Assault Weapons

[stubeeef]

Well I'm sure there will be a load to debate here, and here we go.....

While I recognize the 2nd Amendment, and respect it, I am one of the 61% of republicans who want a ban. In all honesty the last bill had few to none in the teeth department. Both sides are full of it, the Kerry blogs, where is his proposal, where have they been, 2 decades in the Senate, don't Senators propose legislation (even if killed off the bat, they can propose). And I will admit I am dissapointed with W, he could ask congress to push the legislation. The truth, to me, is that we need a weapons ban with teeth, not so many holes.

There are plenty of laws, rules and regs to hinder the wrong people getting these weapons. The problem is follow-through. We ought to just eliminate the weapons.

Fellow republicans, please don't trash me with the box cutter argument, etc...(I love the archie bunker line to meathead about gun stats and murder..archie says "what do ya want'em to do? Push'em out a window?").
I want to keep the guns I own & hunt with, guns from my dad and granddad. I just think some of these meat cleavers and accessories should be made illegal and more difficult to get.

[mactastic]

Good riddance to bad legislation.

Stu, you won't solve gun violence by banning a small portion of the weapons available, particularly if you ban them only because they can mount a bayonet and let the identical gun w/o the bayonet mount be sold. Once the shooting starts, are you worried about being bayonetted?

I'd rather see an instant backgroud check inplemented and the gun show loophole closed. I'd like to see tougher enforcement on gun dealers who sell irresponsibly. But banning guns? It just doesn't work. That cat's out of the bag already.

There are a whole host of reasons assault weapons are only a tiny tiny part of the problem, but any moment 'Rat will come in and give you an earful in that regard. I can tell you that banning weapons based on how deadly they look isn't the way to reduce crime.

I'm curious though, how would you write legislation to remove these weapons from the street?

[G4scott]

That bill that just expired really didn't do a whole lot to stop people from obtaining the weapons they supposedly "banned." And now that it has expired, there haven't been flocks of people rushing to gun stores to pick up their AKs and Tech 9s... Overall, the rate of violent crimes committed with the banned weapons decreased by such a small amount, the bill was practically useless in achieving it's original goal...

Instead of banning certain weapons, we should keep certain people from having weapons... The problem is that there are still lots of ways to get a gun illegally. The most effective way I can think of, which would make hardcore advocates of the 2nd amendment cry tyranny, would be to have gun owners register their firearms with a central agency, and bring it in 4 times a year or so, and update their registration... If you registered a gun, and can't produce it, you're in trouble. The problem is that it would be way too much work, and it would come off as a huge infringement on people's rights to own firearms and privacy. That's the problem. Without going to some extreme like that, you can't keep guns out of the hands of all the people who shouldn't have them...

Anyways, now that the ban's lifted... I'm off to buy my Kalisnikov...

[Lyle]

For reference, here's a link to the previous thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=85214&highlight=assault+weapons+ban) on this topic. For someone like me who doesn't really get too stoked about this issue one way or another, there was a lot of good discussion.

[stubeeef]

You can not legislate morals/values, so people will find the weapon if they want it bad enough. I want to make it a little harder to get, a teethy background check has always been the best way to attempt at keeping them from the wrong hands. I just believe these meat reducers should not be a public consumable.

You will not get them totally off the street by legislation, and I didn't think that the assault weapons ban in any form will reduce gun violence to any great extent, but just possibly not another "heat" street scene.

mactastic, didn't you read my post? I even refered to the ole archie bunker line...I didn't and don't believe that this would solve gun violence! Banning all guns would not stop all murders either. Mactastic, your sarcasm about me worring about being bayonetted is a bit extreme, but I am worried about a projectile with a mile or more range missing its mark and hurting/killing more innocents. When they are being fired at a high rate&volume more seem to miss the mark. I never said that because a weapon can mount a certain accessory (nite scopes/flash suppressors/laser targeting/high volume clips) it should be banned, but I have no problem banning some of the accessories. What is the "how deadly they look" line for or about?

I am sorry that it is so difficult to believe that making such weapons illegal that can kill en masse is impossible. But I have a dream.

I don't want to ban all guns, I would love to see stiffer enforcement of existing gun laws..except for the criminals, who wouldn't. This is not a thread about banning all guns, just assault types. I don't want a national gun registry, there is a difference in a right vs a privilege. But a right to bare arms still doesn't mean nuclear, or other WMD.

I do concede that it is difficult to draw the line, ie....clip size, firing rates, which weapons and why....
But we need this debate in congress.

[stubeeef]

For reference, here's a link to the previous thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=85214&highlight=assault+weapons+ban) on this topic. For someone like me who doesn't really get too stoked about this issue one way or another, there was a lot of good discussion.

Thank you, I should have done a better search. :o

[IJ Reilly]

But we're not going to have this debate in Congress. As nearly as I can tell, the existing law was allowed to expire without any discussion about whether it needed to be replaced with something more effective, let alone, stronger. For a little insight into why this is the case, take a look at this discussion from last night's NewsHour:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec04/ban_9-13.html

Read carefully Wayne LaPierre's response to the question about flash suppressors, about two-thirds of the way down the transcript.

[wordmunger]

I think the 2nd amendment should be banned. It just gets in the way of sensible gun control legislation. This is not to say guns should be banned -- obviously they can be useful tools -- but we need MUCH more monitoring of who has what gun.

[mactastic]

You can not legislate morals/values, so people will find the weapon if they want it bad enough. I want to make it a little harder to get, a teethy background check has always been the best way to attempt at keeping them from the wrong hands. I just believe these meat reducers should not be a public consumable.

Your meat could be reduced just as easily and quickly with a .45 semi-auto as with an Uzi semi-auto. I don't see how the definition of 'assault weapon' works as a place to draw the line between legal and illegal.

You will not get them totally off the street by legislation, and I didn't think that the assault weapons ban in any form will reduce gun violence to any great extent, but just possibly not another "heat" street scene.

How many crimes have been committed with so called 'assault rifles' lately? And how many with handguns? Yet you want to ban the one causing the lease destruction in the streets and ignore the one causing the most?

mactastic, didn't you read my post? I even refered to the ole archie bunker line...I didn't and don't believe that this would solve gun violence!

Apologies, I should have said "Do you think banning a small subset of weapons will lower the gun crime rate."

Banning all guns would not stop all murders either. Mactastic, your sarcasm about me worring about being bayonetted is a bit extreme, but I am worried about a projectile with a mile or more range missing its mark and hurting/killing more innocents. When they are being fired at a high rate&volume more seem to miss the mark. I never said that because a weapon can mount a certain accessory (nite scopes/flash suppressors/laser targeting/high volume clips) it should be banned, but I have no problem banning some of the accessories. What is the "how deadly they look" line for or about?

That wasn't a sarcastic remark. The whole point of the 'how deadly it looks' comment and the bayonet comment was that you could (under the AWB) buy a gun without a bayonet mount legally, but the exact same weapon with the bayonet mount was illegal. Same weapon, cosmetic difference, legal vs illegal.

