This is why assault weapons should be illegal!

[Breathe]

You may have read about the 12-year-old boy in South Carolina who was shot and killed while trick-or-treating. What you may not know (or at least I didn't) is that he was shot with an automatic weapon. An AK-47. His poor little body was riddled with 13 bullets, one for each year he was alive -- plus one. It was the one that entered above his eye that killed him. His nine-year-old brother took two bullets and his father two more. Who knows how many missed? Soooo, at least 17 bullets in just a few seconds.

It's ridiculous that these guns are legal. How many people have to die before we legislate some sanity?

The whole sad story is here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446005,00.html

Caution: The details are so sad they made me cry. So know that.

[Throckmorton]

1. I don't think the person that did the shooting gave a damn

if the gun was legal. He was a convicted felon that could not largely own a gun in the first place.

[MercutioATC]

2. If you can define "assault weapon", I'll listen.

Automatic weapons have been regulated (and heavily restricted) for decades. This boy was not killed by an "assault weapon".

Give me a definition and we'll talk.

[Oregone]

3. Forgive my ignorance....

What firearm was involved? Was it fully auto?

[charlie]

4. AK-47

I've never seen it reported that it was an automatic.

[Oregone]

6. I know that "assualt rifle" is somewhat arbitrary as a term, but why isn't an AK47 one generally?

Do you think the definition should be expanded to include it? Isn't that generally a military grade weapon?

[Breathe]

7. It was the FIRST assault rifle

It was one of the first true assault rifles and, due to its durability and ease of use, remains the most widely used assault rifle in the world. More AK-type rifles have been produced than any other assault rifle.

Here is a link for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

[Oregone]

12. Thanks, Im knowledgable of AK47s BTW

Im more inquiring why they are not considered "assault rifles" as the poster is suggesting, other than if they perhaps do not meet the legal definition (which should perhaps be changed, or...not?!?).

[MercutioATC]

16. That's true...and a fully-automatic AK-47 is illegal to own in the U.S.

...without extensive background checks, federal licensing, and a $200/year tariff for each automatic weapon owned.

The article doesn't mention whether the firearm involved was fully automatic or not. If it was, it's not an "assault weapon" as defined by the AWB. If it wasn't, the shooter worked very hard to kil that boy and wound other people...and he could have done the same with ANY firearm..."assault weapon" or not.

Again, define "assault weapon"...

[Testament]

105. It's 200 per transfer of an NFA firearm except AOWs at 5 dollars. n/t

[pinniped]

21. I'll go with the StG44 being the first true assault rifle.

Of course, unlike the AK-47, there are not millions of these flooding the world.

[SteveM]

92. Assault Rifles: full-auto capable. "Assault weapons:" gun-controller term...

which has been contorted intentionally to mean full-auto when in fact it is semi-automatic. The former term is predominantly used by the military and firearms experts to designate full-auto (which is why it is termed "assault"); the latter by gun-controllers/banners to confuse the public into banning semi-auto firearms (owned by millions of Americans). This latter group DOES NOT fire full auto.

I have a semi-auto rifle which was made in 1905.

[charlie]

13. I don't know

To your second question, I don't know if it should or shouldn't, either. I think there's some merit to the argument that bans centered on cosmetic differences are probably ineffective and a bit silly. Regulation should be based on their firepower or at least something more substantial than stylings.

The AK-47 is an old military workhorse, yes. But saying it's "military grade" would seem to imply that it's potentially more lethal than legal civilian weapons, and I don't know if that's true. I'm not a gun aficionado though, I don't like them, so I'm talking out of my hat here.

[Oregone]

22. I didn't imply more "lethal" by saying that....

Hell, a kitchen knife is pretty lethal when used properly (or rather, improperly).

What I mean is that it is more suitable for a wider spectrum (meaning most) of military action than say, a bolt action 22 (which is great for gopher hunting). 100 soldiers of equal training will fare better armed with AK47 than than another group armed with many 'civilian weapons' (as you put it) in large number of varied scenarios. That is more what I meant. It is precisely designed military combat usage.

