Pistol grips on long guns, and rifle crime in general.
I ran across a discussion in another thread regarding pistol grip stocks on rifles, and rather than further hijack that thread, I decided to start a new thread on pistol grips, and rifle crime in general. It's a topic that comes up from time to time, but I think it's worth revisiting.
The initial statement that piqued my interest was this:
From a design standpoint, separating the handgrip from the shoulder stock allows the receiver of a firearm to sit well back over the hand, allowing a better weight distribution and (in some designs) a longer barrel (or longer receiver) for the same overall length. This was probably the main reason pistol grip designs were first introduced. However, their ergonomic advantages are what made them dominant in the civilian realm, first in high-end target rifles and then mainstream civilian guns.
However, as it turns out, vertical handgrips on long guns also put the wrist at the ideal angle when firing from the shoulder, allowing a more secure grip and a better trigger pull, and making it unnecessary to stick your dominant elbow up and out like a chicken wing when shooting from the shoulder. That's why almost all very-high-end European target rifles used in unlimited-class target shooting have either pistol grip stocks, or thumbhole/extreme Monte Carlo stocks that approximate pistol grip angles.
For example, here's an Anschutz single-shot bolt-action target rifle:
and a thumbhole design (same principle, same grip angle):
Here's an Olympic biathlon rifle (also bolt-action); notice the grip angle:
Next time you see an Olympic biathlete "spray firing from the hip", let me know.
Finally, here's a civilian AR-15 at a range. Notice the natural wrist angle, and the perfect alignment of the barrel axis with the shoulder.
That's not an accident; that's good ergonomics, and it's why all kinds of new rifles designed in the last decade or two have imitated the AR's design.
FWIW, if that guy dropped his arm to hip level, but kept the natural wrist angle, the rifle would be pointed at the ground about 3 feet in front of his feet. That's another nice thing about pistol grip stocks; they make it easier to point a long gun safely down at the floor while keeping the gun close to your body for security, instead of encouraging a less-safe muzzle high hold like straight stocks do. You can do a low hold with a traditional straight stock, but it bends your right wrist like a chicken wing and weakens your grasp on the gun. A pistol grip also makes it somewhat harder for an attacker to snatch a long gun away from you if they get close (muzzle-down carry also helps with this), and makes it easier to "short-stock" the gun if needed.
This line of thought surprised me a bit, as I believe it's the first time I've ever pistol grip stocks associated with concealability. Let me put that to rest by posting a pic of my first rifle (Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, a little .223 caliber carbine) with the three stocks I owned for it:
It was by far the most concealable with the straight stock, due to how slim it was. Even with the bottom stock (folds for storage), it was harder to conceal than with the straight stock; the grip probably added six inches in height to the rifle. And while none of them could be readily concealed under a coat by anyone not named "Sasquatch", the straight-stocked rifle would be easiest because the stock and receiver would align with one's arm, rather than sticking out several inches off-axis.
It was the rational thing to do. Rifles of any type are the least misused class of weapon in the United States, and pretty much always have been.
Table 20 - Murder by State and Type of Weapon 2010
Rifle homicide - FBI UCR
Criminal rifle possession - BATFE YCGIS
The 6-year trend in rifle homicides, 2005-2010, per the UCR:
2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
By comparison, blades were used to murder 1,704 people in 2010, and bare hands/shoes/knees/elbows were used to murder 745. Rifles are simply not commonly used in either homicide or aggravated assault in this country, contrary to the hype.
Finally, a disclaimer.
As the old saying goes, it's like ham and eggs; if you're a chicken, you're concerned, but if you're a pig, you're involved. I'm very much involved in this one; it was the "assault weapon" fraud that got me interested in gun politics to start with. I'm now down to three rifles---one bona fide weapon of war, and two roughly comparable civilian carbines, my favorite being a Rock River Arms 16" middy (a self-loading centerfire .22 in the AR-15 mold) that serves as my competition gun, plinking gun, target gun, and HD long gun.
I'd like to keep that and the SAR-1, and pass them down to my kids someday. Of course, since the AR-15 platform has long since become the most popular civilian rifle in the United States, I think the chances of another AWB---especially one that actually banned anything---are pretty slim. But that's an important issue to me, which is why I still follow the discussion as much as I can even though I have a whole lot of other stuff going on these days.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But this:
Is nothing but a death spewer...
for expected virulent pro-death spewer reaction...
This:
Is just a rifle with a folding stock.
...said that some folks, who are over eager for gun control, frequently would not know the difference between an AK-47 and an AC-47. 
I am a bit of a fan of the AC-130. Have a nice day.
but did you happen to check the rifle homicide stats from the FBI and the rifle possession stats from the BATFE that I posted? That rifle (a 7.62x39mm, BTW) is included in the FBI homicide tally....which means yeah, they are rarely misused in this country.
I'm also assuming you don't realize how popular non-automatic civilian AK derivatives are with the law-abiding shooting public, but that's understandable too, given the paucity of media coverage of noncriminal gun ownership.