And as for your 'mile or more' comment, can a good hunting rifle not cover that distance pretty accurately? Assault rifles aren't known for their high accuracy anyway. Sniper rifles are, but you'd leave those legal and toss out red herrings.

I am sorry that it is so difficult to believe that making such weapons illegal that can kill en masse is impossible. But I have a dream.

I don't want to ban all guns, I would love to see stiffer enforcement of existing gun laws..except for the criminals, who wouldn't. This is not a thread about banning all guns, just assault types. I don't want a national gun registry, there is a difference in a right vs a privilege. But a right to bare arms still doesn't mean nuclear, or other WMD.

I do concede that it is difficult to draw the line, ie....clip size, firing rates, which weapons and why....
But we need this debate in congress.

Banning something will not make it go away. Particularly when there are so many places to smuggle them in from. As long as the militaries of the world use them, there will always be places to get illegal weapons.

And that's why I asked you how you would write legislation that would do what you propose without undue hardship like Scott's proposal, and while distinguishing between legal and illegal weapons clearly and with some kind of logical rationale?

[yellow]

I believe Lenny Leonardson said it best:

"Assault weapons have gotten a lot of bad press lately, but they're
manufactured for a reason: to take out today's modern super animals,
such as the flying squirrel, and the electric eel."

[krimson]

Chris Rock said it better :D


"We don't need gun control! We need bullet control! Every bullet should cost $5000. Because if a bullet cost $5000, there would BE no innocent bystanders. Damn, he musta done something, he got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his head!"


-------------
Incidently, i picked up my AR (http://home.earthlink.net/~krimson122/images/tammy01.jpg) 1.5 years after the ban went into effect.

[stubeeef]

Mactastic, we seem to not communicate, I have never said that awb would make them dissapear. It won't! I aggree!

It would make it harder for those stupid enough to try and use them for illegitamate purposes, to get.

Refering to the 45 vs other aw, I think I remember mentioning do concede that it is difficult to draw the line, ie....clip size, firing rates, which weapons and why....
But we need this debate in congress.

Your argument of how many aw have been used lately would support the previous awb, that it may of had some effect. Although I think I heard a story of a police officer getting shot by one recently.

There are many hunting rifles with long range and in the right hands are deadly accurate. A gun designed to hunt animals and one designed to hunt humans are different BY DESIGN, ask the military, they have specs for that. If you are so handicaped that you need an assault style weapon or one with a folding stock, laser targeting device, large clip, bayonett, and gernade launcher to hunt, I would argue that you shouldn't be hunting. Stick to doom.

AWB legislation will not be, and can not be an end all solution, but I believe it is better than not having one. I still assert that assault weapons should not be a consumable, sorry.

As far as record checks, I think I am on the record with that subject. I also believe we should strictly enforce all gun legislation. I have no problem with waiting periods. Just please make it a little harder to get the assault style weapons in the hands of the criminals please.

[krimson]

illegally gotten AW's dont have "waiting periods".

[katchow]

changed my mind....:)

[LethalWolfe]

But we're not going to have this debate in Congress. As nearly as I can tell, the existing law was allowed to expire without any discussion about whether it needed to be replaced with something more effective, let alone, stronger. For a little insight into why this is the case, take a look at this discussion from last night's NewsHour:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec04/ban_9-13.html

Read carefully Wayne LaPierre's response to the question about flash suppressors, about two-thirds of the way down the transcript.

Just to clear up possible confusion when it comes to flash suppressors. They keep the flash out of the shooters eyes, the gas is directed down and away from the barrel, so as not to blind the shooter by the flash if shooting at night. They do not conceal the flash from on-lookers. The muzzle flash is not deminished it is just directed out of the shooters line-of-site.


-Lethal

[takao]

Just to clear up possible confusion when it comes to flash suppressors. They keep the flash out of the shooters eyes, the gas is directed down and away from the barrel, so as not to blind the shooter by the flash if shooting at night. They do not conceal the flash from on-lookers. The muzzle flash is not deminished it is just directed out of the shooters line-of-site.


-Lethal

hmm is flash surpressor the thing at the end of the barrel with those openings on 3 sides etc ? or am i wrong on that ?

[IJ Reilly]

hmm is flash surpressor the thing at the end of the barrel with those openings on 3 sides etc ? or am i wrong on that ?

From the transcript of the discussion I just posted:

GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, Wayne and I have very different opinions of what cosmetic is. Let me tell you what a flash suppressor does.

If a police officer is under fire from an assault weapon and that weapon has a flash suppressor, he or she can't tell where that round is coming from. You know, yesterday....

JIM LEHRER: Excuse me. Because no fire is coming out of the barrel, right? You can't see it?

GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Exactly. It helps to conceal the muzzle flash and so yesterday when a Miami/Dade police officer was assaulted and wounded, shot twice, her car riddled with bullets from an assault weapon, it would be difficult to see-- it was 2:30 in the morning -- where that fire could be coming from.

Gil Kerlikowske is the Chief of Police for the City of Seattle.

[krimson]

Takao: they can have 2-5 openings in different configurations.
-----

Flash Suppressors do not completely hide the flash. The flash is directed to other places OR its is dispersed at a higher rate because of the velocity of the gases are increased when vented in a directed manner.

I have used numerous rifles with flash suppressors installed (BTW, you can get them aftermarket that attach to "post-ban" rifles), there is still a flash, just not as large. ie. instead of a mushroom cloud shaped flash 12" in diameter, you have 3-5 smaller 1" flashes that are more intense but more brief.

If you need more proof, watch those night vision shots from the 1st war in Iraq, or any of the newer videos, you'll still see flashes.

-----
One problem I see with that Seattle PC's statement is that underfire, the officer would have not time to seek out where the shots came from. If the shooter was on top of the building out of his vision, and he's under fire, i seriously doubt he has the time to find the shooter just based on his flash.

[takao]

Takao: they can have 2-5 openings in different configurations.
-----

i wasn't sure if it's that what i think it was ;) i asked before making a stupid comment
our rifles had 3 (and the older ones 5) openings ..but none of them was pointing down..
from the front it looked like this
.|
/ \

and the lower ones were more sideaways...
i was told the opoing was aiming upwards to reduce the barrel-moving when shooting

[krimson]

i think that sounds more like a muzzle break... what kind of rifle? alarge calibre?

[pseudobrit]

LaPierre's interview did not endear me to his cause. His repeated assertion that these features are merely cosmetic made the rest of his statements suspect to me.

Of course they're more than just cosmetic. If my car had a hitch on the back and a roof rack on the top, I'd be able to tow a trailer or haul a kayak.

If a gun has a bayonet lug, I'll be able to attach a bayonet. If it has a flash supressor, I'll have less flash. If it has a grenade launcher, I'll... you get the idea.

I wonder if Wayne thinks that a silencer is also a simple accessory for decoration's sake.

My ************ alarm went off big time for the NRA on this one.

