Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumassault rifles gettting some more play time. Been a busy two years!
Man people are dropping like flies around people with assault rifles. You know, the guns that look like military weapons but are only just for plinking and the occasional deer assault. Not meant to do harm to people or law enforcement for that matter. These last two years been pretty bloody though. Here's a new one for "rifles that don't assault" people.
"The suspected killer of a sheriff's deputy and a locksmith during an eviction had a gas mask and was armed with several weapons, including a high-powered assault rifle,...Investigators also found that the man was wearing a ballistic vest which strongly suggests that the man barricaded himself in the apartment and was preparing himself for an armed confrontation with police" http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/police-shooting-suspect-was-1416646.html
But we all know they are really meant just for fun, good times right.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I took a look at two of the 22 versions. I'm thinking about getting one for the kids...
My AR's are meant for plinking and family fun. I'm building one to hunt with now, I can't wait to get it in the field with the kids this fall hopefully I can get both of them on a deer or two.
My wife want's to upgrade the scope on her AR to something nicer like what I have on the match 22 she shoots.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)I like how small the magazines are. You can carry a whole bunch of them in your pockets, hunt around all day and never run out of ammo.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)He called DH yesterday morning and asked him to cover for him on a project because Mike had to go to Glen's home after he heard about the killing. It's a damn shame and I don't care what people say-those guns are for WAR. The only way you need them to hunt is if your quarry is God-flipping-zilla. Good grief.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Those guns aren't any more for WAR (oh no, how evil) than your grandpa's shotgun. You really don't know anything about guns, do you?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)He's also EX-MILITARY and is disgusted by people who have mindsets like you. You really should try to think before you make assinine comments about something and someone you know NOTHING about. Even though he has guns, he thinks for himself and dropped the NRA YEARS ago when they made the maniacal turn they've continued on their path to become the Bedlam Asylum of America.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...calling the kettle black...
You really should try to think before you make assinine comments about something and someone you know NOTHING about.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)cheer up. I have a sneaking suspicion that you won't have to try to keep up with DU long....Welcome to DU, enjoy your stay and enjoy that coming pizza, dear...
rl6214
(8,142 posts)blowhard like you.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Cops carry guns all day long every day but that dosen't mean they know much about guns. I have taught a number of them how to shoot and helped them pass their qualifications but I shoot much better than they do. Just because a gun is the same caliber as one that is an actual military gun, that dosen't mean it IS a military gun. Most every gun is based upon something the military used at one time, that does not make it a WAR gun. So YOU should really try thinking before you spout off about something YOU know nothing about.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)not that I asked for it. He doesn't know anything about guns, huh? You just keep thinking that. You're opening your mouth and spouting off idiotic opinions about people and things YOU HAVE NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF. Just because you have a pop gun or two don't mean you know shit about anything you CLAIM to . Talk is cheap and I know what he's trained in, what with serving in an actual military and getting real training for more than a day or two, (this is where you would have actually had to put your big boy's pants on), something I doubt you have any real knowledge of either.
You remind me of the bellicose, belligerent NRA wished-he-was's who go around spouting sound bites about how much they know, all the time aware that there's no danger of them having to prove anything other than the trash talking they do. Really? Isn't it funny that REAL VETS who have actually had E.X.T.E.N.S.I.V.E training in firearms and armaments of all sorts NEVER GO AROUND TALKING THE crap "men" like you do? Guess what, rl6214, Rambo was a movie character, not a template for what you wish, hope and pray people see you as.
Do you honestly think I give a flying fart what you think? I'm sure it'll be difficult for you to comprehend and unlike you, I don't assume anything about anyone BUT I've seen the outcome of uncontrolled but "peaceful" ownership of "non-war" firearms and it is neither pretty, peaceful nor pleasant. Before you embarrass yourself once again with your unrequested and pointless bullet points, I HAVE NEVER LIVED IN THE "GHETTO", belonged to a gang, sold drugs, used them or hung out with violent and psychotic people. UNFORTUNATELY, I have lost many people over the years who just happened to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time around what you so politely term, guns that are not related to war. They are dead....PERIOD. Don't give me that rubbish about how guns don't kill people because it's funny how EVERY.BLOODY.TIME people get shot and wounded or killed, these guns JUST HAPPEN to be in the immediate vicinity. Strange, isn't it?
Were these people innocent by-standers? If being an innocent bystander means not using or even having a gun, then you damn skippy they were. A couple of them got wrapped up in the cocaine explosion of the 80's the rest were taken in the internecine gang wars that REALLY exploded in the wake of the cocaine epidemic of the 80's. They were black, white, brown and yellow. In the end, I really don't give a damn what you think because I know what I know and I don't need some twisted, greedy and sociopathic organisation headed by the most whacked out idiot to ever grace American soil to give me my opinions.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)And in spite of that you did an awefull lot of whining, bitching, moaning complaining, name calling accusations about something you know nothing about.