Anyway, since I posted a pic of my current USPSA competition rifle in the OP (the Rock River AR), let me post a pic of my other carbine:
That's a 2002 Romanian SAR-1, a non-automatic civilian AK in 7.62x39mm (.30 Russian short, a little less powerful than .30-30 Winchester), essentially the same gun as the underfolder you posted just now. It fires exactly the same ammunition at exactly the same rate of fire as a Ruger Mini Thirty, and is functionally indistinguishable from any other civilian semiauto.
That SAR-1 was the rifle I got my start in USPSA carbine matches with, as it was a lot more affordable than an AR and I had a four-year-old and a two-year-old at the time.
For scale, here is the same carbine compared to my 9mm pistol, temporarily fitted with a stock that folds for storage and a Galil-style forend:
In any configuration, it is big, bulky, heavy as bricks, and is even harder to sorta-conceal than that straight-stocked mini-14 I posted in the OP. Even the magazines weigh ~2 pounds each, due to the thick steel they are made from (for durability). Not portable and not concealable, which is why (like other rifles) they barely rate in the homicide stats.
BTW, here it is in hunting configuration, with a 5-round hunting magazine and a 4x scope:
I would respectfully submit that my rifle is not, in fact, a "death spewer." It's an ultra-reliable, relatively small-caliber civilian carbine that fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled.
What I have is a strong desire for a safer, saner society in which one does not believe he needs such weapons of war for "self-defense."
I'd appreciate an apology, but given your apparent hostility to those who emphasize with the suffering of others...I don't expect one.
Why are you a rock? 
I think you've earned a political cartoon from a mid-size city newspaper:
By J.D. Crowe, Mobile Register - 1/20/2010
I'm very honest and earnest and can do so without making ludicrous off-topic analogies.
What you've proven is that you have a substantial amount of anger towards those who disagree with you and will go to great lengths to make a rhetorical argument against them. Nothing more.
"It is very disturbing to me that someone can be so convinced of something they can't actually demonstrate because their perception filters prevent them from actually reading, thinking, understanding, and applying reason of any kind. You're just the sort of person who behaves the way you do only because the internet allows you to get away with it. If we were face-to-face, you would actually feel the shame of deliberately refusing to back up your own assertions. But the internet allows you to believe you are something you are not."
Oh please...you're the one insisting that I play your game to prove some vacuous point about how reasonable the gun culture truly is when there are tens of millions of educated adult Americans who disagree with that perception. Are they all wrong? Am I wrong to note that this is not a zero-sum game of right and wrong? That this is a policy issue requiring an approach of compromise, but to deny the significance of the effect of gun violence upon victims and their family is to deny their very humanity. I have no such desire to play some game with a person who can't appreciate the basic issues at stake and instead seeks to play a game in order to prove himself right. It's like dueling, and I have no wish to do it. I have no desire to entertain your fantasies about having some sort of showdown with you.
"Thing is, I know to a certainty that you would behave very differently in person... especially if you knew you were being video-recorded. Assuming you are no coward, I'll let you know when I can come around your area. We can talk terms and make a nice lunch out of the occasion or something."
Case in point. Please enjoy an educational video about how arguments such as "You're a coward and are wrong" tend to play out in real life. I stand up for what I believe in; always have, always will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
Do you act this way in GD?
Let me remind you of what the gun control lobby *used* to say about Title 1 rifles like mine.
O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."
--Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, head of what is now the Brady Campaign 1978-1989 (Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48).
That statement is no less true now than it was then. Rifle crime was far worse when he said that than it is now. And when he wrote that, the AR-15 had been on the market for two decades and the M1 carbine for four decades.
It wasn't until 1988, when Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center popularized the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch as a means to build momentum for a ban on handguns, that the gun control lobby embarked on the rifle-ban crusade that would ultimately be its undoing.
And how, exactly, does advocating for cosmetic restrictions on the least misused of all U.S. weapons translate into a "safer, saner society"?
How does replacing this gun:
with this gun:
change rifle misuse one iota? They are the same gun. And the black-stocked one is less concealable, to boot.
I have posted a picture of exactly one weapon of war in this thread. This one, originally designed to kill human beings at extreme ranges:
That's a military rifle made in Izhevsk, Russia for the Imperial Russian army in 1905, which was converted to M39 configuration in 1942 at the Finnish VKT arsenal in Jyvaskyla, and which likely saw action in two world wars. The sights are graduated from 100 meters to 2 kilometers, the latter for volley fire. It's also the archetype of the modern deer rifle, but it's the only military gun I own.
The other gun pics I posted are exclusively civilian guns that are not used by any military on this planet, as I'm sure you'd realize if you stopped to think about it. And the AR-15 just *any* civilian gun; it is the most popular civilian centerfire sporting rifle in the United States.
I'm not sure if you're referring to the other poster, or opponents of the "assault weapon" fraud in general, but if the latter then you simply have no idea. Empathy can be simultaneously blessing and curse, but I choose empathy and heartache over ignorance and bliss anyday.
But tell me, O empathetic one who would likely toss my ass in jail over the shape of a rifle stock, what do cosmetic restrictions on the *least* misused weapons have to do with "the suffering of others"?