[krimson]

I think he point was more in terms of performance. Bayo lugs are rarely used, and if there was one to be installed, it would hinder shooting performance than help.

Flash suppressors can be added on later, as i've said before, and it's perfectly legal to do so.

------
edit:

While were im speaking about aftermarket products, it is perfectly legal to purchase a folding/collapsing stock and put it on your "post-ban" rifle. No one at the range checks if you have a pre or post ban rifle, at least none that i've been to.
You could purchase a forward pistol grip and install it. if you wanted to, you could attach a bayo lug.

Using your tow hitch comment.. just because your truck didn't come with one, doesn't mean you can't have one installed later after you drove it off the lot.

[Desertrat]

Stubeef, you appeal to emotions, but there's not all that much logic in your dislike of "assault weapons". (They ain't assault weapons, in the accepted military meaning of the words.)

Question: If a law has no efficacy, why pass it?

The BATF in '94 testified before Congress that AWs were used in roughly 2% of gun crimes. So why bother?

mac, crime guns accquired via gunshows, per the feds, run about 1% to possibly 2% of all crime guns. Again, what loophole?

Sure, I'm putting a certain amount of "merely" pragmatism in my argument.

But, look: We know as fact that with a 20mph speed limit we'd have some 10% of today's traffic fatalities at most (Drunks will be drunks). We accept some 40,000+ deaths per year in the names of quicker commuting and faster arrival times for vacations.

So why all the upset and excitement over those ugly guns which account for such a small part of the total evil? Remember, the totality of all crime guns accounts for roughly 30-ish percent of all homicides.

And the frustrating part for guys like me is that there is no difference in hazard between those banned rifles and unbanned semi-automatic rifles. If anything, considering the cartridges for which semi-auto hunting rifles are chambered, the "good" semi-autos are deadlier.

Categorical statement, based on the findings of several studies by several different statisticians: No gun control law has ever affected crime rates.

'Rat

[Chip NoVaMac]

A few things.

Other than for collecting purposes, I don't see the need for the average citizen to have an AW. Can someone explain why it is so important that people be able to buy such a weapon?

To 'Rat's comment. Stricter laws that would reduce gun violence by 2 to 3 percent seems worth it. While the 20mph argument makes a nice soundbite, think of other areas in which we have recalls or laws for the same 3 to 4 percent extra safety. CPSC rules on cribs, strollers and the such. Laws against using cell phones while driving without a headset. You get the point.

Just as we have given up some of our liberties since 9-11, to make our airports, aircraft, and skies safer - are we not making things easier for those that want to do harm? I can almost hear Bush and others say that with the AWB we could have saved those lives if terrorists used AW in a minor attack.

[dotnina]

Other than for collecting purposes, I don't see the need for the average citizen to have an AW. Can someone explain why it is so important that people be able to buy such a weapon?

Amen to that.

I know that people who really want assault weapons can get them, regardless of legislation or legality. By legalizing it, however, you're letting some disgruntled employee or mentally unstable individual get their hands on a lot of potentially distructive firepower ... without much delay, I might add.

I can't see what good will come of this.

[Ugg]

Categorical statement, based on the findings of several studies by several different statisticians: No gun control law has ever affected crime rates.

'Rat

Ah, you ignore the rest of the world at your peril 'Rat.

[mactastic]

Mactastic, we seem to not communicate, I have never said that awb would make them dissapear. It won't! I aggree!

I asked if you thought gun crime rates would go down if a successful ban on assault weapons were passed. Do you?

It would make it harder for those stupid enough to try and use them for illegitamate purposes, to get.

No, it makes it harder for the law-abiding citizen to get. Illegally purchased weapons will be unaffected by a ban.

Refering to the 45 vs other aw, I think I remember mentioning

Mentioning what? BTW, what caliber shell does an Uzi typically fire?

Your argument of how many aw have been used lately would support the previous awb, that it may of had some effect. Although I think I heard a story of a police officer getting shot by one recently.

And Zsa Zsa Gabor hit a cop with her shoe. Are shoes next on the banned list? Sorry for the sarcasm, but one incident does not an epidemic make.

There are many hunting rifles with long range and in the right hands are deadly accurate. A gun designed to hunt animals and one designed to hunt humans are different BY DESIGN, ask the military, they have specs for that. If you are so handicaped that you need an assault style weapon or one with a folding stock, laser targeting device, large clip, bayonett, and gernade launcher to hunt, I would argue that you shouldn't be hunting. Stick to doom.

So you are worried about being a victim of a long-range stray assault rifle bullet, but not from a long-range rifle stray?

And further, are you asserting that the only reason for owning a weapon is for hunting? What if I want to defend my home with something small enough to wield indoors but with more capability than a handgun? Hunting is NOT the only reason to own a gun.

AWB legislation will not be, and can not be an end all solution, but I believe it is better than not having one. I still assert that assault weapons should not be a consumable, sorry.

That's you opinion, and you have a right to it. However, you have offered nothing substantive to back it up. Laws that do no good shouldn't be passed just because they make you feel better about things. That is the classic definition of 'feel-good' legislation.

As far as record checks, I think I am on the record with that subject. I also believe we should strictly enforce all gun legislation. I have no problem with waiting periods. Just please make it a little harder to get the assault style weapons in the hands of the criminals please.

But just what is an assault-style weapon? You still haven't defined that for us. Is it a weapon with a folding stock? Mounts for a bayonet? Or is it the caliber of bullet? Muzzle velocity? Just how do you propose to draw the line between what people can own and what they can't?

----------------------------

"5 days? But I'm mad now!"
-Homer Simpson, upon being informed of the handgun waiting period.
:p

[takao]

i think that sounds more like a muzzle break... what kind of rifle? alarge calibre?

ahhhh thanks..i'm not used to the english terms perhaps i missed that up..i was told that it helps to reduce the flash as well

it's the austrian StG77 (made by Steyr-Mannlicher).. i personally haven't noticed a very big flash from shooting at night at the shooting range but we had a lot of light sources around (moon etc.) and we were training mixed use of weapons....you know 5 enemies with rifle short distance ..then throw a exercise grenade.. then shooting with rpg-simulationthing at 'incoming tanks' etc. i hadn't much time watching the flash of the gun ;)

i can't understand why somebody would want that rifle (the AUG) for shooting at targets or animals ... in the 100-50m distance it worked fine but 300 meters was very difficult even when the target doesn't move...and after shooting or 'field training' it's sometimes an absolute pain for cleaning..the outside of the stock is like a magnet for dirt and the inside of the stock is difficult to clean (well... if you don't want to wash it out with water or are not allowed to do so) so it's not really something for a 'showroom' or something for collectors...
to use the 'hunting' argument with assault rifles like the AUG is absolutly ridiculous..that guns aren't made for that..(most) of them are made for sheer reliabilty under extreme conditions,as few blockages as possible,hitting a moving target at 150meters or non-moving at 300meters,easy to handle by troops and perhaps low costs


ask the swiss army with their StG 90 how happy they are with their rifle....because it's hard to make more than a few hudnred shots without any cleaning between them..but they are precise up to 500 meters...:rolleyes:

[takao]

Mentioning what? BTW, what caliber shell does an Uzi typically fire?