And yes, a ban based on aesthetic differences is ridiculous. Perhaps they should develop a metric looking at stopping power, rounds per minute (and accuracy rates at the maximums over distances), armor piercing abilities, ease to automate action, etc. The point (I THINK) is to remove weapons that can cause drastic damage in very short periods of time, which also have no practical usage that can be justified (or replaced with a less dangerous firearm). Where you set the bar, who knows...I think we can mostly agree you can at least consider a 50 cal auto a bit overkill and work down to what may be acceptable. In the end, its going to have to be some sort of arbitrary call, but one that can be backed up with statistics based on incidents of usage (and damage) of certain models of firearms.

BTW, as for home defense, I would prefer my tactical cruiser shotgun over numerous 'military grade' rifles. This seems like a weapon a bit out of place.

[benEzra]

47. Only 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle,

And yes, a ban based on aesthetic differences is ridiculous. Perhaps they should develop a metric looking at stopping power, rounds per minute (and accuracy rates at the maximums over distances), armor piercing abilities, ease to automate action, etc. ... In the end, its going to have to be some sort of arbitrary call, but one that can be backed up with statistics based on incidents of usage (and damage) of certain models of firearms.

Problems with your metric:

(1) Even though substantially more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt, only 3% of U.S .murders involve any type of rifle, and many states report zero rifle murders in any given year (most states are in the single digits).

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

(2) Non-automatic civilian AK's are the least powerful of common .30 caliber rifles, have less armor piercing ability than a typical deer rifle, and don't fire any faster than an ordinary civilian pistol or carbine. Velocity and kinetic energy figures here, if you're interested:

http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=16466

By the criteria you list, civilian AK lookalikes would be pretty far down your list.

The point (I THINK) is to remove weapons that can cause drastic damage in very short periods of time, which also have no practical usage that can be justified (or replaced with a less dangerous firearm). Where you set the bar, who knows...I think we can mostly agree you can at least consider a 50 cal auto a bit overkill and work down to what may be acceptable.

BTW, as for home defense, I would prefer my tactical cruiser shotgun over numerous 'military grade' rifles. This seems like a weapon a bit out of place.

Given that "assault weapons" are the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes, they have considerably more practical use for most of us than hunting rifles do. (The vast majority of gun owners are nonhunters.)

I personally shoot competitively and recreationally with a civilian AK lookalike (2002 model SAR-1), and my wife shoots a very collectible 1952 SKS, FWIW.

In my opinion, it is far more relevant to this tragedy that the murderer in this case was a meth dealer who was legally prohibited from so much as touching any firearm (and obtained one anyway) than what his rifle looked like.

[krispos42]

87. A real AK-47 is an "assault rifle"

It is selectable between single-shot semi-automatic fire and fully-automatic fire.



The civilian version available to the average joe is the same rifle with the full-auto feature permenately removed. It's actually an "AK-47-pattern rifle".


It has the mechanical reliability and durability of the military version, which are features that are desirable characteristics for all mechanical devices.



Without the full-auto features, it's just a modern-looking semi-auto rifle.

[krispos42]

89. "assault rifle" is actually defined pretty well

It's a rifle chambered for a round that is midway in power between full-power battle rifles (bolt-action or semi-auto guns) and a submachine gun, that has the ability to fire either fully automatically or semi-automatically.

The M-16, for example, fires the 5.56mm NATO round, a .224-caliber cartridge which generates about 1,300 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle.

This is between the 7.62mm NATO, a .30 caliber round that makes about 2,700 ft-lbs at the muzzle, and the 9mm Luger, which makes about 450 ft-lbs from a submachine gun.


Basically they want a cartridge that was supersonic and accurate up to about 500 yards, but with a light enough recoil so that the rifle is controllable in full-auto fire. An assault rifle can be used as both a battle rifle and a submachine gun.




The civilian version of the M-16 is the AR-15, which makes it a semi-automatic rifle firing a moderately powerful cartridge. Same story with civilian AK-47s... semi-auto rifles shooting a fairly mild .30-caliber cartridge only a bit more than half as powerful at the 7.62mm NATO.

[TomInTib]

8. No way.

You cannot punch someone 13 times with an AK.

I mean, come on. You would have to be rght on top of them to hit them that many times.

Something is skunky, here.

Tom

[Breathe]

11. He was right on top of them

He shot them at almost point blank range. There were many witnesses. His house was full of people. He basically greeted them at the door with it.

[TomInTib]

15. Wow.

That's tough.

What a shit.