Не, только Западногерманские, да?
Mine must be defective then, because it works like an ordinary NFA Title 1 civilian rifle. Exactly like this one, in fact:
http://www.ruger.com/products/miniThirty/models.html
Same ammunition, same range of magazine capacities, same accuracy, same rate of fire (one shot at a time), Oh, wait, that one doesn't have an evil handgrip, so it's OK.
Seriously, that total indifference to what is real---extreme rhetoric ("death spewer"
in spite of the low level of rifle misuse, the functional distinctions between NFA Title 1 and Title 2 weapons, the fact that the guns you want to ban are less misused than the ones you don't want to ban---is exactly why your side lost the debate on this topic years ago, and why the "assault weapon" fraud eventually imploded the gun control movement in this country.
Civilian guns with protruding handgrips---AR's, Kel-Tecs, civilian AK's, FN's, what have you---are no longer just "in the mainstream" in the United States; they ARE the mainstream, thanks in part to the 1994 non-ban. In most of the country, you can once again buy AR-15's at Walmart, and AR/AK/M1A ammunition probably outsells all other centerfire rifle calibers combined.
Yet gun crime, and rifle crime, are about as low now as they've been in the last 50 years. Think about that.
You funny...
That's probably for the better...
Also - humor - it's a light of life. Not muzzle flashes...
"the vast majority of gun owners would like to see an end to violence wherever possible."
Prove it - I don't think most of the pro-death spewer fans here are likely to want to hear about what measures you'd like to take to further reduce gun violence...
I think it's pretty funny that someone would even try to alert on "death spewer" as inflammatory in a post that's basically a call-out.
I've got other things to do today than debate ad nauesum someone who proudly wants to walk right up to the misogynist line by claiming that the many wonderful women who advocate for gun control have lost their senses because they're not as "scientifically" engaged as their male counterparts.
I'll just state that there are several posters here with thousands of posts that think it's reasonable to carry a gun in the presence of the President of the United States, carry a gun on a commercial plane, believe we should legalize full automatics, and view gun control as an opportunity to debate for less restrictions.
Good day to you sir, I have no need to play games.
You can just go ahead and state what you intend to say without ascribing the quality of hatred to another poster without warrant.
It's definitely alert-worthy.
I'll merely refer you back to the question I posed to you that got hidden.
...when I'm not greeted with such language as this: "That you have to demonize people because of your hatred for guns shows a very irrational approach to the issue to begin with. It can certainly be characterized as 'hysterical', though I'll leave out the gender aspect of it." - The above poster seems to have a very thin skin and views such humorous language as an excuse to lash out at people.
How do you think we should fix our failing gun control system?
Personally, I don't find your presentation of "facts" to be convincing.
I won't go into details though - it's too side-splitting.
Here, have a cartoon:
...I have for you is this: should you be held to a higher standard than anyone else who wishes to keep hundreds of guns?
keep every gun locked up in a gun safe or cabinet if it is not on your person.
DissedByBushAviation technical writer, part-time Perl monkey, and amateur competitive shooter, who happens to enjoy shooting rifles designed in the last 50 years. Heck, I read all 4 Twilight books, and *liked* them; they'd kick me out of Seal Force Recon Delta for that. 
As I mentioned in the OP, I own one and only one military weapon---and it's 107 years old.
...he might BLOG you to death!
Don't be lulled into a false sense of security. I occasionally blog/post from my phone. I 'open-carry' that phone in a belt holster but it is technically concealed when I'm wearing a coat.
My backup phone is a revolver (dial type) and the Mrs won't let me pull it off the kitchen wall.
ETA: my main carry does have however have an extended clip of 12 on the speed-dial.
I mean it's not like anyone with an empty soda can can't figure out why the reverse is actually true.
Here's a photo that demonstrates that straight stocked weapons are easier to 'fire from the hip'.
Notice the straight, natural angle for the hand, similar to your fourth picture.
Matter of fact, you could flip a straight stocked rifle into position to fire from the hip faster than a pistol grip. (As that's the natural position for your hand and you wouldn't have to flex your elbow.)
No, you've just been conned by a talking point.
Take a flashlight in your hand at hip level and point it down at the ground. Flip your wrist to point the beam forward. Next, go grab a hair dryer or cordless drill (something with a pistol grip) and do the same thing.
It's obvious when you test it yourself.
...to keep people disarmed and safe?
I've shot from the hip. 5-gallon pail at maybe 10 yards (maybe 15, it was a while ago) with an autoloading, traditional-stocked .22 rifle. It held 15 rounds, and I doubt I hit it more than 3 or 4 times.
I had to "walk" my fire onto it, and have a rigid posture and careful body control to bring the gun onto the pail.
It would have been far faster and more lethal to simply mount the gun in the ordinary fashion... I could have scored 15 out of 15 in maybe 5 seconds.
