnings on everything, can you imagine what sort of warnings they'd have to put on the members of the US Congress!
Warning! Arial bombardment by copious quantities of bovine excrement occur when this member of Congress speaks. Wear appropriate personal protection devices when engaging this person in conversation. Safety glasses and knee high wader steel toed boots should be considered a minimum. Refer to material safety data sheet for the environmental hazards of pompous ass govermentium prior to engagement.
Only if the power cell is charged.
If the dilithium crystal is charged, then it is capable of emitting up to one megajoule energy bursts.
If the dilithium crystal is charged, then it is capable of emitting up to one megajoule energy bursts.
Yes, but if the dilitthium crystal is drained, it's more of a paperweight than a weapon. :)
If the dilithium crystal is charged, then it is capable of emitting up to one megajoule energy bursts.
Does dilithium increase or decrease Stevie Nicks visions by 87?
Only if you believe the pen is mightier than the sword.
What about the phaser, carried by Pavel Chekov?
What about the phaser, carried by Pavel Chekov?
That question could have a stunning response...
Relating this to literature: is Chekov's Gun a weapon?
Absolutely. And it's used in 'spray and pray' mode by 'Writing Experts' desperate to assert their superiority over writers.
AJ
That was pretty much where I was going with the question, though I fully expected Pavel Chekov to come up. A phaser is not, however, a gun.
That said ... 'Chekov's Gun' requires that Chekov's 'gun' be fired in any episode where it appears. Thankfully the writers of 'Star Trek' didn't feel bound by that, or we would have had a very different show.
In my state yes, as are slingshots
"Firearm or firearms" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, assault firearm, automatic or semi-automatic
rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectile,
ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the
action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances. It shall also include, without limitation, any
firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the
propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas, or vapor, air or compressed air, or
is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with
sufficient force to injure a person.
https://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf
"Firearm or firearms" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, assault firearm, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of aweapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectile, ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas, or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person
Very badly drafted. It could argued that the highlighted section is void because it is circular.
Absent the circularity of the definition, and going be the upper part of the definition no firearm is in the nature of "an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas, or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air"
And what the fuck does "ignited by compressed air" even mean?
Look up air rifle dieseling. Put a few drops of WD40 in the back of a pellet, it will ignite from the air pressure and make a louder bang. May or may not improve velocity.
I suspect it came from Britain where air rifles below 12 foot pounds of energy are unlicensed. If it works it would be a means of making the unlicensed rifle more suitable for rabbits instead of rats.
Put a few drops of WD40 in the back of a pellet, it will ignite from the air pressure and make a louder bang. May or may not improve velocity.
Using enough should give you a significant improvement in velocity.
However, I would be concerned about it blowing up in the user's face at that point.
And are there any air rifles specifically designed to be used that way? I would expect not, but I could be wrong.
And are there any air rifles specifically designed to be used that way? I would expect not, but I could be wrong.
None that I'm aware of. The principle of airpressure ignition is the basis of a diesel engine, but the mechanism to ignite it sounds wonky at best. The pressures required would be extremely high. If you're going through the trouble of raising pressure to that point, it's a bit stupid to my mind to attempt an ignition. Those kind of pressures can create enough velocity in the projectile to make the ignition unnecessary.
Using enough should give you a significant improvement in velocity.
However, I would be concerned about it blowing up in the user's face at that point.
It doesn't sound like you've ever made a lighter fluid cannon or mortar.
Take several cans, cut the lids and tops out of all but one of them. Drill a hole in that one. Duct tape them all together. Put lighter fluid in. Put a tennis ball (or other suitable projectile) in the open end and let it roll down. Point the cannon away from you, and then hold a match near the ignition hole. BOOM!
The link shows you how to do it safely. Pop cans and holding the thing in your hands to shoot is how we did them when I was a teen.
Point the cannon away from you, and then hold a match near the ignition hole. BOOM!
That statement qualifies as a Darwin warning.
I'm struggling to find a case where 'point the cannon toward you' would ever be a wise move (assuming the cannon was actually going to be fired, anyway). Undoubtedly someone will have an example.
I'm struggling to find a case where 'point the cannon toward you' would ever be a wise move (assuming the cannon was actually going to be fired, anyway). Undoubtedly someone will have an example.
It's probably near the tide pod challenge.
I can get halfway.
You could ask someone else to point the cannon at you. Then when you give the signal, you dive to safety and the someone fires the cannon at the real target, which is who/whatever was behind you.
AJ
If you're not willing to shell your own position, you're not willing to win.
'Fire mission on my position' was one of the better scenes in the Grim Reaper books. Sucks to be in front of Ultima Ratio Regum. Also to be standing too close to the recoiling breech when it fires.