[charlie]

18. He shot them through the door, wall, and window

Dude had to be psychotically paranoid to do that kind of overkill. Probably strung out on some of his merchandise.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

9. I am not an expert, but here's what I know-

You didn't used to be able to legally buy full automatic assault rifles, but there were loopholes; A friend of mine used to get these catalogs where you could buy semi-automatic UZI's, AK-47's, and AR-15's, and on the next page you could order conversion kits to make them full automatic (with disclaimers saying these kits were not to be used to convert weapons to full automatic) I don't know where we are now- I did hear that the assault weapon ban expired while Bush was in office, and obviously was never re-enacted...

[Breathe]

14. BushCo let the ban expire

A ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban expired on September 13, 2004. Bush refused to renew it.

Here's a link for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

[MercutioATC]

19. Rightfully. The definition of "assault weapon" in the AWB made no sense.

Essentially, an AWB "assault weapon" was any semiautomatic firearm that looked "scary".

I have no issue with sensible gun control, but it should be sensible.

[logjon]

121. sensibility

kinda lonely here in the middle eh? who needs an informed opinion when you can let emotion make all your decisions for you?

[aikoaiko]

37. Bush can be blamed for a lot, but the AWB reauthorization never made it to Bush's desk

Not when republicans had both houses and not when Democrats had both houses because, I think, it would hurt whatever party pushed for it.

[slackmaster]

40. No Caroleeena, Congress let the ban expire

The people who supported the ban had TEN FULL YEARS to gather statistics on how the ban cut crime rates or made us all safer or whatever it was supposed to accomplish, but they came up empty-handed.

Why? Because the ban did NOT have any positive effect on public safety.

Bush even said that he was willing to sign a new ban. Congress never sent him one.

[rl6214]

76. Wrong, Sen Craig from Idaho

was the one that prevented it from being renewed. For his part, Bushy said he would sign any renewal that got to his desk. The house and senate never got it there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. Your own wiki link refutes your allegations? Did you even read it?

The renewal was voted down in the Senate 8-90. You have a lot more people to blame than Bush Co. I'm guessing tomorrow you are probably voting for people who voted against renewing the AWB. You must not be that sad about it, if you are going to vote for these people.

David

[krispos42]

90. Which one of these should be banned?

A.







B.







C.







And can you tell me why this AR-15 is legal in California, which has an assault-weapons ban...




But this one isn't?






Interesting factoid about the last one there... actually it becomes California-legal by changing one single, minor part. I'll tell you after you asnwer my questions. ;-)

[needledriver]

109. Which should be banned?

A, B, C - none of them. They are the same weapon with different stocks.

The upper AR 15 is legal because it does not have a projecting hand grip or a thumb hole stock.

The lower AR 15 could be rendered CA legal if you fit it with a magazine release that requires a "tool" to release the magazine.

I have every confidence those magazines are blocked to a CA legal maximum of 10 rounds...

[SteveM]

93. Do you acknowledge the difference between "full auto" and "semi-auto?"...

"Full auto" is already highly regulated by the Feds; there are perhaps 250,000 - 300,000 owners in the U.S. They show up in crime far more often on T.V. drama than in real life; in fact, their use in real life U.S.A. is stunningly rare.

"Semi auto" is a firearm which requires that the trigger be pulled for EACH round fired; the automation is only used to eject the spent cartridge, load in a fresh round and cock the firing pin. Tens of millions of people own semi-auto firearms which are no more regulated than revolvers, shotguns and deer rifles.

It is important that you acknowledge this difference. Otherwise, you are seeking to ban a moderately powered rifle owned by millions of Americans, on the basis of cosmetic characteristics. Peruse the threads in this forum and you will see many, many pictures of semi-auto deer rifles of greater power than the so-called "assault weapon."

BTW, gun-controllers INTENTIONALLY confused the above terms by concocting "assault weapon" category. And the news media goes along with this unethical argument, without exception. Further, the "ban" you reference did not ban anything but "scary" features: muzzle shrouds (to prevent burning your hands on a hot barrel), folding stocks, bayonet lugs, etc. Without these features, the gun was completely legal to purchase during the "ban." And they were bought by the millions, so modified.