"I really don't give a damn what you think"
You sure did get your knickers in a twist for someone that really "don't give a damn"
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)and easy to spout. Figures...
rl6214
(8,142 posts)My military service or how many guns I own all over the internet but Hey, if that's what you've got to do, more power to you
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)When you're ready to quit moralizing and arguing from authority, we'll be here...
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Brown Bess
This one is not:
Mini 14
Do you really want to base gun laws on whether or not a gun is a weapon of war?
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)I can understand the source of your emotional reaction, but the fact remains that this ...
... is more powerful than this:
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)To what should we attribute the design differences in weapons like those? Would someone looking to kill a large number of people in a short time, in a small area, not have a preference, unless they had a lot of silly ideas about what some keep calling "cosmetic" features of weapons?
Why does the pro-gun side of the "assault weapons" argument pretend that there isn't a people-killing design element to weapons the firearms industry first started calling "assault weapons?" Why do they deliberately avoid the basic point some weapons -- which we keep hearing are "tools" are, like all tools, function specific. You don't bring a phillips-head screwdriver to pound a nail. Are we actually all supposed to pretend all weapons are the same?
"Assault weapon" is not an "anti" term, right? It's a marketing term. Are the gun manufacturers lying when they suggest that certain design components make a gun a better choice for combat than hunting?
The depth to which these silly rhetorical notions have been ingrained in some people is confounding. It's "irrational" and shows "ignorance of firearms" to note that certain weapons have design components focused on killing, vs. hunting, or even simple defense? If that's the case, why don't cops carry .22 target pistols? Why don't soldiers carry single-shot hunting rifles (anymore)?
The basic discussion is as simple as this: Does the public have a legitimate interest in regulating types of weapons on the basis of their design application? Do we have the right to be more concerned about someone stocking up on weapons with a combat focus vs. hunting, target-shooting, etc.?
Either point of view may be legitimate. But pretending there's no such thing, and all discussion of types of weapons and their intended focus is meaningless is not an honest argument, period.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Because they don't. That is the reality
No, the industry did not start using the term. Antis did hence "assault weapon" instead of assault weapon.
It is an "anti" propaganda buzz term created by Josh Sugarmann. His exact quote:
"Assault weaponsjust like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearmsare a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weaponsanything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine guncan only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
Actually, no. It is simply a progression from "tactical to practical". Functionally, there is no difference between an AR and a semi automatic rifle with a wooden stock or a semi automatic skeet gun. Since your knowledge of guns etc seems to be nonexistent, you have no business telling me what "I need".
We have been regulating firearms, on the federal level, based on their design application since 1934. No, you can not buy machine guns at gun shows or Wal Mart. A leading Criminologist put it best when he said "the issue is not how many guns, the issue is who has them." Someone "stocking up" legally is not the danger to society. Most murderers have criminal records. Google "myth of virgin killer"
And semi auto rifles based on ARs that are designed for hunting? They exist. Regardless, the more important discussion is how they are used. These rifles are rarely used in violent crime. Much less than bare hands. It is more important to deal with real issues and causes instead of wasting time and energy on theater.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Same rhetoric, but with no better support. No one know anything about gun except enthusiasts, who are understandably fascinated by the technical differences in weaponry, but then turn around say it doesn't mean anything when we talk about regulation.
What's funny is that this premise is designed by the gun lobby to support gun manufacturers, who profit by selling weaponry with excruciatingly highly developed design, which of course would be pointless if it was true that design and features don't matter.
sarisataka
(18,472 posts)The original builder was Armalite. The AR designation has carried on even as the manufactures have changed.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)sarisataka
(18,472 posts)AR could mean both of those things. I wonder which they were going after.
If they changed it to BG-15 (Black Gun-15) would it then be exempt from any assault rifle ban since it is self-identified ...
hack89
(39,171 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)...could have answered that question if you could bother yourself to do it. I know that would cut into time spent on snarky, biased rhetoric but at least you'd have some actual facts to work with. Armalite Rifle, Model 15 = AR-15
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)...when you post something of substance worth responding to. Start by at least obtaining some technical understanding of the subject.
sarisataka
(18,472 posts)The Winchester 1894 .30-30 was not popular with the military because as a lever action it is difficult to use from the prone position.