Full credit to 'fire mission on my position'. Good case for pointing the cannon towards oneself.
I'm struggling to find a case where 'point the cannon toward you' would ever be a wise move
I'm unable to remember the James Bond movie where he had the gun that fired in the direction that the trigger was pulled so when the bad guy got Bonds gun and tried to shoot him in the standard way of firing a gun he ended up killing himself.
It doesn't sound like you've ever made a lighter fluid cannon or mortar.
Made one, no, but I've fired one. It would lob a tennis ball maybe 30 yards.
I've also seen it go horribly wrong (as in what happens if you over charge one).
And I rather doubt from my experience with firing one that it generates anywhere near the pressures at issue in an air rifle.
I suspect it came from Britain where air rifles below 12 foot pounds of energy are unlicensed.
So, this wouldn't be legal in the UK?
https://www.umarexusa.com/umarex-hammer-50-cal-air-rifle-spotlig
License required, with justification required to get the license. Usually this means permission from a landowner to hunt his property, there must be critters that cannot be humanely killed with a lesser caliber; the Plod will inspect the property and decide if its safe to shoot over ie: backstops, before issuing the permit; shooter must have a safe to store the gun in, again inspected by the Plod before permit. A limit on the number of rounds that can be held may be placed on the permit. The usual rigmarole required to stop the serfs from revolting.
And what the fuck does "ignited by compressed air" even mean?
my guess is just look up how a potato gun works.
my guess is just look up how a potato gun works.
The potato guns I've seen use a butane match or an electric igniter.
It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas, or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person
Which seems to indicate that such a weapon that ejects a bullet or missile over three-eights of an inch is not prohibited.
@Dominions Son
It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas, or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person
Which seems to indicate that such a weapon that ejects a bullet or missile over three-eights of an inch is not prohibited.
Well, that's just a definition, not a prohibition on anything.
It does lead to the absurd result that a BB (.18 caliber) or a .22 caliber air rifle is legally a firearm in New Jersey, but a .50 caliber air rifle (and they exist) would not be a firearm.
So for example, a felon in New Jersey would be prohibited from owning a BB gun, but could legally own a .50 caliber air rifle designed for hunting large game.
So for example, a felon in New Jersey would be prohibited from owning a BB gun, but could legally own a .50 caliber air rifle designed for hunting large game.
Not just a .50 it could just as easily be a mortar.
Not just a .50 it could just as easily be a mortar.
Sure, a home made mortar, it would not be possible for a civilian who doesn't have a Federal Firearms license to purchase an actual mortar that hasn't been demilitarized (disabled in ways that aren't simple to fix). It is possible to buy a manufactured .50 caliber air rifle. I linked to the manufacturer's site for one up thread.
Sure, a home made mortar.
Which is exactly what I was referring to.
It is arguably easier to build a mortar rather than a .50 rifle.
Which is exactly what I was referring to.
It is arguably easier to build a mortar rather than a .50 rifle.
You missed my point. You don't have to build your own .50 air rifle. You can buy one, and it would be a hell of a lot deadlier than a potato gun.
https://www.umarexusa.com/umarex-hammer-50-cal-air-rifle-spotlight
Your link directs to the website but gives a 'page not found' error.
In the UK if it is air powered and below 12 lb limit then yes, probably. Although importing it might prove interesting.
In the US and in the relevant state, building your own mortar might be fun, it would apparently be legal.
Your link directs to the website but gives a 'page not found' error.
It works for me.
ETA: try this link, https://www.umarexusa.com/rifles , then on the right side select .510 under the caliber filter.
In the US and in the relevant state, building your own mortar might be fun, it would apparently be legal.
Very true, but the comment by me that you were replying to was about a felon being able to possess a .50 air rifle legally as a viable weapon, not a fun toy.
Does a felon actually care if it is legal?
Abiding by the law rather negates the felon lifestyle.
Does a felon actually care if it is legal?
He might care that he can buy it with no pesky paperwork tracked by the feds, if he's in an area where he can't readily get black market firearms.
if he's in an area where he can't readily get black market firearms.
There is no such area anywhere in the world.
ETA with any real population.
There is no such area anywhere in the world.
yes there is, it's not possible to buy black market firearms at the South Pole. Mainly because there isn't enough traffic for them to set up operations there.
yes there is, it's not possible to buy black market firearms at the South Pole. Mainly because there isn't enough traffic for them to set up operations there.
Noted: Ammended my statement.
Though I would disagree with your statement. I've worked projects in Antarctica. While I didn't look too closely, there was a black market of prohibited items at McMurdo. My understanding was that most of the stations down there had such. With the heavy military presence, firearms go without saying as being available. You'd have to be an idiot to want one there though.