9mm (but i might be wrong.. i'm quite sure there are different calibers around)



And Zsa Zsa Gabor hit a cop with her shoe. Are shoes next on the banned list? Sorry for the sarcasm, but one incident does not an epidemic make.


hm is the cop still alive ? ;)
(does anybody remember the killer from james bond with the 'knife in the shoe'..i think it was in 'from russia with love')


And further, are you asserting that the only reason for owning a weapon is for hunting? What if I want to defend my home with something small enough to wield indoors but with more capability than a handgun? Hunting is NOT the only reason to own a gun.


short range fighting with an (semi automatic) assault rifle is ridicolous...my seargent's advise if i get surprised by an armed enemy on less then 10 meters (running at me): point the end of the rifle in his direction and pull the trigger through to 'full auto'...aka. 'spray and pray'
there were cases here were soldiers were attacked by boars during border patrol service in the woods ..the soldier was able to hit the boar with more than 10-12 bullets and still was injured by the boar

5,56 mm bullets don't have the 'stopping power' of bigger caliber handgun or a shotgun

if you consider an assault rifle for 'self defense' then i suggest moving in a different place


But just what is an assault-style weapon? You still haven't defined that for us. Is it a weapon with a folding stock? Mounts for a bayonet? Or is it the caliber of bullet? Muzzle velocity? Just how do you propose to draw the line between what people can own and what they can't?

a 'semiautomatic/(partial) automatic rifle firing military rounds with a large clip'

large = more than 5-7 shots

[IJ Reilly]

Flash suppressors can be added on later, as i've said before, and it's perfectly legal to do so.

I don't know whether this is true or not, but that wasn't LaPierre's point in any case. He was likening flash suppressors to "hood ornaments," as if they had no purpose whatsoever beyond decoration. Obviously, this is not the case and he was being disingenuous at the very least (though I can't imagine many being fooled). I pointed this out mainly because it illustrates how warped this debate has become.

[mactastic]

9mm (but i might be wrong.. i'm quite sure there are different calibers around)

Nope, you're right. I believe there are different caliber variants around, but the typical UZI is a 9mm IIRC.

hm is the cop still alive ? ;)

Dunno. Not even sure what incident he's talking about. Perhaps a source would have been helpful.

short range fighting with an (semi automatic) assault rifle is ridicolous...my seargent's advise if i get surprised by an armed enemy on less then 10 meters (running at me): point the end of the rifle in his direction and pull the trigger through to 'full auto'...aka. 'spray and pray'
there were cases here were soldiers were attacked by boars during border patrol service in the woods ..the soldier was able to hit the boar with more than 10-12 bullets and still was injured by the boar

5,56 mm bullets don't have the 'stopping power' of bigger caliber handgun or a shotgun

if you consider an assault rifle for 'self defense' then i suggest moving in a different place

I dunno, there are an awful lot of SWAT teams here that were using the HK MP5 for building invasion work. And really I wasn't questioning whether a military weapon is the best for home defense, but whether I or the government have the right to make that decision.

a 'semiautomatic/(partial) automatic rifle firing military rounds with a large clip'

large = more than 5-7 shots

That sounds awfully broad. What's a military round? A .223? 9mm? .50 caliber? Certainly a 7.62 is, but aren't there other guns that fire that round?

[stubeeef]

I do believe you missed the point,
:


hm is the cop still alive ?


Dunno. Not even sure what incident he's talking about. Perhaps a source would have been helpful.


I read it that being hit by a shoe is not a big deal, while being hit from an AW probably would be.....get it? :D

[pseudobrit]

Using your tow hitch comment.. just because your truck didn't come with one, doesn't mean you can't have one installed later after you drove it off the lot.

But to try to claim that such an accessory is merely decorative and for personal preference is an excerise in absurdity. It has a useful purpose.

[takao]

I dunno, there are an awful lot of SWAT teams here that were using the HK MP5 for building invasion work. And really I wasn't questioning whether a military weapon is the best for home defense, but whether I or the government have the right to make that decision.

yeah i know the mp5 is perhaps the most used gun for that but after all the MP5 is still not an assault rifle ("MP" german short for "Maschinenpistole" = sub machine gun) most of them are 9mm,some .45 ACP and others 10mm depending on nation and antiterror team..these guns have higher stoping power but aren't good enough for the same distance of an assault rifle
it's a gun for urban warfare



That sounds awfully broad. What's a military round? A .223? 9mm? .50 caliber? Certainly a 7.62 is, but aren't there other guns that fire that round?

the .50 is definatly military material ;)
i don't know how many guns are out there who shoot 5,56mm rounds
but caliber is not really that important...i would say clip size/way of firing is more important

[mactastic]

I do believe you missed the point,


I read it that being hit by a shoe is not a big deal, while being hit from an AW probably would be.....get it? :D

Stu- I get it, but since you are bobbing and weaving AROUND my questions it's useless to continue talking about this with you. Good luck getting that AWB reinstated.
:D

[krimson]

I don't know whether this is true or not, but that wasn't LaPierre's point in any case. He was likening flash suppressors to "hood ornaments," as if they had no purpose whatsoever beyond decoration. Obviously, this is not the case and he was being disingenuous at the very least (though I can't imagine many being fooled). I pointed this out mainly because it illustrates how warped this debate has become.

Im telling you that it's true, and if you're willing to pay for it, ill put one one my post-ban upper receiver and post photographic before and after proof :)


But to try to claim that such an accessory is merely decorative and for personal preference is an excerise in absurdity. It has a useful purpose.

So does a tow hitch.

My point is that, those items can be installed after you've purchased it. Some are illegal to install, and the supplier will tell you that, but they aren't illegal to own. If i had a different lower receive, I could get a used military surplus FULL-AUTO bolt and trigger group, and install it with a little bit of work.

But if you're a felon robbing a bank, you aren't really worried about what's legal to the BATF or not are you.

[krimson]

to use the 'hunting' argument with assault rifles like the AUG is absolutly ridiculous..that guns aren't made for that..(most) of them are made for sheer reliabilty under extreme conditions,as few blockages as possible,hitting a moving target at 150meters or non-moving at 300meters,easy to handle by troops and perhaps low costs


I find AUG's rather pretty, and I'd have one just to have one. For hunting, there are definately better choices, a Springfield M21 (http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m21.shtml) for example.

Right now? I use a lightly modified Remington 700 in 308 caliber (7.62mm NATO cartridge), because im good to about 400 yds. Ill upgrade to a FN SPR A-4 later this year, or next. That should put me out to 600 yds.

Why do I have my AR-15? it's fun to goto the range with friends and see who can do the best on a 5 circle target. It's good to about 250 yds. Am I going to go rob a bank with it? lol it's too damn heavy to carry around for any serious amount of time.