Ammo capacity- 1894- 7-13 rounds
AR-15 10, 20 or 30 rounds
Rate of fire
1894- 2 rnd/sec according to Winchester
AR-15 45-60 rnd/min
Ballistics-
http://www.federalpremium.com/products/print/compare/rifle_compare.aspx?compare=6%2c56%2c28
(for comparison I included the 7.62x39 cartridge of the AK-47)
for those who don't want to follow the link, the 30-30 has more energy than the 5.56 by 580 ft/lbs at the muzzle, narrowing to a 45 ft/lb advantage at 500 yds
so to summarize, the 118 year old Winchester lever action can hold its own against an AR-15 in most situations. The quicker reload capability of the AR would give it an advantage in an extended battle.
An AR-15 is not an M-16, which would also have a burst or full auto advantage.
It is irrelevant if assault rifle is a made up term, marketing or whatever. It is easier to define what a high performance car is than an assault rifle.
It is the 'anti' side that wants these 'high-powered assault rifle' /bullet hoses banned. facts do not back up their claims
That is the slippery slope. We ban 'assault rifles' because their purpose is to kill people; although they are excellent hunting weapons for more reasons than the larger magazines. Then do we look at hunting rifles that also are pretty good at killing people e.g. the Ruger Mini-14, an up dated version of the M-14, which was derived from the WW2 M1. The Mini-14 was designed for small game hunting, ranchers and law enforcement. The VPC now calls it "the Poor Man's Assault Rifle.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Of course design matters. There's no way around that. Saying that you can use a weapon design for killing people for hunting is like saying you can use a bowling ball to roll flour. You could, but no one actually believes that's what it's for. Power, weight, capacity, range, conceal-ability, accuracy. These are all factors gun enthusiasts themselves ponder endlessly, BECAUSE it matters.
So all this patronizing, arch dismissal of these concerns as being founded on ignorance is a smokescreen. Everyone thinks weapons should be designed differently for killing people versus other uses.
A logical pro-gun position would be that killing people is a legitimate purpose. Not a great position, but at least logical. Pretending everything that gun manufacturers, military and police forces, and enthusiasts themselves put such great stock in when choosing their weapons doesn't actually mean anything is not logical.
sarisataka
(18,472 posts)-how many people buy NEW AND IMPROVED even though there is no real difference from the last product
-American rifle ownership has always mirrored the current military weapon to a great degree
-there is an entire generation of vets trained on the M-16 which is ergonomically identical. Their marksmanship training is 100% transferable
You can but not efficiently. You could use an AR-15 to hunt moose... you can I sure the hell wouldn't. Just as I wouldn't use a .300 magnum to hunt squirrels. A better analogy would be golf clubs; they all can hit the ball but some are better in certain situations than others.
Only VPC, Brady...
True if the purpose is self defense
Pretending everything that gun manufacturers, military and police forces, and enthusiasts themselves put such great stock in when choosing their weapons doesn't actually mean anything is not logical.
See the golf analogy.
The problem is the control groups who do not have the knowledge, or deliberately refuse to use it, making these broad statements about 'high-powered' and 'automatic' weapons whose only purpose is " laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone" to a public that does not know the difference. Then they get upset when they are corrected by people with those pesky facts.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)and ignore the rest of the argument. Which is that there is a public interest in limiting the ability of members of the public to kill large numbers of their fellow citizens in a short period of time.
The gun lobby, and its range of arguments, don't even countenance the possibility of discussing regulating based on weapon type. Rather than clarify the discussion, they seek to end it.
Rather than say, "No, it's not overall 'power' that makes a weapon a better people killer it's ..." they stop at this dismissive, "be gone, clueless gun hater" line of attack, dripping with this sanctimonious air of superiority, but substance-free.
sarisataka
(18,472 posts)has shown that the terms 'for public safety', 'restriction', 'regulate' and 'reasonable' are synonyms for 'ban'.
It is the imprecise terminology of the GCs groups (arguably intentionally so) that becomes the issue. If you ban an intermediate powered devise, calling it 'high-powered' what then happens when someone discovers those that are high-powered. My money says a non-gun enthusiast in favor of restricting and regulating will suddenly be able to read a ballistic table and understand force calculations.
I cannot accept any law that says it is illegal... when we see it and we will know when we see it. On guns or any other item or action.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Which is not to say that bans aren't appropriate. We ban lots of weapons. Nothing in the Second Amendments suggests we can't ban types of guns for personal use.
sarisataka
(18,472 posts)We do and should ban some weapon types.
When it comes to this sticky wicket however, there has been way more emotion than sense thrown in. The '94 ban was a poorly written feel good measure that even those who supported it say it had no real effect.
They miss that it hardened gun-enthusiast perceptions that total bans for any reason are the ultimate goal of GC. I do not own any assault style weapons. I do miss shooting them but have better uses for $1000+ than getting a civilian version of something for nostalgia.