The proposed "assault weapons ban" is a virtual litmus test for pro-2A activists, and the Holy Grail of gun-controllers in a protracted and highly damaging culture war, started in large part by anti-gun activists some 35 years ago. It has cost (according to Bill Clinton) the election of at least one Democratic president (Gore); and has unseated scores of U.S. Congress persons and Senators as well as untold numbers of state legislators.

Yet the war goes on.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recursion]

115. Bush would have signed the ban

We didn't push it because it was a stupid law and we were sick of carrying Republicans' water for it.

[RamboLiberal]

63. Full auto makes no friggin difference

Think how fast someone can pull a trigger. You can fire as fast as you can pull a trigger with a semi-auto. You can empty a mag with a semi-auto only a few seconds slower at most than a full auto.

[phigmeta]

111. and oswald proved that any gun can be fired quickly

Oswald fired 3 shot in 8.4 seconds .... frankly at point blank he could have use any gun ... well of course maybe not a muzzle loader ... but then again that's a 50 cal so you probably think that is bad too

[Scout]

113. no he didn't

"Oswald fired 3 shot in 8.4 seconds "

:eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

72. What you "know" is not true.

ALL fully-automatic weapons have been regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act. AK-47's sold in the US are semi-automatic only. They are not easily converted to fully automatic. If you attempt to do so, before you have even fired the weapon, you are committing a felony. I have never once seen any such kit for sale at a gun show, or any reputable firearms dealer, and expect most if not all are honeypots for the BATFE. (as they damn well should be)

The 'Assault Weapons' ban of 1994 did not ban any fully automatic weapons to my knowledge. It banned civilian semi-automatic rifles that are perfectly normal for, say, deer hunting. A .30 caliber 7.62x39mm round is perfectly fine for hunting deer. That is what the AK-47 you can purchase in the US fires. If that gun, used in the crime in the OP was in fact fully automatic, the 1994 AWB would not have prevented this tragedy.

As it is, someone needs to go to jail for allowing him possession of the weapon, since Felons are forbidden posession of firearms.

[phigmeta]

112. Because of the AWB he probibly owns this gun

The AWB (assault weapons ban) was effective only in driving up the prices of said guns ... this created a lucrative market for illegal gun runners.

And here is the issue with this ban. You can sell an AK47 in Mexico for about 300 USD ... same gun sold here legally is about 400 to 500 USD post-ban.... before the AWB expired you could only sell it on the US streets for about 900 USD ... and frankly there is no way to track the gun back to a dealer because it was illegally imported.

Now if it was a full auto .... then you CAN'T sell it legally (it would still be illegal under 922r) EVEN if it was a pre-ban MOST dealers don't have class 3 lic. So you are left will the sad reality that this gun would be imported illegally and sold on the streets for about 1200 USD. What really sad is that gun regulation has had the opposite effect on the illegal market. Allow me to explain.

Most countries who would allow an AK-47 to be purchased would also allow them to be Full auto. The Semi guns are usually only sold here and therefore are usually to legal gun dealers. Smuggled guns come into the country full-auto because that is how they were designed to be sold outside of the states.

What this means is that the 1937 act has garenteed america that if a new Full auto gun is in the has of someone it is going to in most cases be in the hands of a criminal and of course ILLEGALLY SMUGGLED. NO GUN CONTROL CAN STOP THAT.

the 922r ruling insures that the market for legally importing guns would be expensive ... thus setting the market.

And the AWB insured that a) gun enthusiast were often accidentally breaking the law due to the confusion that the law presented. b) criminals had better guns than the average citizen. c)the black market had a whole new line of products that they could sell.

NONE OF THESE LAWS have reduced crime.


For those of you that still don't get it .... its like that pot your smoking. the only thing that drug control has done is make it more expensive and make you a criminal. And of course the drug control in this country has caused the money spent on that dope to go to a criminal and will eventually fund some act of violence.

Gun laws are only followed by the victims

[Recursion]

114. No. No. No. You're wrong in every sentence, basically.

[Breathe]

5. It was an AK-47

It's in the article. AK-47's are legal in many places in the US. And it's crazy that they are.

[MercutioATC]

24. Why is it "crazy"? Are you under the impression that all AK-47s are fully automatic?

[rl6214]

77. In order for it to be an ak47

it is either select fire or fully automatic otherwise it is an ak47 clone such as a wasr-10. Just like an m16 is select fire or full auto and an ar15 is semi auto.