[takao]

I find AUG's rather pretty, and I'd have one just to have one. For hunting, there are definately better choices, a Springfield M21 (http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m21.shtml) for example.

of course there are betters around... besides my short service i have absolutly no experience with shooting by myself

yeah the AUG looks somehow 'futuristic' but that cools down fast if you have to carry it around for hours .... especially if you want to carry it 'on the back'..i can't recall how often we sweared about the gun

[IJ Reilly]

Im telling you that it's true, and if you're willing to pay for it, ill put one one my post-ban upper receiver and post photographic before and after proof :)

He said, while completely avoiding my actual point. :)

[krimson]

Im not saying you're wrong... "spokespeople" tend to warp things in their favor.

[mischief]

A large part of the problem with the original bill was that it was written by non-gun folks.

A better AW definition would look at the following:

Type of Action

Type of Magazine

Ratio of Calibre to Muzzle Velocity

Ratio of Calibre to Muzzle Energy

Ratio of Calibre to Amount of Charge (Round length)


Configuration:

Action cycles well behind grip (Bullpup)

Action's initial design was for burst and full-auto

Design involves a rifle-style Action/Cartridge with a short barrel and/or primarilly "hip-fire" frame design.

Weapon has the Cartridge or Muzzle Velocity of a Rifle but is, overall shorter than 36 or so inches.

Design of action based on or directly interchangeable with a Millitary configuration capable of burst or Full-Auto.

Action capable of cycling more than one round per trigger pull regardless of modification. IE: adding a stud or removing a spring assembly to neuter an otherwise Millitary weapon.


I find that these are better criteria to define an AW. I must also point out that I personally favor a solution that both sides hate:

Highly regulated total availability: Mandatory training, registration, background checks, licensing. But if you want to get a "Class AW" Gun License you can... Just take the course, do the Background check and Piss-test, take the psyche eval to get your Certification then Buy your piece which will involve registering your Gun's Ballistics, serial #'s, and photos.

[IJ Reilly]

Im not saying you're wrong... "spokespeople" tend to warp things in their favor.

Frankly, you're not saying much of anything. My point was that LaPierre as the NRA's chief mouthpiece, has a lot of influence over how these issues are debated in Congress. I don't see how we can have a sensible discussion and pass reasonable laws when one side is prepared to make their case with bizarre exercises in logic.

[mischief]

In terms of the whole flash suppressor thing:

Are we talking:

Flash Suppressors?

Flash Compensators?

Muzzle Porting?

Gas-Recoil Compensation?

Theres several devices that look similar but do very different things.

[krimson]

Frankly, you're not saying much of anything. My point was that LaPierre as the NRA's chief mouthpiece, has a lot of influence over how these issues are debated in Congress. I don't see how we can have a sensible discussion and pass reasonable laws when one side is prepared to make their case with bizarre exercises in logic.

There's nothing really to say, it was a poorly written law intended to garner support from the anti-gun voters.

In effect it those features were cosmetic... but if you want to see a cosmetic feature.. check out www.fulton-armory.com they have slip on pieces to make it look like you have a flash suppressor (ie M4) and still have the required 16" barrel.

[takao]

A large part of the problem with the original bill was that it was written by non-gun folks.

[snip]

Highly regulated total availability: Mandatory training, registration, background checks, licensing. But if you want to get a "Class AW" Gun License you can... Just take the course, do the Background check and Piss-test, take the psyche eval to get your Certification then Buy your piece which will involve registering your Gun's Ballistics, serial #'s, and photos.

over all i can agree

[stubeeef]

Highly regulated total availability: Mandatory training, registration, background checks, licensing. But if you want to get a "Class AW" Gun License you can... Just take the course, do the Background check and Piss-test, take the psyche eval to get your Certification then Buy your piece which will involve registering your Gun's Ballistics, serial #'s, and photos.

OUTSTANDING compromise, at least it limits the intial number of consumers, not the illegal or blackmarket, but a few fewer on the market to get stolen or misdirected. VERY nice!

[mischief]

OUTSTANDING compromise, at least it limits the intial number of consumers, not the illegal or blackmarket, but a few fewer on the market to get stolen or misdirected. VERY nice!

Though I do find it mildly amusing that we agree on this one....

I should add that the penalties involving guns you're not trained, licensed and checked out for should be pretty damn stiff. Plus add-ons like the really icky types of ammo need to be part of the same process along with modifiers like concealment etc.

The caveat should be added that anyone with a license for Paramillitary style Firearms or above should also be trained in First-response, POST and required to be available as backup for law-enforcement and/or National Guard. This would fill the "well regulated Millitia" requirement and make the rest of it constitutional.

[stubeeef]

61% of republicans agree on this in a recent poll.

[takao]

I should add that the penalties involving guns you're not trained, licensed and checked out for should be pretty damn stiff. Plus add-ons like the really icky types of ammo need to be part of the same process along with modifiers like concealment etc.

The caveat should be added that anyone with a license for Paramillitary style Firearms or above should also be trained in First-response, POST and required to be available as backup for law-enforcement and/or National Guard. This would fill the "well regulated Millitia" requirement and make the rest of it constitutional.

sounds intresting
how about proposing that to your representatives ?

[mischief]

sounds intresting
how about proposing that to your representatives ?

I have a dissertation on a number of things ( including this) I'll likely post to the "what would you do?" thread on the weekend or some night when I have time. I think perhaps a grassroots campaign on the web would be more effetive... get support first, then go to the Reps.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Though I do find it mildly amusing that we agree on this one....

I should add that the penalties involving guns you're not trained, licensed and checked out for should be pretty damn stiff. Plus add-ons like the really icky types of ammo need to be part of the same process along with modifiers like concealment etc.

The caveat should be added that anyone with a license for Paramillitary style Firearms or above should also be trained in First-response, POST and required to be available as backup for law-enforcement and/or National Guard. This would fill the "well regulated Millitia" requirement and make the rest of it constitutional.

So far this discussion has turned in a way that I can support too. Sounds like commonsense to me.

[krimson]

if your proposal helps me get a P90, ill support it. :)

Seriously, that's probably the better of any proposal i've seen in a long long time.

[mischief]

I seem to have stumbled on a possible consensus.

Anyone want to register "www.nonpartyticket.org" and host a BLOG for this kind of stuff?

[IJ Reilly]

There's nothing really to say, it was a poorly written law intended to garner support from the anti-gun voters.

I think there's plenty to say when it comes to discussing how laws are made in Washington. When the principal gun rights organization makes nonsensical arguments such as the one I cited, then we should not be surprised when poorly written laws are the result.

[krimson]

It really doesn't matter what they say, as long as their campaign contributions goto where they're supposed to be.

[IJ Reilly]

It really doesn't matter what they say, as long as their campaign contributions goto where they're supposed to be.

I'm puzzled by this response. It certainly does matter what they say. This is the agenda they lobby for in Congress and support with cold hard cash.

[mischief]

It really doesn't matter what they say, as long as their campaign contributions goto where they're supposed to be.