If a GC group would come forth with a well thought out law showing a beneficial restriction, while codifying and acknowledging legitimate firearms ownership, including self-defense, the more moderate gun owners would give it a fair listen. IMO
As long as false, inflammatory terminology is used it will continue to drive the sides farther apart. Ironically strengthening the NRA and its influence. Also IMO
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)There must be one, somewhere. But we won't see it while the debate is dominated by the gun lobby.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I think current federal regulations are quite reasonable.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)That is very true. However, these things are attached onto the basic rifle mechanism, which is the focus of defining what an "assault rifle" is.
Yeah, the non-glare black finish is tactical-looking... but it's also desirable to have a non-glare finish when hunting. And considering how elements-proof those finishes typically are, it's also a good practical thing regardless of intended use. A rifle proof against dew, rain, powder residue, fingerprints, and human sweat is a pretty good idea.
Yeah, the pistol grip is non-traditional... but as soon as rifle stocks stopped carved from a single long piece of wood, they began added pistol grips. It's more comfortable, I guess, although I prefer traditional grips for some reason.
Yeah, flashlights and lasers are tactical... but it's generally considered a good think to be able to aim well and see what you're shooting at. Hunters generally can't uses flashlights and lasers for hunting, but if you're engaged in self-defense, with human lives on the line, being able to see clearly and shoot straight is a good, important thing. And what is the law going to do, outlaw the attachment points for lasers and lights?
Telescoping/folding stocks... born from military use, telescoping stocks allow hunters and shooters to maintain the same shooting position regardless of the layers of clothing worn or the size of the person shooting the rifle. Even fixed-stock rifles and shotguns sold nowadays usually have a mechanism to adjust the length-of-pull of the gun by adding shims to the recoil pad. And folding stocks make storage easier, although people often don't like them because they don't have the recoil absorption that a fixed stock does.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Ted Nugent wants to go quail hunting with a MAC-10. Great. Might work. Does the Second Amendment require we let him, or at some point do we decide that the people-killing efficiency overbalances the theoretical non-homicidal application?
I also don't think aesthetics are out-of-bounds. Not for regulation, per se, but for discussion. Because the heart of the gun problem we have in America is the fetishization of the power of firearms as an extension of the ego.
You don't have to look very far to find Americans who's fascination with weaponry starts and ends with how badass it looks, feels, and potentially kills. That's not an attitude you can regulate, but it should be criticized in a world where every spree killer makes a YouTube video posing with his gun collection.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Game regulations have nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Even if the MAC 10 is legal, most states have a problem with it. Wyoming for example does not allow machine guns in the wild. That said, given that it is easier to hit a quail with a shotgun than a sub machine gun, the PETA side of me says let him. If he does it Wyoming, I hope the game warden likes country and has a young daughter.
the rest of the stuff is pop psychology and not worth the effort.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)What is a people-killing design? Something akin to the Republican definition of pornography? "I know it when I see it?"
Besides, murder by rifle in this country is pretty rare. It's well in single-digit percentages of the total. About 3%, if memory serves, and that includes hunting rifles and .22s and everything. So it is worthwhile to pursue this issue to such a political extent for such a tiny potential ROI?
Because what wound up happening was that so much attention was paid to "those kinds" of rifles that they went from fringe to mainstream.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)They are trying to "save" society from assault weapons, and the fact that rifles are rarely used in crime is almost irrelevant to them.
They are no different than the right-wingers that are fixated on mandating "abstinence-only" sex education- the slight detail that the backwaters
that do indulge in that particular idiocy have higher teen pregnancy rates than more evolved places escapes them. Likewise, the notable
decrease in crime since 2004 seems to be studiously ignored by the "scary black guns frighten me crowd"
They want the 'bad' things banned, and that's all that matters to them...
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)First off, the assault weapon bans do ban many cosmetic features. For example, some things that assult weapon bans have baned were pistol grips, bayonet lugs, adjustable butt stocks, and flash suppressors.
Changing those things don't make the gun any safer. When was the last time you herd of somebody getting stabbed with a bayonet. I'll admit that the buttstock makes it slightly smaller, many guns like the AR-15, some apart in 2 pieces in a few seconds. No tools required.
The term assault rifle refers to a gun capable of FULL AUTO fire. Assault weapon is almost exclusively used by people who are anti gun, or perhaps not familiar with the terminology. I've never seen the term assault weapon used by a gun company.
I'll admit that some guns are better at different things. AR-15's are lightweight, they have low recoil and they are accurate. This makes them great guns for shooting competitions. Go to a 3 gun competition, and I would bet a lot of people (80+ percent) have an AR-15. Its a hobby, or for a few people a career. I see nothing wrong with that.
You claim that some guns should be banned, because they can't be used for hunting, my first response would be that many 'assault rifles' (to use your term, I would not describe an AR-15 as such), make great hunting guns.