ETA: Most of the prohibited items I was made aware of were sourced from the Vostok station. In particular the weed and alcohol. Russians and corruption are peas in a pod in my experience. Getting stoned or drunk in an environment that could kill you fast didn't strike me as particularly wise, but it happened frequently.
True, it's likely there are no areas where black market firearms are impossible to find, but there are likely areas where they are harder to find than others. The interior of Alaska for example.
ETA: There are also circumstances that could make it harder for a particular felon to obtain black market firearms. Perhaps he has acquired a reputation for being a snitch.
but there are likely areas where they are harder to find than others. The interior of Alaska for example.
ETA: There are also circumstances that could make it harder for a particular felon to obtain black market firearms. Perhaps he has acquired a reputation for being a snitch.
Need to define "black market." The term usually implies illegal trade. There are many states where it's legal to trade firearms among individuals. Therefore no black market involved. Finding a firearm in Alaska is like finding cheese in Wisconsin.
As for snitches, they tend to have a short life expectancy.
There are many states where it's legal to trade firearms among individuals.
There's no background check or paperwork requirement. Even for a private sale, it would still be a violation of federal law for a private seller to sell to someone they know is prohibited from owning a gun due to being a felon.
Yes, guns are everywhere in Alaska. People willing to part with the guns they have, not so much.
it would still be a violation of federal law for a private seller to sell to someone they know is prohibited from owning a gun due to being a felon.
True. Selling to an individual runs that risk. I've personally never sold to someone unknown to me.
@Dominions Son
it would still be a violation of federal law for a private seller to sell to someone they know is prohibited from owning a gun due to being a felon.
True. Selling to an individual runs that risk. I've personally never sold to someone unknown to me.
It might actually be legally safer selling to a complete stranger. With someone you know and think is clear but isn't, they Feds could argue that you should have known.
It might actually be legally safer selling to a complete stranger. With someone you know and think is clear but isn't, they Feds could argue that you should have known.
The legalities have long since been settled. The operative word is "knowingly." If you know someone is a felon, then you break the law selling to them. If I know someone is a New Yorker, I'm also breaking the law. Especially if it's a pistol. I don't sell to anyone with an accent that doesn't match the normal accent from the area. The ATF starting playing that game back in the 70's. An agent from up north would be brought in to the south and attempt to buy guns at a gunshow. The seller would be arrested in the parking lot after the fact. As such, I never sold guns to anyone at a show, though Ive bought many at them.
In the US and in the relevant state, building your own mortar might be fun, it would apparently be legal.
An actual mortar falls under the federal class three destructive device laws and is highly illegal to build and own. The potato/tennis ball variants are just an idiot away from becoming illegal.
The air rifle in the link is 760 ft# energy range. Definitely over the 12 pound limit in the UK.
Making an air rifle depends a lot on the "rifle" part. It's not really a rifle without the rifling, it's more a smooth bore musket, the rifled barrel is therefore the only real hard part. Making the mechanisms for the compressed gas and release thereof are off the shelf available for purchase in any industrialized nation.
It's not really a rifle without the rifling, it's more a smooth bore musket, the rifled barrel is therefore the only real hard part.
And if you really wanted to make your own, you could probably buy a firearm gun barrel in whatever caliber you wanted and build your air rile around it. I don't think the US has restrictions on the sale of gun barrels (it's not the part the ATF considers the "gun") when buying parts.
That is, if you really wanted to make your own.
And if you really wanted to make your own, you could probably buy a firearm gun barrel in whatever caliber you wanted and build your air rile around it. I don't think the US has restrictions on the sale of gun barrels (it's not the part the ATF considers the "gun") when buying parts.
That is, if you really wanted to make your own.
I have the ability to make rifled barrels and have done so in the past to proof it. However, you are correct, barrels are not restricted items anywhere that I'm aware of in the states. The receiver is typically the part considered the firearm by the ATF. Specific laws were enacted in 1989 to cover assembly of a banned imported firearm from parts kits that flooded the US after the 86 ban.
It was the purchase of large volumes of those kits and other military surplus that got the Branch Davidians on the ATF radar. Specifically it was purchases from Nessards. The latter was selling full AK-47 and M-16 kits minus the receivers mail order. There were other companies selling FN-FAL HK-91 etc kits, but the former is what brought the heat down on the Davidians. Those idiots were assembling full auto M16's with the kits and selling them at Texas gunshows.
You can browse brownells.com and buy anything you need short of a receiver to build a firearm. Replete with how to books and especially barrels.
The 9mm & .357 air rifles that have been around for a few years may have been the reason for that 3/8th stipulation.
The original air rifle, the Girardoni air rifle goes back to 1795 and it came in .46 or .51.