It's hard to hold the gun perfectly level. A slight dip, and you're striking the ground a couple of dozen yards downrange. A slight rise, and you're shooting over the crowd. You don't have a good sense of reference. Bullets don't spark when they hit things (like the movies portray them) so you don't get a good sense of where they are impacting unless you hit dry dirt or maybe glass. And looking down at the gun to try to make sure it's level means you're not looking down-range for targets.
We'd save lives if more criminals shot from the hip (rifles and shotguns) or held their pistols sideways. Because they couldn't hit much.
The only way that it from the hip would have worked well is if I had a laser sight mounted on the gun, and then I could just shoot from the hip while watching the red laser dot.
...with local LEOs on hand?
Accuracy isn't the point, concealment, surprise, and firepower - make such weapons deadly and with the only really purpose of being a death spewer.
We're talking point blank.
I'm worried about people who would do their fellow citizens harm and the means they intend to do it in general. 
Oh keeper of the Gungeon Faith?
You haven't really been around DU long enough to have formed an adequate impression of my beliefs. Hope you decide to stick around
"At last, something about which I can agree with you" - If you can't see how that statement is slightly off considering his short membership, I have to wonder a bit.
You're obviously intending to insult.
...I no speaky good Engrish, I very sorree for no speaky Engrish good...you good American, bring much peace to my land.
Feel free to apologize for such an outlandish supposition after probably reading hundreds of my posts.
When you assume you're right and demand that others agree with you on what is a very highly debated issue - you make an ass out of yourself. Good day.
I don't berate and insult my opponents until I try to force agreement. That's bullying.
"Everyone who read your posts gave you that advice in one form or another."
That's a classic bullying phrase - well "everyone" characterizes something that's not actually the case; there are many here that agree with my perspective, in fact the majority of DU agrees with my perspective; but here in the Gungeon where views like yours have been relegated you have a plurality. Most of DU has forsaken this forum, not because they don't have an opinion on the issue, but because they do not wish to deal with posters such as yourself who choose to berate and dismiss the substance of arguments against your position out of hand. Believe me, when I see the statistics that get presented I don't turn away, but I do ask questions. I wonder what sort of reputation you had in school or college if you attended; did you behave this way then? Telling people that they have "comprehension" problems because they disagreed or annoyed you. Please, step back from the keyboard, because you're taking the warriorism way too far when you start to insult people that way. I'd suggest reconsidering how you approach people who disagree with you and develop a new approach other than trying to silence dissent. Think about it
...but in other countries and especially those less developed they are the weapon of choice. I think that as more enter the market, and more are diverted to criminal use, you'll see the number of incidents in rise. You're actually making a really good case for hand gun control. I again go back to this weapon, which since the expiration of the assault ban is now legal. What is the purpose of its design?
Today in L.A.:
January 11, 2012 | 2:53 pm
-- Andrew Blankstein and Angel Jennings
Two people were shot Wednesday, reportedly with an assault rifle, several blocks from a middle school in Cypress Park, authorities said.
The shooting occurred just after 2 p.m. at San Fernando Road near Loosmore Street. The assailants apparently fled in a white Chevrolet Astro van.
The conditions of the two victims -- an adult shot in the leg and a youth shot in the chest -- were not not immediately available, and their ages were not released.
Police were looking into reports that an AK-47 was used in the attack.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/2-shot-in-assault-weapon-attack-in-cypress-park.html
Simplified sociological arguments do not always trump questions of public safety. Why do you need to be able to outgun the police?
Yet? The rifle crime rate is going *down*, not up, and the overall violence rate is going down and has been for quite some time.
The shift toward smaller-caliber, higher-capacity civilian rifles has been going on for decades; my local Walmart sold Colt AR-15's and Norinco AK's circa 1988, and the AR first hit the market circa 1961 (JFK owned one). But the greatest increases in AR/AK ownership occurred 1994 to the present, and have coincided with a long decline in rifle crime and of gun violence in general.
I'm certainly not going to argue post hoc ergo prompter hoc here---I think it was other social factors at work---but more widespread "assault weapon" ownership has certainly not been associated with an increase in violence. Quite the contrary, actually.
Anywhere concealability (and to a lesser extent, portability) are irrelevant, rifles do make more sense as both offensive and defensive weapons than handguns do. That condition may be found across large parts of Africa, parts of Mexico, etc. The fact that the Warsaw Pact flooded large portions of the Third World with mass produced AK's (real ones, not civilian lookalikes) during the Cold War certainly didn't hurt the rifle/handgun balance, either.
The more developed and organized a region becomes, though, the more things shift from rifles toward handguns when out-and-about, as people trade range and capacity for concealability, portability, and convenience. I'd point out that rifles were once the personal weapon of choice in *this* country, too, back when it was almost exclusively rural.
Why would they? Rifle availability on the criminal market has not increased in the last 50 years and isn't increasing now. Any criminal who wanted a box-magazine-fed semiauto rifle or carbine in 1910, or 1940, or 1970, or 1990, or 2000 could get one. Thing is, they don't often choose them, for the reasons I've described at length in this thread.
But don't just take my word for it; look at period of sharpest increase in AK/AR sales, e.g. beginning in 1994 and continuing to the present day, and plot it against rifle homicide and overall homicide rates. Violence rates peaked well before the sales surge began and have been declining steadily since.