I think the only people who show ignorance to firearms are people who are against them, and never look into them. I think its funny when people want all magazines capped at 10 rounds, and they claim high round magazines are a newer invention, then they don't believe you when you tell them that 15 rounds magazines were available in 1873. (not removal magazines, but you could fire 15 shots without reloading).
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)You won't find me making that argument.
The second amendment is not about hunting, nor even particularly about personal self-defense. The second amendment is about killing people who threaten the security of free states. It is about putting military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use in the hands of the people.
Arms like the AR-15 and the AK-47 are exactly the kinds of arms the people are supposed to be bearing, and they are for killing people, not hunting or self-defense.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)the question remains -- is there a legitimate public policy interest in regulating and restricting weapons designed for killing people?
For example, if you take the "well-regulated militia" point of view, would it be reasonable to limit everyone to one, militarily-viable long gun, to be kept in the home under lock and key?
Or, are there design elements which are neither sporting, nor military viable, but which are well-suited to illegal purposes?
If it wasn't for the cult-like rhetoric of the gun lobby, you'd think gun enthusiasts would participate in a discussion like that, but instead you get this extremely hostile, hardline approach, with an odd dollop of intellectual snobbery, droning on about how no one but gun rights supporters knows a clip from magazine, etc. etc. / yawn.
I'm glad you don't subscribe, but I'm sure you're familiar hardline about how those silly anti-gun weenies are just afraid flash suppressors, when in reality a target .22 is no more or less inherently dangerous than ... take your pick.
It's silly nonsense, and of course I know better than to engage, but every once in a while, it's hard not to dip a toe in just in amazement at the combination of illogic and arrogance that defines the litany of dishonest gun rights memes that inevitably derail all these conversations.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Guns are regulated on federal and state levels.
No. I would prefer a military system like Switzerland to replace the empire. The full auto rifle or handgun (officers, military police, medics etc are issued pistols) are government property. Once you leave the military, your rifle is converted to semi automatic and is yours to keep. It is kept next to your privately owned guns.
no.
That sounds kind of anti intellectual. If you are going to regulate something, it is important that you know what you are talking about and have a logical and rational reason for restricting it.
say what?
I never ceased to be amazed that the level of dishonesty, illogic, arrogance, projection, and just plain absurdity that comes from "antis".
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)are well-suited to illegal purposes?!?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The popcorn smiley kind of tells the whole story here. The super fun game / rhetorical dodge is to have a rhetorical answer for any regulatory proposal, without any logical response. The thread's already peppered with the usual nonsense. Capacity doesn't matter because ... you can reload! Compact design doesn't matter because ... uh ... thick clothing?
It's not honest argument. People don't collect militarized weapons because they're readying to fight the British. It's part of a fantasy culture of militia and the convenient myth that everyone needs to be armed and dangerous because ... everyone's armed and dangerous. Because we have the gun laws of your typical leaderless African nation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)couple of things actually.
Says who? The NFA was not a ban because the supporters thought a ban on machine guns etc. would be struck down.
Somalia actually has strict gun laws, on the books. A total ban on the average person because of economics. Most of the people who collect militarized weapons are well, curio and relic collectors. What's the deal with the fucking British? Their empire is dead. Hopefully there will be an independent Scotland soon.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Care to answer?
Of course, I think the idea is bullshit, but I'd like you to actually answer.
What are 'militarized weapons'? Any weapon ever used by a military anywhere?
What feature is only useful in crime?
Is it only guns with rust and scratch resistant finishes? Or those that are ergonomic to shoot? Or those with adjustable stocks?
Buck up and own it.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)In a word, no. All rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, only account for about 300 homicides annually. This is half as many as are killed by hands and feet.
The reason is simple: Rifles are not conducive to crime because they are not concealable.
If you want to regulate firearms, the only firearm that really could use regulation are handguns. But this makes the militia arms angle moot. And of course we don't want to regulate handguns, because they are the most portable, easy to use way to resist violence that current technology produces.
For example, if you take the "well-regulated militia" point of view, would it be reasonable to limit everyone to one, militarily-viable long gun, to be kept in the home under lock and key?
Here's the thing: If you own one, you are no more dangerous if you own 10. You can only use one rifle at a time. So there is no harm if I own a dozen. So why regulate it?
I'm somewhat ambivalent on the "lock them up" argument. When I had children, I bought a cheap-o $150 "gun safe", which, while it meets the requirements of the California Department of Justice for storing firearms, is really little more than a lockable filing cabinet. I bought it to keep my kids away from the guns. It is probably not much for protection against theft. Anyone with a crowbar could break into it.
If you want true UL-rated theft protection, such as a safe that is rated to protect against 15 or 30 minutes of dedicated attack, you are looking at many thousands of dollars.