I disagree in that I feel contributions should either be 1: general funded and split evenly between parties at go-time or 2: should require that after taking such a contribution all members of a given campaign or party (whichever took the donation) should be required to wear an insignia to represent the interest group or company conreibuting... Just like NASCAR or any sporting league.

Without such controls and/or transparency it's too easy for groups to buy legislation. We may as well include a buy-option: an Interest group writes a law and then bid out what any given rep would demand as repayment for sponsorship, votes, etc.

May as well just make it obvious what's already effectively going on...

[krimson]

IJ: Im saying that it's the money that talks, not what the spokes people say. I believe that in general, many politicians listen to lobbyists more than the people they represent.

mischief: i dont like how the current system runs, but that's the reality, from my POV.

[mischief]

IJ: Im saying that it's the money that talks, not what the spokes people say. I believe that in general, many politicians listen to lobbyists more than the people they represent.

mischief: i dont like how the current system runs, but that's the reality, from my POV.

Okay, so we're all saying essentially the same thing..... What was the disagreement?

We know that money talks....

Are we argueing over what footwear we find on ambulatory excreta? :eek: :D

[IJ Reilly]

If there's a distinction being made here, then I don't see it. Are you arguing that lobbies like the NRA promote one agenda publicly and another in Congress?

[mischief]

If there's a distinction being made here, then I don't see it. Are you arguing that lobbies like the NRA promote one agenda publicly and another in Congress?

I think he's argueing that the statements made to the press are less important to scrutinize than the legislation they've bought.

Kinda like how it's idiocy to listen to IRA mouthpieces rather than pay attention to the News from Ireland.

[krimson]

yes, that's mostly it.. i can't be too articulate while im at work. :)

[Desertrat]

My ISP shot craps a couple of days back, so y'all have been able to play without me. :(

Anyhow, playing catchup on this thread, one thing puzzles me: If crime rates have been unaffected by the AW Ban--and they have--why is control or registration or training any sort of an issue? What's the importance?

Outside of the type of pistol grip stock on some paramilitary weapons, they're just rifles. They're not some evil black magic items...

Takao, a buddy of mine bought a Steyr Aug, back in the days when they sold for about what they were worth in the pre-ban days. I shot it a few times. I didn't care for its balance, although it would be a good varmint gun if one is shooting from the cab of a truck out in the back pasture--Easy to manipulate when in the cab. However, he killed a few deer with it, shooting them in the neck for his usual one-shot kills.

The AK or AKM types are quite adequate for home self defense if it's needed. Ammo's cheap, here, so it's easy to learn how to be competent. FWIW, most anything will work, although there can be many quibbles over details like over-penetration if you live in an apartment building. Me, I prefer the venerable Colt 1911 or most any old shotgun...

I've been messing with guns since before Wayne LaPierre was born. I can go along with the hyperbole of the comment about flash hiders and hood ornaments. It's illustrative of the triviality of the pro-ban irrationality. Folks who know guns just flat-out get fed up with the inanities of the anti-gun arguments.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

I can go along with the hyperbole of the comment about flash hiders and hood ornaments. It's illustrative of the triviality of the pro-ban irrationality. Folks who know guns just flat-out get fed up with the inanities of the anti-gun arguments.

But he wasn't being illustrative, he was being literal.

If you're fed up with the inanities of anti-gun arguments, you can refute them.

To simply spout your own set of inanities doesn't prove your point.

In fact, it has the effect of bolstering the opposing view.

[IJ Reilly]

And in fact I haven't noticed anyone hereabouts "spouting anti-gun inanities." I consider myself to be pretty open-minded on this issue, but it's discouraging to say the least not to be able to have a reasonably civil discussion about it. You know, 'Rat, blaming persons unknown for LaPierre's idiotic analogy really does take the cake. No wonder rational discussion is so hard to find.

[takao]

Takao, a buddy of mine bought a Steyr Aug, back in the days when they sold for about what they were worth in the pre-ban days. I shot it a few times. I didn't care for its balance, although it would be a good varmint gun if one is shooting from the cab of a truck out in the back pasture--Easy to manipulate when in the cab. However, he killed a few deer with it, shooting them in the neck for his usual one-shot kills.

hm i never got to shoot it from a vehicle..we always had to "jump" out of it first ... but i was only a 'typist' and 'write endless collums of small numbers on large sheets of paper guy' so i didn't saw much 'action' (as far as action goes in the austrian army)
oh boy,in the countless moments where i sat there in the bureau staring/swearing at the blue screen of death of windows millenium (the austrian army can't afford computers for the whole army so the staff has to bring their own ...) wishing for just one round...

we saw a lot of deers at the shooting range and in our camp ..they are completly out of danger around our army ;)

[krimson]

...
The AK or AKM types are quite adequate for home self defense if it's needed. Ammo's cheap, here, so it's easy to learn how to be competent. FWIW, most anything will work, although there can be many quibbles over details like over-penetration if you live in an apartment building. Me, I prefer the venerable Colt 1911 or most any old shotgun...

...


Agreed, I find that a high powered weapon such as an AK/AR are a little too much for the typical home defense.

Now, a nice pump shotgun is just right.. if most amateur criminals breaking into your house (assuming of course, they're dumb enough to do so while your home), and suddenly hear a shotgun being racked, it's usually enough to drive them from the house. If not, a good load of rock salt should incapacitate them enough for submission. If that doesn't work the 3rd load could be a lethal 00, or sabot slug.

[IJ Reilly]

I suppose if I ever felt the need to have a firearm in my home, it'd probably be one like this, one that sounds scary but can be used non-lethally. But as someone who came very close to being shot by a member of my household, I think I'll stick to the baseball bat in the closet.

[Desertrat]

"You know, 'Rat, blaming persons unknown for LaPierre's idiotic analogy really does take the cake. No wonder rational discussion is so hard to find."

Hokay: Unknowns like Sens. Feinsten and Schumer and their statements favoring the ban. Unknowns like Sen. Kerry, who quite recently commented against the end of the Ban because "police officers would now be facing machine guns." I note that numerous newspaper editors have made similar comments either directly stating or implying that the so-called assault weapons are full-auto, selective-fire critters.

I would indeed love to see/hear rational thought...

Is it unfair of me to request that those wishing for any sort of gun-control law justify their desires, with some explanations as to how the law would actually reduce crime? If a law doesn't reduce crime, what's the point?

Is it unfair of me to ask these folks to justify their desires within some reasonable context of dollar costs vs. probable benefits? I note that while registration has never been shown to provide benefits to society, Canada instituted such a program and its anticipate cost of a few million C-dollars has risen to above a billion C-dollars. (I recall my speed limit analogy, here, as well.)

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

These are fair questions. But to address the first point, you cannot excuse one side's nonsensical argument by presenting the other side's nonsensical argument. It's a classic case of two wrongs -- which I'm sure your mother done told you, does not making a right. I heard Kerry's remark about assault weapons and thought it counterfactual. (Personally, I think if he wants to ding Bush over the assault weapons ban law he simply needs to remind voters that Bush pledged to support its renewal, back when it suited his political agenda, but let that promise expire. Can anybody say "flip-flop?")