Well, by any objective standard, handguns in criminal hands *are* more of an issue than rifles and shotguns are. That, historically, is why handguns are more tightly controlled by Federal and most state law than rifles and shotguns.
You do need to distinguish between handguns in criminal and noncriminal hands, though; failure to do that was one of the gun control lobby's big strategic mistakes.
Umm, civilian AK's were legal 1994-2004; the Feinstein law banned no guns. AK's and 20/30-round magazines were just as legal in 1997 or 2002 as they are now.
The catch was that after 1994, *new* guns with folding stocks had to have the stocks pinned or tack-welded in the open position, the muzzle brake (if present) had to be pinned on rather than screwed on, the little protrusion on the bottom of the gas block couldn't be finish-machined, etc. But civilian AK's weren't banned, and neither were folding stocks; it's just that if you put a folder on a post-1994 AK, you could have theoretically gotten into trouble if someone noticed that the gun was post-'94.
My own AK and magazines are ban-era; here's how to tell by looking.
What aspect? The square-ish receiver? Curved magazines? Handgrip placement? Folding stock?
To understand what drove the actual military AK, you have to look at what it was designed to replace, namely the PPSh submachinegun and the Mosin-Nagant rifle. The AK-47 was designed to exactly split the difference between the two guns, allowing both of them to be phased out in favor of a single compromise design. At the flick of a switch, it could either spray bullets at 10 rounds per second, or fire one aimed shot at a time, therefore fulfilling the submachinegun and rifle roles passably well.
Civilian AK derivatives have only the one-shot-at-a-time mode, like other civilian rifles, and lose the rapid-fire capability. They retain the original's legendary reliability, durability, looks, and ergonomics. The intermediate cartridge gives it less recoil and higher capacity than larger caliber rifles and makes it cheaper to shoot, and the basic construction makes it affordable on a working-class paycheck.
From a civilian standpoint, you can think of it as a ruggedized Winchester Model 94 in .30-30 feeding from 20- or 30-round detachable magazines, and capable of similar accuracy and terminal ballistics. Excellent reliability, good capacity, decent performance, excellent price (mine was $379 in 2003). A Ruger Mini Thirty (same capabilities) was going for $600-$700 at the time.
An AK or AR doesn't "outgun the police." Police officers have access to Title 2 restricted machineguns and submachineguns, Title 2 restricted assault rifles (including actual M16s and M4s), restricted armor piercing ammunition, grenades, armored vehicles, body armor, yadda yadda yadda. A medium-caliber Title 1 civilian rifle doesn't "outgun the police" just because it looks like a police/government Title 2 automatic weapon.
Having said that, if a police officer shows up to a dwelling with only a pistol and the occupant has a shotgun or centerfire rifle of any sort, then yes, the officer could be considered "outgunned" until he/she goes back to the cruiser and breaks out the long gun. But the police can have rifles and shotguns that you get you or me 10 years in Federal prison for simply possessing.
But here's the crux of the matter---rifles are the least threatening to public safety of all U.S. firearms, as demonstrated by the firearm assault and firearm homicide data. Call it simplistic if you want, but when all styles of rifles combined account for only 3 murders out of 100, then anyone claiming rifles are a menace is simply selling fear.
(You're getting no further comments after these on this topic)
1. The assault weapons ban restricted sales from 1994-2005. Now that sales are booming, it's only logical that in time those guns will find their way into criminal hands, and then be put to criminal use. I also question using the rifle categorization as an assessor since it includes things like hunting rifles we aren't concerned about. Have you seriously asked yourself the simple question of what will happen to all these guns in time? Will they really become collectibles or will they just be going to a secondary market after all these people grow tired of their toys? To make a fun comparison, have you ever heard of the Great North Pacific Garbage Gyre? It is a massive field of floating, decaying plastic the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean; plastic is now finding its way into the fish population. Did plastic manufacturers anticipate this side effect? Probably not, they didn't care to think what the long term effect of our plastic-waste culture was going to be and this is the result. Similarly, I don't think assault weapons owners are thinking in the long-term about what effect they are going to have to society. They're just trying to read tea-leaves to make a narrow argument with very shaky logical justification, a contorted view of liberty as an individual question rather than as a social question.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/fish-ingesting-plastic-waste-study-finds/
2. When rifles were the preferred weapon of choice we had conceived of the blender or much less the Internet. Furthermore, the logical extension of the arguments made by those who think we should be allowed to carry arms wherever, whenever, we want is to de-emphasize the ability to conceal and to re-emphasize firepower. I'll call this the Wild West scenario where a society has gone from a stage where it doesn't have to address the problem of the public carrying arms to the point where you have to check your gun in with the Sheriff in Tombstone. Where does this "madness" (Bill Clinton's words, not mine) end if we are to have whatever gun rights we believe we ought to have irrespective of any possible social consequence?