Before I had kids, I did not lock up my firearms.
I think it is responsible to lock up your firearms, but there is also a penalty in time-to-access for doing so. If I lived someplace dangerous, I might be less willing to lock up my self-defense firearm. However, advances in quick-access gun safes may make this problem irrelevant.
My personal opinion is that if you have kids, or kids will ever be visiting your house, you should lock up your firearms.
Or, are there design elements which are neither sporting, nor military viable, but which are well-suited to illegal purposes?
I can't think of one. The number-one trait of a firearm that makes is well-suited to illegal purposes is concealability, at which the handgun excels. Unfortunately, the handgun is also the premier portable self-defense weapon.
That said, if I ever absolutely had to choose a firearm class to outlaw, it would be handguns. You don't need them in a military context (a pistol is a weapon you use to fight your way back to a rifle) and as long as people were armed with military-grade rifles you could easily defend your home and uphold the intent of the second amendment.
Unfortunately it will mean that every victim of violent crime will have no way to fight back short of engaging in a physical fight with their attacker.
The response was to someone who proposed that an "assault weapon" would only be appropriate for hunting if one were hunting "God-flipping-zilla." I would choose the Marlin lever action over the AR-15 for any large game. The fact is that the .223 round of the AR-15 is banned as a deer-hunting round in many states because it is considered underpowered for that task. As a hunting round, it is more appropriate for varmints such as coyotes, prairie dogs, etc.
The battlefield role of the modern assault rifle (not "assault weapon," which is a legal rather than technical designation) is to produce a large volume of suppressive fire using its full-auto capabilities. The civilian version, the AR-15, does not have full-auto capability, rendering it simply a small-to-intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifle, albeit one with a decidedly military appearance.
I might be called Straw Man, but please resist the temptation to put words in my mouth. I never said that "all discussion of types of weapons and their intended focus is meaningless." However, I will suggest that I know a good deal more about that particular subject than you do -- feel free to educate me if you believe otherwise. I know that most of the hysteria surrounding "assault weapons" is unfounded, based mostly on the misconception, deliberately fostered by the VPC et al, that these rifles are (a) extremely powerful and (b) fully automatic. Neither one is true.
I also believe firmly that if all the AR and AK variants were to magically disappear tomorrow, other semi-auto firearms would take their place as the focus of the anti-gun movement's ire. Were those to disappear in turn, then it would be repeaters of all varieties: lever-action, pump-action, bolt-action. Then would come single-shot breech-loaders, and finally muzzle-loaders. Every type of firearm has been a weapon of war in its day, and every type of firearm has been used in crime at some point.
OK, your turn.
petronius
(26,595 posts)phillips head screw, whether you're building a gallows or an orphanage. There are plenty of attributes that might make that screwdriver good or bad, but few if any have a bearing on the structure you're (dis)assembling.
Likewise with firearms - there are few if any features that make a rifle a 'people-killer' in particular, in contrast to being a killer of coyotes, bowling pins, chupacabras, or paper targets. Many aspects might make a firearm attractive to a particular user, but none of them determine the appropriate target.
When it comes to so-called 'assault weapons', if you can specify a feature that is particularly relevant to killing humans (in the undesirable, criminal way) without being related even more strongly to regular use then there'd be something to talk about regulating. Put another way, if there was a way to make firearms more difficult to use criminally without having detrimental impacts on the vaster amount of regular use it would be worth talking about.
But, most if not all of the definitions of 'assault weapons' address features that have nothing to do with lethality or criminal use in any specific way, or determine what the gun's target is supposed to be. Rather, they target cosmetic aspects, or features that are desirable for all users. As used in a policy sense, "assault weapon" seems to be more about misinformation: creating the illusion that there are guns good for killing people and nothing else, or that they're military weapons - machine guns - As Seen On TV. I can see why gun control advocates might wish to foster that confusion, but it's not good for policy.
(As for the marketing angle, if it appeals to the badass sensibilities of the weekend Rambos that may be silly, but it's not harmful in a policy sense...)
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Of course they are for war. They are near-copies of military weapons, with the exception that they don't fire in fully-automatic mode.
This is they kind of weapons the second amendment protects. The second amendment is not about hunting, it's about killing people who threaten the security of free states.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)to cover EVERYTHING that can conceivably use a firearm. This amendment was meant to make sure that we could defend our country against enemies from within and without, not every Billie Jo Bob to blast his neighbor because they made him nervous. Damn, DH was telling me that in Texas, they ACTUALLY legalised SILENCERS for HUNTING??!! Why? So someone can POACH more easily without having their gunshots heard? Really?/ RIDICULOUS. You know they're going to be used for all the wrong reasons. As in MURDERS, etc.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)to cover EVERYTHING that can conceivably use a firearm.
