Subtle assault rifle changes still deadly

[SecularMotion]

This probably wasn't the focus group Samuel Colt had in mind when he helped make Connecticut a cradle of the firearms industry.

But as weapons manufacturers try to adapt to a regulatory landscape and political climate reshaped by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, some are turning to a most unusual guide to bring their latest prototypes to market in the state with the toughest gun law in the nation -- the Connecticut State Police.

When Stag Arms of New Britain wanted to produce a scaled-down version of a popular AR-15 rifle that was banned last April by Connecticut -- part of a broader crackdown that was upheld Thursday by a U.S. District Court judge in Hartford -- it ran the specifications by law enforcement.

"Right off the bat, they were helpful," said Mark Malkowski, the company's president and owner. "They did look at prototypes. They did this about three times. After that, they said it really wasn't their responsibility to determine what was legal or not."

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Subtle-assault-rifle-changes-still-deadly-5201688.php

[Eleanors38]

1. Many posts here tried to tell you so. nt

[SecularMotion]

2. Tell me what exactly?

That gun manufacturers are determined to violate the spirit of the law?

[hack89]

4. That because the term "assault weapon" is a meaningless term

There will always be semiautomatic rifles for sale.

The intent of the law is to draw a line between legal and illegal rifles. If it is legal then how does it violate the spirit of the law?

[Duckhunter935]

5. so many if these weapons

are used in crimes. They sure expend a lot of energy on these "assault weapons" to try and ban them.

[SecularMotion]

7. The intent of the law is to ban the sale of deadly weapons to the general public.

Overall, the process of gun manufacturers seeking approval from public safety officials is a positive thing. This will help to clarify any ambiguities in the regulations. It's good to see this process taking place in a state with sane gun laws.

[hack89]

10. So if a particular semiautomatic rifle is legal under this law it is not deadly?

you just encapsulated in a nut shell the problem with AWBs. They draw an arbitrary line based on cosmetic features and say "on this side they are a danger to the public and on this side they are not".

What makes a rifle deadly is the caliber of bullet, accuracy and rate of fire. No AWB addresses these fundamental issues.

This is illegal under the Feinstein's proposed AWB:




This is legal under the AWB (no pistol grip):



They are both Ruger Mini-14s

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

[SecularMotion]

12. 10 Hallmarks of Assault Weapons — and What They Do

When Adam Lanza arrived at Sandy Hook Elementary School on the morning of Dec. 14, 2012, he had four guns in his possession: a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer, and a 12-gauge shotgun made by Izhmash [source: Vance]. He left the shotgun in his car but carried the other three weapons into the school. Ten minutes later, after firing hundreds of rounds, 20 kids and 7 adults, including Lanza himself, lay dead or dying [source: Apuzzo].

Lanza's attack did more than rip the soul from a small town. It triggered vehement arguments about gun control and emboldened President Obama to propose a renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban, which had expired in 2004. Some of these arguments are filled with misconceptions. Here's one: Assault weapons and assault rifles are the same. They're not. The latter is a firearm developed for military use. The former is a general term meant to bring connotations of ferocity and firepower to certain civilian guns used in nonmilitary situations. Those guns could be rifles, pistols or shotguns, but only if they meet certain legislative criteria.

That brings us back to Lanza. Would the guns he wielded be classified as assault weapons? According to the 1994 ban and the 2013 one proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, at least two -- the AR-15 rifle and the shotgun -- would qualify. The two handguns may or may not, depending on the capacity of their magazines.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/10-hallmarks-assault-weapons.htm#page=0

[hack89]

13. That legal Mini-14 has many of the same characteristics

secondly, many of those listed characteristics do not make the weapon more dangerous - flash suppressor, pistol grip or adjustable stock for example.

Rate of fire, caliber of bullet and accuracy are what makes a rifle lethal.

Do you think that legal Mini-14 is significantly less dangerous? If Lanza had one would it have made a difference at Sandy Hook?

[SecularMotion]

14. Why did Adam Lanza choose a AR-15 over a Mini-14 to slaughter school kids?

[hack89]

15. Because that is the rifle his mother chose to buy for target shooting.

it was his only choice.

Stop evading the question.

Can you, in your own words, explain why an AR-15 is significantly more dangerous than that legal Mini-14 even though they share the same caliber bullet and rate of fire. Feel free to use detailed technical explanations.