3. You've already acknowledged: "I think it was other social factors at work," but still claim that connecting gun ownership with the violent crime rate provides an acceptable sociological analysis for the purpose of what gun control is necessary to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." If it doesn't meet that standard, all of them, a policy such as "gun control full of loopholes" is not in the broad public interest. You want these items, you have no real need for them; they do not secure the Blessings of Liberty in any real way unless you want to engage in the Red Dawn fantasy or nostalgia for the Confederacy. You have no right under any circumstance to have a need to overthrow the government in the Constitution; such arguments are anti-Federalist sophistry and mystification and this Democrat doesn't buy it for one minute.
4. I think the pro-gun lobby needs to ask itself how legal possession of guns becomes illegal possession of guns; for some reason (understandable), the pro-gun lobby doesn't want to engage this question in any meaningful way. This of course is understandable considering it makes for a great case for the true meaning of the Constitution, that the Second Amendment exists to create "a well regulated Militia" that can be called up to put down domestic insurrection or foreign invasion; rather than carte blanche gun rights.
5. I've already said I want a better written law so the gun manufacturers can't slither around the intent of the law. I think it's simple: weapon production must be approved by the government as being in accordance with State law, which of course can be coerced by Federal standard (see drunk driving laws). I don't care about the gun porn; that weapon has no purpose in independent hands, not connected with service in the Militia, other than to be, what I humorously call a "death spewer."
6. Killing other human beings; it has no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose on its own merit. I'll quote FDR on this issue:
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1931, opposing the Hanley-Fake firearms bill which would have increased access to handguns. Quoted in Gun Violence in America:The Struggle for Control, Alexander DeConde, 2003 (p.132).
7. This is where your argument falls entirely into anti-Federalist sophistry and mystification about various fantastical scenarios in which a suspect armed with these weapons is not a mortal threat to a law enforcement officer, operating under Constitutional protection, to reasonably undertake his job in upholding the law. I think here it's worthwhile to quote the former Governor of Vermont and Chairman of the Democratic Party on the expiration of the assault weapons ban:
September 13, 2004
On Monday, Sept.13, the law banning the manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons for private sale in the United States expired.
Before you read further I should tell you that my father was an avid hunter. I grew up with guns in the house, and although I do not hunt, I own an over-and-under shotgun. While running for office in Vermont, I won eight straight elections with the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. As Governor, I conserved hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat by partnering with the NRA to fight off the right-wing property rights advocates who opposed government land acquisition. I believed Vermont's outdoors should be the way it has been for generations, and now it will be.
However, I have never met a hunter who thought owning an assault weapon was necessary to shoot a deer or a bear. I have met a lot of law enforcement officers who think that the federal assault weapons ban saved a lot of their colleagues’ lives. I have met parents whose kids were killed by assault weapons years ago and are bracing for more of the same.
http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Cagle_Editorial_Assault_Wpns_Sept13_2004.htm
Here's the crux of the matter: we're not talking about rifles; we're talking about assault weapons. I would never deny your right to ownership of weapons for hunting, self-defense, and sport. But when your choice of weapons present a clear and present danger to the safety of the public and their officials, despite the best efforts of law enforcement, I believe you have exceeded any Constitutional mandate to not have your rights "infringed." I will finally quote the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Warren Burger (someone you'd expect to think otherwise):
---------
In 1992, Warren E. Burger, a former chief justice of the United States appointed by President Richard M. Nixon, expressed the prevailing view.
“The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all
(Again, you're not getting any further response, because very clearly you are more interested in having a fantastical debate than any substantive exchange - it's really obvious in your final three paragraphs that you don't wish to consider this in real life terms, but rather on your terms. Enjoy.
)
Evidently, it mattered to you what we call it, because otherwise there would have been no reason for you to assert (in your post #175):
And that is the crux of the matter, but only in the sense that "assault weapon" is a bullshit term, which in practice covers certain models or even configurations of firearm but not others, and makes the distinction almost entirely on the basis of cosmetic/ergonomics features alone. I hope benEzra doesn't mind if I borrow his photo:
With the wooden stock, this rifle is not a so-called "assault weapon."
With the rigid black stock, this rifle is an "assault weapon" in California.
With the folding stock, this rifle would have become an "assault weapon" for the purposes of the 1994 federal AWB.
Both in practical and legal terms, we're talking about the same firearm. Swapping out the furniture doesn't alter the ballistics or rate of fire.
More importantly, as others have pointed out or alluded in this thread, the Ruger Mini-series does not differ from AR and AK variants in any way that pertains to the proffered justifications for bans on so-called "assault weapons." They all accept detachable magazines, which means they can accept mags that hold more than 10 rounds, in .223 Remington or 7.62x39mm, and can go through the contents of those magazines as rapidly as the shooter can pull the trigger. The practical differences between the Ruger Mini-series and the "evil black rifles" is that AK variants are a lot cheaper, and that ARs were (until recently) more accurate, and that you could change calibers by installing a different upper receiver, which is cheaper than buying an entire new rifle (which you would have to do with a Ruger Mini). But no legislation pertaining to "assault weapons" ever addressed price, accuracy or modularity, so those distinctions are moot.