How about reading the actual self defense laws and not parrot talk radio bullshit. Billie Jo Bob? Got that anti rural working bigotry going? Gee, that will get us votes just like the Republicans get rich and Evangelical African American votes.
They do in Europe, even mandatory in Finland and France.
You have been watching too many 1970s cop and PI shows. They are not that silent. Oh yeah, to get a legal silencer, you are still talking about a several months long background check, registration, and a $200 transference tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)taught me better. Primarily. What the fuck do you know about black folks? I AM ONE WHO LIVES IN A RURAL AREA, Einstein. I don't compromise myself just to get someone's vote, sorry if you do. You don't know SHIT about churchgoing black folks, so back the fuck up on that one. I DON'T WATCH COP SHOWS, dear, so you strike out there too.. I SPEAK MIND MIND AND IF YOU DO LIKE IT, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOU, right?!!
And as far as those background checks go, we all know how well they've worked out, don't we?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I grew up in a rural area and still live in one.
Just from the ones I worked with, went to war with, went to church with, not much. Many are Evangelicals.
You can say anything you want.
NFA is not a NICS phone call that works only as well as states keep their shit together.
read further.
Corporations are exempt from the CLEO signature.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)what I believe and that's that. You don't know shit about me or people. Don't play that game because it'll never work. and BTW, I grew up with and will end this life black, how about you?. Right, didn't think so..
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I only know from those I learn from. Willingness to learn is always good.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)pale. I will believe as I will believe based on my experience and people I have lost due to guns, black, white, brown, yellow and red. There's nothing wrong with guns theoretically but when people start extending having and using them with infinite iterations, whether they make sense or not pisses me off. NOT all evangelical, let alone BLACK ones agree with this lie it's stupid to try to say they do.
I ATTENDED Christian schools until I was in high school. I know what's I'm talking about and these boxes that people are forcing others into to try to justify their believes,. no matter how radical is getting old. BTW, NOT ALL RURAL people are in love with guns. so stop it. It's not true. AND it's not just because I'm in California. DH is Texan. and although he has guns, he's is disgusted by the likes of Wayne La Pierre, the NRA in it's current form and it's attempt to paint this country with it's radical agenda.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)for that I humbly apologize,
I detest faux liberals who are bigots like Bill Maher. I mistook you for one. My bad. Again I humbly apologize
I don't believe I said that. I was referring to some progressives that are viewed as snobbish urbanites who deride rural working class. That is, in my opinion, part of the reason why the party lost those folks since the 1970s.
I don't like Wayne La Pierre nor the NRA in its current form anymore than you do. I never assumed all rural people like guns or hunting. My point was entirely different. My point was more about faux liberals that refer to all working class people as yahoo, Billy Bob, trailer trash, etc.
Had nothing to do with race or religion, other than what seems like a parallel to me.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)is a white southerner (Texan), of Bohemian Czech descent. I agree with your point of FAUX liberals who have come out of the woodwork since the Trayvon Martin tragedy has been made known. I have been astounded to find that there are so many undercover bigots here and so many "so-called Christians" who've turned out to be sunday morning Christians.
I don't believe in trailer trash any more than I believe in calling people any other derogatory names. I have a temper which I am working on but the one thing I believe in is treating everyone with fairness and equity. I don't understand people who talk trash when in my face and saying something else behind my back. This is the one thing that has come forward since Obama's election.
The one thing I have to disagree wholeheartedly is this: We are NEVER going to convince republicans to vote for us, no matter what we do, UNLESS they've decided ON their own that our view of America and Her people is one they believe in. MANY of them have come around on their own and have said that they're HORRIFIED by what they see in the extremism that is becoming more and more apparent.
I will NEVER compromise my beliefs to try to pull people into the tent who really don't want to be there and you shouldn't either.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)>This amendment was meant to make sure that we could defend our country against enemies from within and without, not every Billie Jo Bob to blast his neighbor because they made him nervous.
Of course people are not allowed to "blast his neighbor because they made him nervous". However, the second amendment does not preclude personal security. Self-defense is quite legitimate.
>Damn, DH was telling me that in Texas, they ACTUALLY legalised SILENCERS for HUNTING??!! Why? So someone can POACH more easily without having their gunshots heard? Really?/ RIDICULOUS. You know they're going to be used for all the wrong reasons. As in MURDERS, etc.
Hopefully you understand that silencers do not work like you see in the movies, where a BANG is turned into a "ffft".