Laws can serve many more purpose than reducing crime. They also promote public health, safety and welfare.

[Chip NoVaMac]

So far, no one that supports the ownership of AW's has said why the average person needs to have access to such a weapon? Could be that there is no logical/rational reason for such weapons in the publics hands?

[Desertrat]

IJ, it seems to me you're taking LaPierre's comments out of its proper context, and I think I've addressed that issue...

Chip, since assault weapons are no more "deadly" than most any other centerfire rifle--and much less deadly than most, why bother worrying about it? I happen to think they're clunky junk, myself, but I worry no more about the owner of one of them than I do about the owner of any quality firearm. Apparently many people enjoy shooting them, just as I enjoy my own various rifles. Purely emotional likes and dislikes have no place in law.

'Rat

[Ugg]

Chip, since assault weapons are no more "deadly" than most any other centerfire rifle--and much less deadly than most, why bother worrying about it? I happen to think they're clunky junk, myself, but I worry no more about the owner of one of them than I do about the owner of any quality firearm. Apparently many people enjoy shooting them, just as I enjoy my own various rifles. Purely emotional likes and dislikes have no place in law.

'Rat

Yeah, and idiots like this one (http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%257E2896%257E2387625,00.html?search=filter) shouldn't be allowed to even look at guns. We can't outlaw idiocy but we should certainly be able to make sure that people who use guns understand what they do and to make them responsible for their actions.

[IJ Reilly]

What is the "proper context" for making an illogical argument? I don't care to go round-and-round over this particular issue, but I really don't understand what you mean -- and really this is key to the entire debate. If the two sides can't both agree to stick to serious discussion terms, they're going to be at cross-purposes forever. I don't forgive Mr. Kerry referring to the weapons covered by the law as "machine guns" and likewise you should not forgive Mr. LaPierre's comparing flash suppressors to hood ornaments.

[Desertrat]

To me, Kerry's remark indicated his lack of understanding of the entire argument about "assault weapons". He's not alone, of course, but he is of more importance as to the effects of his beliefs and ideas upon the populace.

To me, LaPierre's "hood ornament" comment referred to the lack of importance of flash hiders as any reason to get all excercised about trivia. A hood ornament is unimportant to the operation of a car, as a flash hider is unimportant to the operation of a firearm.

And if you'd had to endure Kerry-like comments on this issue for ten years, you'd be likely to pop off with some smartypants remark, might you not? I know I would. Heck, I have! E.g., "The ban reduced drive-by bayonettings!"

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

To me, LaPierre's "hood ornament" comment referred to the lack of importance of flash hiders as any reason to get all excercised about trivia. A hood ornament is unimportant to the operation of a car, as a flash hider is unimportant to the operation of a firearm.

Not a valid analogy.

To use a closer (but somewhat opposite) analogy, a flash supressor is as unimportant to the operation of a weapon as fog lights are to the operation of a vehicle.

Unessential 99% of the time, yes, but when you really need them, they come in handy.

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, despite my every effort to meet you halfway, you are continuing to take a completely one-sided view. It's no wonder that we can't have a serious discussion on these issues when people who refuse to take a dogmatic position are constantly bowled over or discounted by those who do. We're allowing people who misrepresent the facts to control the debate.

[Desertrat]

Look. I'm not playing games. IIRC, the issue is the alleged greater lethality of assault weapons, including some features addressed in the language of the ban. Okay?

My view of the physical reality of the mechanics of an assault weapon is that a flash hider or a bayonet lug has nothing to do with any meaningful aspect of lethality.

Therefore I am stuck with this so-called "one-sided view" and my "dogmatic position". It all derives from decades of messing with guns, decades of gunsmithing, and just a wee tad of knowledge of what I'm talking about, you should pardon my sarcasm.

Again, I have no real interest in all this besides the issue of lethality. I say again, that issue is BS. Over the last 60 years I've shot and cleaned and meddled with the innards of every type of gun from a Daisy Red Ryder to a Quad-fifty. Semi-auto pistols and rifles. Bolt-action rifles. Revolvers. I've been a handloader since 1950. I spent a number of years as a serious deer hunter, so I have some idea of what different types of cartridges or bullets can do to meat. I've shot in ISPC matches, and shot from a benchrest--one of which is on my front porch. I have a pistol range behind the house and I set up a 500-yard range nearby on my land.

I get a little bit fed up with folks who've handled a gun, once, or shot a gun a few times, trying to tell me or imply to me that they know more about guns than I do.

I don't go telling a surgeon how to do his job, or spout off about how much I know about cutting meat...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I made it clear way back in this thread that I'm completely prepared to accept the argument that the expired assault weapons law was ineffective and full of arbitrary distinctions. So I invited you or anyone else to describe a law that would be effective in keeping exceptionally dangerous weapons out of general circulation, but this question apparently wasn't taken seriously enough to be worthy of a direct answer. Then I acknowledged that both sides use hyperbole to define their positions, but you'd have nothing of that, either. Apparently you believe that only one side makes bogus statements -- the one with which you disagree. Clearly this isn't the case, but if I can't get you to admit even that, then, well, we are surely going to be logic and dialog free.

[mactastic]

The problem is in defining 'exceptionally dangerous' weapons. Particularly stipulating that the so-called assault weapons are no more, and in many cases less, dangerous than many other hunting and sporting weapons. That was the whole problem with the AWB. It was an arbitrary ban that didn't do anything to lower the gun crime rate.

[IJ Reilly]

The problem is in defining 'exceptionally dangerous' weapons. Particularly stipulating that the so-called assault weapons are no more, and in many cases less, dangerous than many other hunting and sporting weapons. That was the whole problem with the AWB. It was an arbitrary ban that didn't do anything to lower the gun crime rate.

I didn't say it would be especially easy, but I think we'd all agree that some classes of weapons don't belong in the hands of private citizens. Some are already prohibited. Okay then, let's try to decide what they should be and why. The problem is, I can't get anyone on the gun rights side to admit that any specific weapon or accessory should be prohibited let alone agree that some standard of public health, safety and welfare should be applied to this issue. Consequently this discussion takes on much of the same character as the debate in Washington, colored more by hyperbole, poor analogies, and fear-mongering than by facts or reason. Bad facts make bad law, as they say.

[IJ Reilly]

Here is yet another example of the kind of hyperbole and fear-mongering that prevents serious debate from taking place and results in bad laws that everyone can agree are ineffective.

[takao]

I'm glad the ban was lifted now I can go out and buy a new glock 17! That was a gun that became difficult to obtain as a result of the ban.

hm why ? because of the night sight thingies ? or something else ?

[pseudobrit]

My view of the physical reality of the mechanics of an assault weapon is that a flash hider or a bayonet lug has nothing to do with any meaningful aspect of lethality.