If you want to being up "'military' based usages," there isn't a governmental armed force in the world that has ever used a semi-auto-only variant of an assault rifle or sub-machine gun, mainly because they can get the selective-fire (i.e. full-auto-capable) versions. To get granular, by this I mean any weapon capable of being fired from the shoulder which fires a round with less kinetic energy than that possessed by a 7.62x51mm NATO round (.308 Win); the whole idea behind such weapons is that, at short range, they overcome lack of lethality inherent in the round by enabling the operator to put a bunch of them into the target in a very short amount of time.
That said, it behooves me to note that there are law enforcement agencies that issue "assault weapons" to their officers, from the (London) Metropolitan Police Service, which issues semi-auto-only H&K MP5s to officers at Heathrow airport to every police force in the United States that issues semi-auto-only AR variants as "patrol rifles." Now there's a funny thing: when legislators like Carolyn McCarthy and Chuck Schumer argue in favor of a renewed ban on "assault weapons," arguing that the only thing they're good for is mowing down large numbers of innocents, they invariably incorporate an exemption for law enforcement into the legislation they're pushing. Why is that? Do, in their minds, the police have legitimate need for weapons that are only good for mowing down large numbers of innocents? Or might it be that they tacitly acknowledge that there is a legitimate application for so-called "assault weapons" for a civilian (and cops are civilians, don't let them tell you otherwise) who needs to engage a small number of lightly armed opponents (as opposed to a heavily armed enemy who shows up in company or battalion strength)?
Handguns? I thought this thread was about pistol grips on long guns. You can hardly complain about pistols on the basis that they come with pistol grips, can you?
Anyway, if a person is deemed trustworthy in possession of one or two firearms, why should he (or she) not be trusted with as many as he damn well likes? Human anatomy being what it is, you can only wield two handguns or one long gun at a time anyway. The shooters at post office in Edmond, OK in 1986 or the Luby's in Killeen, TX in 1991 or Virginia Tech in 2007 wouldn't have been more lethal if they'd have three or more handguns on their respective persons, as opposed to the two each did have. And given that persons who run amok overwhelmingly choose locations to do so where everyone is almost certain to be unarmed anyway (e.g. schools, malls, anywhere in Europe, Japan or China outside a police station, etc.), they could probably rack up a similar body count with a single firearm (given enough pre-loaded magazines for it).
Well, your previous assertions do not indicate that your reasoning incorporates that presumption. If you truly understand and accept that the criminal demand for firearms, and their use in criminal activity, exists independently of the number of firearms in government and particularly in private ownership in any given society, you must--if you're intellectually honest and have a grasp of basic economics--accept that a criminal demand for guns will be met by a supply from somewhere. In spite of the presence of extremely stringent firearms laws, the criminal element in both Jamaica and Japan can acquire firearms if and when they want them, and in both cases, they're getting them from overseas (given the North Korean government's involvement in criminal activities, I would be in no way surprised if they weren't more than happy to run guns to the Yakuza in exchange for hard currency). But as opposed to Jamaican gangs, the yakuza are far more reticent to kill people, and especially to do so using firearms, not least because Japanese culture looks down on firearms (with a large dose of "Not Invented Here" syndrome combined with bullshido).
The fact is that criminals worldwide tend to prefer handguns, not least because many criminals who carry firearms do so for the purpose of self-protection against other criminals (particularly competitors) or to intimidate unarmed victims, and in those circumstances portability and concealability weigh heavier than lethality; in other words, better to have a handgun on your person than an AK variant in your car or at home. If we look at the UK, going by the notion that availability should dictate the type of firearms used, British criminals should primarily be using double-barreled shotguns and bolt-action rifles, since those are the only firearms one can legally own. Instead, the primary weapons used for criminal purposes are handguns and sub-machine guns. Yes, sub-machine guns; the number of people murdered with automatic weapons in the UK exceeds the number killed in the US, not only in relative but also in absolute numbers. The reason is simple: sub-machine guns are no more expensive to make than handguns, and being quite compact, they're almost as easy to smuggle, which means that, on the black market, they shouldn't cost much more than a smuggled handgun while providing way more firepower. And when the penalty for illegally possessing a handgun is no heavier than for possessing an automatic weapon, why not go with the SMG?
Yeah, hey, imagine that: criminals not only don't follow gun laws, they find find ways to break them that the legislators hadn't thought of. Who could've guessed?
"you must--if you're intellectually honest and have a grasp of basic economics--accept that a criminal demand for guns will be met by a supply from somewhere."
The U.S. Government disagrees, which is why it has the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. You can keep spamming the same shit that's been discussed ad nauseum, but it's still not convincing.
That's it's just ergonomic
All these fucking guns - that one day no one will use...
...This is the gun control and RKBA forum. Not science discussion...
"And I love the 'military grade' canard."
So you're admitting the only difference between these weapons and military weapons is that they're not full auto. How long before you all are demanding full auto?
"Grandpap's 30-06 is more deadly than any of these so-called 'assault weapons'."
Complete bullshit.