Here is a gun shooting subsonic ammunition with a silencer. This is about as quiet as it gets:
When you shoot with standard-velocity ammunition it's even louder. All these things really are is safety equipment for the shooter. You still have to wear hearing protection, but it's not as loud. It's also a courtesy for those around you.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)twice as many people are murdered with bare hands than all long guns combined. Oh yeah, might want to check your calender. It is not 1933.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#United_States
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)If you do, I'll go double-or-nothing on a dodge, and no addresing of the question.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)How's this for a definition, though? A high-powered rifle is one chambered for a cartridge with a muzzle energy in excess of 3,000 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, thus making it appropriate for dangerous game.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)but my opinion may be somewhat biased. Due to being raised for three years in Central Africa, I tend to think of .375 H&H Magnum as a nice, low-recoil load at short-to-medium ranges for medium-sized game.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)so I think of "high-powered" as loads sufficient for grizzly; .338 Win Mag and higher.
I would *love* to have a .375 H&H sometime, as well as a good excuse (i.e., a safari) to use it!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)without the accompanying financial means. So currently, the largest rifle I own is in 8mm Mauser. Nothing to look down on, certainly. But I do like me some large-bore single and double rifles.
I just wish one of the prognosticateurs around here would tell me the next winning Lotto numbers...
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)to some lottery somewhere to be held in the future.
Deal?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)The check is drawn on the National Credit Institute Bank of Nigeria and may take 5-7 months to clear. I hope that won't be a problem...?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)to send you $900 out of my bank account immediately before I find the check doesn't clear, is that about right?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Good, I won't have to explain the procedure....
"This will only hurt for a second..."
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)A bit light for grizzly, but enough for anything else in North America.
I have toyed with the idea of getting a .50 Beowulf upper for my AR-15, though...
DonP
(6,185 posts)That's the response I usually get when I ask a question.
Any attempt to get facts into the discussion, by stating them or asking for them, sends them off howling about "NRA talking points", and "Right wing nuts on DU claiming to be Dems" etc.
Apparently ignorance is a highly prized value for people proposing more gun control legislation. I wonder how they feel about "that shoulder thing that goes up" as a threat to the children?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Plastic and heat-seeking bullets. Put those in a weapon that has a shoulder thing that goes up and you truly have the most advanced weapon ever invented.
ileus
(15,396 posts)See that was easy.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)about as worthless as your post.
Took ya two years to find something about the evil assault weapons?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)some "high-powered assault rifles".
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I gues my rifle must be broken.
Shoots around 3/4moa when feeding it 168gr A-Max
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)Just kidding (sort of). Nice setup.
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)well I suppose it's two mono legs...
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Used as a bipod the Harris and Atlas bipods swivel and are more stable. This doesn't swivel. But I got this because as an AR, the rifle doesn't always get used from a rest or prone. I had a Harris on another rifle and disliked how it got in the way when not in use... just kind of made the rifle seem bulky and odd when folded up and shooting offhand. So I got this because it folds up and out of the way of my sling and front arm
If you are planning to use a rifle as a bench only or taget only I'd recommend a harris or Atlas... for a field or utility rifle the ModPod (or even Grip Pods) are pretty nice.
yamihere
(10 posts)[link:http://www.onenewsnow.com/AP/Search/US/Default.aspx?id=1577802|
"State online records show Ferrario's security guard registration and firearms permit were canceled in 2009 with no disciplinary action indicated."
OK, let me see if I got this right.
He lived in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and his firearms permit was revoked over 2 years ago. Yet, he still was able to open fire and kill people.
Now maybe, just maybe, all these "reasonable" gun laws are just there to make people that have an irrational fear of firearms or a weak mind feel good because apparently people who are bat shit crazy and want to kill people don't really care if the tool they are using to commit the crime with is illegal.
jenwilson
(47 posts)for not taking his guns as they should have.
Blame the shooter.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)lethal weapons.
I think that's just fancy question begging.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)..."such weapons". Exactly which ones?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...only obfuscation on your part. Thanks.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Very few people use their firearms as weapons....so why ban something benign?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...maybe you should drop the BS and just stick to the facts. Oh wait, if you did that, you'd have no case. Ok, never mind then.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Callisto32
(2,997 posts)Callisto32
(2,997 posts)If it were "High Power" it would fall into the category of "battle rifle."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...that any "assault rifles" were actually recovered from the scene of this event. Anyone find anything anywhere identifying an assault rifle?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...weapons are dangerous, like the .22 Iver Johnson that killed RFK.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Seen any change in the FBI UCR, MichaelHarris?
Seen any (black) white supremacists lately?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)According to the FBI UCR, all rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, only kill about 300 people a year. This is half as man as are killed with hands and feet.
Given the millions upon millions of these weapons in circulation, there is virtually no crime problem with rifles in the United States.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)"play" and "fun" with murder or just when it comes to "assault weapons"?
Response to gejohnston (Reply #79)
Post removed