[Straw Man]

21. Because that's what he had access to.

Why did Adam Lanza choose a AR-15 over a Mini-14 to slaughter school kids?

Why did Anders Brevik choose a Mini-14?

If you'd like to ban all semi-auto rifles, just state that plainly and stop hiding behind all this "weapon of choice" mumbo-jumbo. Then get ready to lose rural areas to the Democratic Party for all time.

[clffrdjk]

18. Did you not even bother to read your own article?

The police stopped communicating after the third attempt to find out if a design would be legal. There is no team work here, just cops refusing to say if you would end up in jail or not if you did something.

[SecularMotion]

20. I didn't read it as "the police stopped communicating"

Just that they stopped issuing mandates on the legality of weapon designs.

[Straw Man]

22. Right.

I didn't read it as "the police stopped communicating"

Just that they stopped issuing mandates on the legality of weapon designs.

So they won't tell you what is legal and what is not legal. You are just supposed to grok the "spirit of the law" and act accordingly, at the risk of a felony conviction.

What a bunch of fetid nonsense.

[SecularMotion]

23. No one is at risk of a felony conviction

The discussions are between weapon manufacturers and public safety officials about weapon design.

[Straw Man]

25. I beg your pardon?

The question is the legality of the designs under the new laws. Without clear communication, they may produce a rifle for sale in Connecticut that isn't actually legal in Connecticut. Buyers and sellers will be liable to prosecution.

What did you think they were consulting about?

[clffrdjk]

26. To what discussions are you referring?

The ones that were stopped or some other ones not mentioned in your article?
And you better believe criminal charges are on the line, most people are not given the amount of leeway David Greggory got.

[pasto76]

8. no its not. just in popular culture

since so many of you refuse to acknowledge what makes an AR15 so valuable to this soldier in combat. There are plenty of semi auto rifles out there that are in a whole different class, making them unsuitable or at least very much desirable for combat.

[Bazinga]

9. And there are plenty of other semi-autos that are in the exact same class,

And yet remain legal under these laws. I understand the lack of desire to become an expert in firearms, one doesn't need to be in order to discuss this topic. But if anyone is refusing to acknowledge something it is those who refuse to acknowledge that laws addressing cosmetic features do nothing to address functionality.

[hack89]

11. Lets look at two rifles

This is illegal under the proposed AWB:




This is legal under the AWB (no pistol grip):



They are both Ruger Mini-14s

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

Now explain to me why the first is more dangerous than the second

[Eleanors38]

17. Okay, what makes whatever weapon you have in mind

so valuable to a soldier?

[sir pball]

19. The "greatest implement of battle ever devised" has zero features in common with an M4.

Patton said it about the M1 Garand, which is by almost nobody's definition an "assault weapon" yet is probably far and away the deadliest rifle the US has ever manufactured. And they sell them by mail, with no background check!

Hell, I'd rather have one over an M4 in combat - and judging by the growing popularity of its baby brother the M14 in the Middle East, people with far more educated opinions than me agree.

While I realize rifles of all sorts are a relatively trivial facet of gun violence and pragmatically don't support restrictions on them, I'd at least intellectually agree with an honest attempt to simply ban self-loaders, instead of this song and dance about "features".

[DonP]

24. Exactly which military uses the semi-auto AR-15 in "Combat"?

I'm not aware of any major military that still uses a semi-auto of any flavor as their issue rifle.

Enlighten us with your insight and wisdom please?

Or is this one of those, "Don't get all NRA asshole on the actual details of what you want to ban" posts?

The difference between an AR-15 and the actual current issue M-16/M4 is akin to the difference between the state of the art NASCAR competitor and your rusty Chevy in the driveway. Kinda looks the same, if you squint from a distance and don't actually know what you're looking at.

[Eleanors38]

16. "Spirit." There's that ghost gun again.

[ileus]

3. My DW's AR is a Stag....nice little plinker for the money.

It's been dead solid reliable with Brass and Steel cased ammo. While her's is topped with a 4x12x50 scope because it's our family range gun, (also some hunting) I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to use it as a counter assault rifle if needed.

[Duckhunter935]

6. let me guess

They had to adjust a cosmetic feature like a bayonet mount type of hand guard. I am sure the operating system of the rifle will be the same as it always been. Another fail by that side.