[Richard Steele]

28. Consider your hysterical concern to be duly noted.

nm

[pinniped]

17. In my 1986 copy of Gun Digest Assault Weapons book, every firearm in it....

is full-auto.

All of the so-called assault weapons banned in 1989 and 1994 were semi-autos.

So, according to these gun bans, the definition of "assault weapon" has evolved to include semi-autos.

[MercutioATC]

20. Not "evolved to include"...automatic weapons are already restricted.

The AWB deals exclusively with semiautomatic firearms.

[pinniped]

26. No kidding. Minus 'evolved' then.

Discussing definitions is pointless anyways. He could've been killed with a fixed 30-rd mag SKS for all we know.

[MercutioATC]

27. He could have just as easily been killed with a revolver.

I can drop a magazine and reload in a little less than three seconds...and I'm not even good. 10-round, 15-round, 30-round...it makes no difference.

The average revolver holds six rounds. Any competent shooter could kill six people with a "non-assault-weapon" revolver if that was their intent. It's tragic that a child was killed, but it's the fault of the shooter, not the gun.

[pinniped]

29. Ya, this was a recipe for disaster.

- ex-con
- drug dealer
- deadly weapon

These three don't go well together.

[depakid]

25. The rate of fire is still fast with a semi-auto -and the magazine capacity

is still large.

I think most reasonable people know what assault weapons are vis a vis hunting rifles or ordinary handguns (which unfortunately are also capable of a rapid fire from relatively high capacity clips).

That's why they too were bought back and then banned for "public consumption" in Ausralia, alongside pump action shotguns.

[Pavulon]

83. And free speech on the internet, banned..Find a good proxy server

you now rank up with the great firewall of china....

You may not be able to find this site one day.

[Hangingon]

101. I have been thinking about your question since yesterday.

"Assault rifle is a recognized term with a definition. These are miltary or, at least, law enforcement weapons that have selective fire - they shoot full auto. That means one trigger pull puts out a lot of rounds. The automatic weapon, "assault rifle", is covered under a 1934 law and is very expensive and difficult for a private individual to acquire. Once acquired, they are expensive to operate - ammo costs are high and things like barrels wear out quickly. Legal automatic weapons are not used in crimes according to FBI statistics. On the other hand, "assault weapon" is a recognized term without a definition. When we ask we are told that these are semi-automatic firearms that look like military weapons - the semi-auto AK-47 or the black plastic AR-15 with a pistol grip and/or bayonet lug. (When was the last time your read a MSM story about a gangbanger using a bayonet?) When we push for a better definition, we are usually told the "assault weapon" shares a basic operating system with an assault rifle or has a derivative operating system from a military rifle. Often the assertion is made that these can be made fully automatic. (Maybe if you have the tools. Legend has it Carbine Williams built the prototype for the M-1 carbine in a prison workshop). Since most of the guns or gun designs made over the last 400 years have been used by the military, so this means all guns. So for me, the de facto definition of "assault weapon" is any firearm. Look at the list of forbidden weapons in the old AWB and the new legislation and you will see where I come from.

[billyoc]

10. Automatic weapons ARE illegal without very special licenses, which are impossible to get.

I read the killer grabbed $7,500 in cash and ran, sounds like dopers with illegal guns.

[TomInTib]

23. Actually, those permits are not "impossible to get".

But you better have your act together, if you apply.

[varkam]

30. Regardless, the guy was a felon and wasn't supposed to have a firearm anyway. eom

[aikoaiko]

31. That sad case, shows many things. The war on drugs is a failure, Dangerous criminals should be in..

prison. We can do more to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals. etc.

But it does NOT show that one should keep firearms (even semi-automatic AK47 style weapons) out of the hands of law abiding folks.

[Rancid Crabtree]

32. Why don't they enforce the laws we already have?

There's enough information in the story to suggest that the shooter wasn't a high-caliber person...the world we live in is a cold place...and the neighbors two doors down apparently didn't know him...and probably didn't want to know him...and probably suspected he was engaged in illegal activity...but didn't want to get involved...had some people been more involved in that neighborhood...perhaps they would have happened to visit and seen the availability of an "assault weapon"...most of mine are kept in a safe...

And why get excited over a senseless killing involving a firearm when the numbers of senseless deaths due to drunken driving are out there for anyone looking for a cause...we trust sixteen-year-old with the keys to the family car...or in many cases they have their own...we know how many drinks impair a driver...why don't we ban alcohol?...oh yeah, we tried that...