Yep. Which may be why the law was stated in that fashion, leaving it exempt. Ban the modern, leave the antique. New York State limits magazines to seven shots loaded, so .45 1911s are fine while double stack 9mms are neutered.
I rarely expect logic from law makers though. Avarice & covert hate seem to be the main drivers.
Discounting any consideration for laws, in a literal sense, no, a BB gun is not a firearm. It's only nervous panty waist running governments that want to twist logic to make it so.
Engraved pistols with ivory grips, known as barbecue guns or going to court guns are a thing in Texas. Guns for formal dress vs regular carry. Several examples are on display in the Texas Rangers museum. Those are Ranger Art, I suspect there are also examples that are Marshall Art. Which brings us back to the OP question. A BB gun isn't a firearm while a BBQ gun is.
firearm
"From fire plus arms, as you might have guessed. "Fire" is from Middle English fier, from Old English fΘ³r, from Proto-Germanic *fΕr, from Proto-Indo-European *pΓ©hβwrΜ₯-, all meaning "fire". The root *pΓ©hβwrΜ₯- also became the Ancient Greek ΟαΏ¦Ο (pΓ»r), which then passed into Latin as pyr, giving English words like "pyre" and the prefix "pyro-".
"Arms" (as in "weapons") doesn't come from the English word "arms" (as in "fleshy things connected to the shoulder bones"), but from the Latin armare ("to arm", i.e., to furnish oneself with weapons), from the Latin arma, which meant "weapons" but used to mean "tools". The "tools" sense is from Proto-Indo-European *hβ(e)rmos ("joint", "fitting", i.e., to fit together; also the origin of the word "art"), from PIE *hβer- ("to join").
The word *hβ(e)rmos ("joint") shifted in meaning to *armaz ("arm") in Proto-Germanic, which became earm in Old English, then arm in Middle English. So, while the two senses of "arms" come from different languages, they can ultimately be traced back to the same PIE root.
So it's literally "fire-weapon", which is a pretty succinct description of a gun. ("Gun", by the way, can be traced back to PIE *gΚ·Κ°en- ("to kill"), and is also the root of the words "offend" and "bane".)"
Above found on Quora, written by Oscar Tay, self described as a nerd.
Interesting last para. So "If you offend me, I will be your bane and kill you" is one of those tell them three times ways of clue-by-fouring. Also 'Death before dishonor' seems to have a long history, being at the root of many words.
For those interested in pre-history, Dan Davis has a series of dead tree historic novels based on Indo-European times. Well researched, he's made a series of informative Youtube videos on the cultures of the neolithic and bronze ages. One plus, he never says its Aliens.
One plus, he never says its Aliens.
Can't remember that idiots name, but I've watched the show for a laugh a time or two. If he drops his hotdog on a NYC street he's going to blame aliens. He should just come on out of the closet rather than blame aliens for his anal probe fascination.
I went to a UFO Conference, mainly to try to pick up women.
Apparently, Ancient Astronaut Theorists do not always say "yes".
Apparently, Ancient Astronaut Theorists do not always say "yes"
You probably dodged a bullet there. Most of them have more nut content than a fruitcake.
Panspermia is their origin tale and aliens are their angels. You can't expect to hook up in church without declaring your faith and offering a wedding ring.
Offering to show her your light saber, explore the physics of her wormhole and measure the event horizon of her blackhole will just get you slapped. As a bare minimum you need to offer a pinecone and a handbag.
Only in Chrissy Teigan fan fiction.
Never understood what anyone sees in her. Corrosive personality, questionable intelligence, and the rest of her doesn't make up enouth to cover those shortfalls. She is a waste of the biomass that supports her continued existence.
Hollywood likes weird / distinct faces.
Anya Taylor-Joy would be mistaken for a gray alien or a guppy, if fans ever lifted their eyes from her jiggling braless tits.
Willem Defoe is fairly unique.
Henry Caville has a jaw that could be fitted to a jack hammer and used to demolish U-Boat pens without chipping or going blunt.
Chrissy Teigan could use her face as a mold to press out skillets.
Any Hollywood arm candy who has to announce she is buying her kids a Bearded Dragon (lizard) to divert searchs for her name and 'Beard' isn't doing her primary job well.
Anya Taylor-Joy would be mistaken for a gray alien or a guppy, if fans ever lifted their eyes from her jiggling braless tits.
Had no idea who that was, so I looked her up. My vote is for a guppy. LOL
Those are some nice tits. Small, but nice.
Maybe so, but her face still looks like a guppy.
NO !!!
And it SHOULD NOT BE.
Interestingly, neither is any muzzle loading weapon.
That is why you can order them to your mail box.