I get a little bit fed up with folks who've handled a gun, once, or shot a gun a few times, trying to tell me or imply to me that they know more about guns than I do.

Emphasis mine.

I'm not talking about the lethality of a weapon. I'm talking about the features enumerated in the AWB as being functional, not ornamental.

A higher capacity clip, pistol grip or flash suppressor most certainly doeschange the definition of the firearm. It makes it different in a useful, practical way.

It doesn't have to make the weapon more lethal, and I'm not sure why you've appointed yourself the authority on this issue so much that you can define lethality as the only variable of consequence to this debate. Quite frankly, it smacks of elitism.

Just because you've been around guns longer than I've been alive doesn't mean you get to control the definitions of the debate.

So tell me again that a flash suppressor does nothing to alter the function of a firearm.

[stubeeef]

Highly regulated total availability: Mandatory training, registration, background checks, licensing. But if you want to get a "Class AW" Gun License you can... Just take the course, do the Background check and Piss-test, take the psyche eval to get your Certification then Buy your piece which will involve registering your Gun's Ballistics, serial #'s, and photos.

So who has a beeef with this plan, and why?

[pseudobrit]

the assault weapon ban proponents are using Osama Bin Laden as their poster boy!

I've yet to see that. Where do you get that from?

[IJ Reilly]

Is your use of sweeping dismissive generalizations your standard manner for discussion?

Of course not, and I haven't done that here. I was specifically referring to your red herring about all gun regulations leading to the banning of all guns. This, as with nearly all calamitous slippery-slope arguments, is intended to terminate debate before it even starts.

[IJ Reilly]

Perhaps we also need a law banning the use of Boeing 767's as weapons?

Another red herring intended to end discussion before it gets started.

[pseudobrit]

It took a little hunting but I found a link: http://www2.stopthenra.com/ads/view/?ad=osama

They came out with this one in honor of 9/11. Brilliant! It was all over the cable news for a day or so.

Perhaps just a tiny little bit of fear mongering at work don't you think?

Indeed. Osama has nothing to do with murders committed in the US with AK-47s or other aussault rifles, but the group was cunning in using the fact that Osama's made himself the poster boy for the Kalashnikov rifles. It's something like the Thompson gun was with gangsters.

I didn't see it anywhere on the news, though.

[pseudobrit]

If you are indeed interested in this subject beyond the standard liberal rhetoric check out this link: http://www.awbansunset.com/index.html
Loaded in the officer's pistol were high-performance Winchester Silvertip STHP rounds. He fired once, and the watermelon exploded into tiny fragments. By the time the "demonstration" had been edited for broadcast, viewers saw only the officer holding the "assault weapon" and then the exploding watermelon. Viewers were deliberately misled into believing that the "assault weapon" had caused the explosion


Erm, you then simply make a case for banning handguns.

Besides, what does the effect of a round on a watermelon have to do with the defining features of an assault rifle?

[pseudobrit]

The big picture re. the assault weapon that its supposed added lethality to the weapon which was not so.

Again with the "lethality." Why is this the sole deteriminator of the features of a weapon?

If I have a sawn off shotgun, it's not any more lethal than a full barrelled one, is it? No, but it changes the characterisitcs of the weapon (in this case, its ability to be concealed and its spread pattern) in such a way that it's been deemed better for society that such weapons are not legal.

[krimson]

I'm glad the ban was lifted now I can go out and buy a new glock 17! That was a gun that became difficult to obtain as a result of the ban.

Wow, where do YOU live?
Im in CA, and it's been legal to purchase here.. and we have (probably) the most strict laws in the US.

[mactastic]

All guns are lethal. Even a .22. Banning particularly lethal weapons would involve pretty much everything. If I can get a large game rifle that is capable of taking down a charging rhino, surely that is more deadly than many assault weapons.

[IJ Reilly]

It has happened in several places where a supposedly benign firearm registration legislation led to the outright banning of all firearms. (wash.DC, UK, AU) The bans did little to reduce gun related crime. In some places gun crime increased as criminals were emboldened with the knowledge their victims were disarmed. Wash. DC became the murder capitol after they banned guns.

If you are indeed interested in this subject beyond the standard liberal rhetoric check out this link: http://www.awbansunset.com/index.html

Another red herring. I've posed my question, and you are attempting to evade it with a series of distractions. Sorry, I won't bite. I've debated this topic enough to recognize someone who isn't prepared to participate in serious and open discussion.

[mischief]

I made it clear way back in this thread that I'm completely prepared to accept the argument that the expired assault weapons law was ineffective and full of arbitrary distinctions. So I invited you or anyone else to describe a law that would be effective in keeping exceptionally dangerous weapons out of general circulation, but this question apparently wasn't taken seriously enough to be worthy of a direct answer.

:confused: I'm a little perturbed.... Didn't I take a shot at that one? I went through the functional and design elements that are most relevant in examining whether or not a weapon is Paramilitary, whether it was designed for suppressive fire, etc. I then briefly outlined a system of training, licensing, registration and examination designed to meet both the reasonable demands of a society that isn't happy with their neighbor target shooting in his yard with a Battle Rifle AND the constitutional stipulations of the 2nd amendment.

I would appreciate it if you would review that series of posts ( I think there were 4 of them all together) and let me know if I answered your challenge... whether you like the solution or not.

Don't let a Boozy newbie and an old foil get you all worked up over something that's already been covered. If you find something earlier in this thread that makes a good arguement with this recent bout of bow-shots go ahead and link them back. Serves 'em right for not reading the thread. ;)

[krimson]

i think he's refering to his Q about why would an ordinary citizen need to have a weapon.

[mischief]

i think he's refering to his Q about why would an ordinary citizen need to have a weapon.

Because an ordinary citizen has some understanding of how a gun works. Also:they're paranoid about crime and Gvt. Oppression and they don't know that a much more effective means of meeting the original intent of the 2nd amendment (as to modern context) can be found in oldschool Hacking.

The average citizen wants a gun to either:

Protect their home... Buying a dog is more effective but whatever...

Protect themselves from "government oppression". As if even a full-on battle rifle could protect you from a fully integrated war machine like the US millitary.

If you really want to be able to resist an oppressive state you should go get Cisco certified and learn a few Machine languages, "higher" programming languages and the intricacies of 'nix. THEN you could really be a pain in the federal ass. ;)

[takao]

If you really want to be able to resist an oppressive state you should go get Cisco certified and learn a few Machine languages, "higher" programming languages and the intricacies of 'nix. THEN you could really be a pain in the federal ass. ;)

have you seen too much 'hackers' lately ? or played too much 'global thermonuclear war' ?
;)

[krimson]

Im arming myself in case the Russians, backed by Cubans sweep down the Great Plains and take over the western US. :D

[mischief]

have you seen too much 'hackers' lately ? or played too much 'global thermonuclear war' ?
;)

Don't MAKE me track your IP, do some "wet" hacking at your ISP and send you flowers at home with a card reading "gotcha!". ;)