We have legislation that is supposed to stop senseless violence like what happened...will legislation that is worded differently change the actions of people prone to ignoring the law? Will different legislation make it possible for people to become more involved with their neighborhood?...We have a revolving door justice system and I suspect if the reporters who covered this story dug deeper, they'd discover that the shooter is someone that was involved with the police in the past...was known by the police...was known by the people in the neighborhood to be involved in illegal activity.

So why blame an inanimate object when the responsibility for what took place can be leveled around the block?

[Vroomfondel]

33. Jesus......here go the knee-jerks again.

And I say that as a liberal myself. Just not of the knee-jerk variety. Do you actually not understand that the last time this was tried (outlawing "assault weapons") under Bill Clinton, it cost him his Democratic congress? Do you not understand that this was the lynchpin of Gingrich's "contract with america"?

Every time the progressive movement appears poised to make some actual PROGRESS, the gun grabbers start hyperventilating again. Ok......learn this......please........TRYING TO PASS ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES = POLITICAL SUICIDE. GET IT?

I feel terrible for that young boy and his family. But attempting to ban firearms will not stop anything. I'm all for background checks. I'm all for a waiting period. But arbitrary, knee-jerk gun-grabbing is not the answer.

If you want Barack to be a one-term president, and a return to a Republican congress, keep up the talk about gun-grabbing. I really thought some of you people would have learned this by now.

[RB TexLa]

34. Horrible story and crime. And it would have just has bad if he had used a shotgun with a full

length barrel.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

35. I Agree, Caroleeena, But...

I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Not with the NRA trying to block every sensible gun control law that comes down the pike. There is absolutely NO excuse for allowing regular citizens to own assualt weapons!!

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

44. And we aren't.

Assuming by 'assault weapons' you mean fully automatic ones. If you means the term coined by the assaalt weapons ban, then there are several reasons why you should be allowed to own one.

[Hangingon]

46. I keep up pretty well and have not seen a "sensible' gun control

law proposed yet. Most penalize the legitimate gun owner. We have adequate gun laws now but they are not enforced. In the VA Tech case, the shooter's mental health record, which should have prebented his gun purchase, was blocked by the court and was not available in the background check. Enforce the laws we have before we pass some more.

[SteveM]

94. Should any semi-auto weapon be banned? (nt)

[raccoon]

36. I totally agree. No average American citizen needs an assault weapon. Rec'd. nt

[aikoaiko]

38. I disagree. Self-defense is fine reason (i.e., need) to own such a weapon.

eta:
So called assault weapons are merely semi-automatic rifle, shotguns, and pistols that have relatively modern designs and are well suited for peace officers to carry.

[raccoon]

43. What's wrong with a regular pistol or rifle for self-defense?

Average citizen doesn't need a weapon designed just to kill lots of people quickly.

[aikoaiko]

45. Yes, but a situation where one would be needed wouldn't be average or normal.

Truth is, sometimes, multiple bad guys do invade homes. An acquaintance of mine had his house robbed. He had security cameras record the whole thing. One guy rang the bell, went away, came back with two more thugs. They each had guns, they kicked the door in, scooped up the flat screen and left. Fortunately no one was home, but what if my friend had been napping upstairs or cooking in the kitchen when that first thug rang the bell.

The average citizen won't experience that event, but enough of us do that I support us having the guns of our choice (given federal and state laws) to defend ourselves from criminals.

I won't support any politician who takes guns out of the hands of civilians that his own security forces use for self-defense.

[benEzra]

48. "Assault weapons" ARE regular rifles.

They are the most popular civilian rifles in America, the most popular centerfire target rifles in the nation, and the most common defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

"Weapons designed just to kill lots of people quickly" are already tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act. You are talking about non-automatic civilian guns, not military hardware.

"Assault weapon":





Same gun, 3 different stocks.

"Assault weapons" aren't military automatic weapons; the term is BS-speak for non-automatic civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out

[aikoaiko]

61. I almost wrote the same thing, but didn't have the strength to explain.

You do it so eloquently.