I'm sure you'll now post a picture of a World War I British soldier to try and prove your point, but really it's just gibberish to justify an unhealthy clinging to guns.
Owe their history to a military weapon.
Even bolt action 'huntin gunz' are derived from military arms. (Mauser, etc)
Pump-action shotguns? WWI trench sweepers.
[div class='excerpt']"Grandpap's 30-06 is more deadly than any of these so-called 'assault weapons'."
Complete bullshit.
I'm sure you'll now post a picture of a World War I British soldier to try and prove your point, but really it's just gibberish to justify an unhealthy clinging to guns.
The .30-06 is the cartridge used in many battle rifles. It is truly high-power. Range for effective, targeted fire to stop a man sized target is 1000 yards (and still have enough energy to punch a soda can-sized hole.)
So-called 'assault weapons' such as AR-15's and AK variants use intermediate caliber rounds. Range is no more than 500 yards for 7.62 and 300 yards for 5.56.
5.56 on the left, .30-06 in the middle.
Assault weapons are characterized by their compact design, use for close in attack, generally high rate of fire, ability to use high capacity magazines, and purposed military combat application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Backed up; that combination of characteristics serves to make it a more lethal combination in many circumstances than a traditional long rifle. Given their frequent use to this effect, the claim that they are more lethal than the traditional long rifle is contextually correct in modern times.
post.
How does anything that protrudes from a rifle aid in concealment?
Brilliant thinking, this!
We have slings specially designed for easy carrying in this position. Notice, it's not for hip spraying. The soldier can instantly take a bead for shoulder fire on fully automatic, and therefore have a good chance at hitting his target(s).
Hip spraying is dumb, dumb, dumb. Here is a weapon that is almost useless on single-fire, as it was designed for controllable fully automatic fire of a small round (and not as an "assault" weapon, but as a personal defense weapon).
It is very difficult to fire comfortably from the hip, only from the shoulder.
But then you probably believe the gangsta style of shooting a pistol sideways makes him more likely to hit his target.
in the hands of the inventor's son.
I don't know if that's the best way to use the rifle. The sight picture from that angle is probably not the most accurate.
Then again, I never took shooting lessons from a Lieutenant.
="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="
" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
The pistol grip would make it easier to control the bayonet.
Lighten up
First, they're great for opening cans. They seem to be made of very strong steel, plus they're ugly enough that opening a can won't mar them noticably.
Second, stick a bayonet into a tree, and it makes a great T-P roll holder. This is after using the same bayonet to dig a personal latrine hole.
I sharpened the army bayonet, so I could use it as a general-duty knife. Not the best for that purpose, but it worked for cutting rope, army green tape, communication wire, etc.
Disclaimer: The only blood drawn with my bayonets was my own. Ouch.
Here's my superhero sidekick on his way to his most recent cardiology checkup at Duke Children's:
He's gained back most of his pre-surgery weight and is totally back to baseline in most respects, except for being on a small amount of Lasix to deal with some residual lung effusion. The heart surgery was totally successful, but they do need to go back in with a balloon catheter and dilate some stenoses in the distal pulmonary arteries, which they can't reach surgically, so I'll be taking him back to Boston Children's in a couple months for that. (We knew about that going in, so this isn't unexpected.)
His RV-PA conduit looks great and it's big enough that it should last him till the valve wears out, and it's designed to accomodate one transcatheter valve replacement (Melody valve). So it's not unreasonable to speculate that he could go 20 years on this conduit, unless calcification is worse than expected or something.
He also made out like a bandit on Christmas presents, as might be expected. Although I didn't fulfill one request....he asked me a few weeks ago for a semiauto-only PPSh to keep in the safe for range trips.
I then raised the question of whether such sources were allowable in DU3.
to aimed fire from an ordinary 1970s vintage Beretta 9mm pistol:
Or aimed fire from a civilian AK (or other non-automatic rifle) from the shoulder, as designed:
Or, heck, compare it to aimed fire from 1860s-1870s vintage lever-actions, single-action revolvers, and pump shotguns with 2-round magazines:
Check out the rate of aimed fire of that lever-action rifle at 0:12...and consider that you could have anywhere from 15 to 34 rounds in the magazine. In 1873.
Yeah, hip shooting generally sucks, unless you are shooting a full-auto subgun that doesn't kick much (e.g. an actual Title 2 restricted PPSh or something along that line).
If AK-from-the-hip guy had been shooting against actual targets, he'd have been lucky to have gotten two or three of A-zone hits with an entire magazine.
To the skeptics: Find a USPSA or 3-gun match in your area and attend as a spectator. Observe whether people who are shooting actual targets against the clock hip-shoot or shoot from the shoulder. After all, if hip shooting were the fastest way to get hits, people would be doing it to win matches.
Edited to add:
You can hip-shoot a lever-action too, if you want to make noise fast and not hit anything, just like you can with a semiauto:
That was no-where near a hip...
They'd hit a lot fewer people.
And here's another thumbhole gun, basically an enclosed pistol grip as noted, in a single-shot gun good for pretty much nothing but hunting:
Check the profile.