[benEzra]

64. You'd think that after TWENTY YEARS, we wouldn't have to be still explaining this.

It was IIRC twenty years ago this year that Josh Sugarmann of the VPC singlehandedly created the "assault weapon menace," and in so doing sidetracked the U.S. gun-control lobby into irrationality and irrelevance.

[Joe Fields]

50. If you "need" to own such a thing, then maybe you should evaluate .

whether where you live is worth the risk, which makes you feel that need to own an assault rifle.

I've lived 52 years just fine without one.

[aikoaiko]

55. Being a victim is a relatively low probablity event. One could go their entire life without being

...victimized in a serious felony. But it does happen and people like me want the chance to protect themselves. I've lived in low end, high end, and middle of the road places. Crime happens everywhere (although not at the same rates).


I have lived 40 years. The last few have been with an AR-15 in my bedroom. And I'm doing just fine too.

[benEzra]

67. Are you speaking of small-caliber, non-automatic civilian rifles with modern styling, or

military automatic weapons?

All automatic weapons are VERY tightly controlled in the United States---as tightly controlled, in fact, as 105mm howitzers, 500-lb bombs, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers.

The "assault weapon" fraud isn't about automatic weapons; it's about the most popular NON-automatic civilian rifles in U.S. homes.

FWIW, it's not clear at this point if the drug dealer/murderer in this incident used a federally restricted machinegun or a non-automatic civilian AK lookalike. I'm still waiting to find that out.

[57_TomCat]

75. I own one not because...

I need it but in case I need it. In addition I have a lot of fun using it in competition where it is in fact "needed" as the design facilitates fast and accurate shooting on the course of fire. It is also reliable and with a 5 round hunting magazine quite suitable for putting food in the freezer.

The problem is so many people are ignorant of the things and assume too much based on piss poor reporting or willfull misrepresentation.

The villian of this story is the BAD GUY that was barred from possession due to a felony conviction and a current illegal drug maker!

[SteveM]

96. I've evaluated: I will keep all my things -- most un-needed (nt)

[SteveM]

95. Do you need a car? Most of your clothes? A bed? Books? A.C.? (nt)

[slackmaster]

39. Would the boy be any less dead if the guy had used a shotgun?

The killer was a CONVICTED FELON as well as a drug abuser. He cannot legally possess ANY kind of firearm.

[anigbrowl]

51. Indeed. It's like debating whether a hit-and-run death involved a car or a truck

A lot of people don't need to drive a pickup or a van but prefer them to sports cars. This is fine, as long as they are used responsibly. The problem in this case is a paranoid nutcase who unloads his gun through a door because someone knocks on it, not what kind of gun he used. It's a dreadful case, but that doesn't make it a good basis for legislation.

[Breathe]

59. It's unlikely

that 17 rounds would have been fired so fast hitting three people in a matter of moments. So, yes, he might have been less dead. It was only one bullet that killed him. The one to his head.

[aikoaiko]

62. Depends on how you look at it: 1 shotgun shell may hold 9 OO buckshot (8.4 mm in diameter).

My home defense shotgun holds 8 (7+1) shells. 9 x 8 = 72 projectiles that could kill or injure.

Shotguns through a lot of lead down range all at once.

Honestly, no one knows what the consequences would have been if he held a 6 round revolver, an 8 round shotgun, a 15 round glock 19, etc. Maybe this criminal would have killed them with the first three shots or may not.

[benEzra]

68. A shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot fires 12 .33 caliber projectiles with every trigger pull.

Or 8 or 9 9mm projectiles, if it is loaded with 000 buckshot. 5 shots is 60 .33 caliber projectiles through the door, or 40-45 9mm projectiles.

To put it another way, a single round from a shotgun is equivalent to a long burst from a Federally restricted submachinegun.

Shotguns are the most lethal of all firearms at close range. Yes, the outcome would have been the same had a shotgun been used. Or, for that matter, a rifle with a traditional looking stock instead of a modern-looking one.

[SteveM]

97. I saw triple-ought referred to as .38s in an 1891 interview re an outlaw's slaying (nt)

[Testament]

106. That'd be about right, .38 is actual .357, 000=.36

[Codename46]

71. Hey, could you at least address all the previous rebuttals against you

instead of chickening out of an argument?

[Pavulon]

84. Incorrect. The shotgun

is the MOST effective method of killing people at close range. Each shell contains multiple pellets and it can fire its tube of 8 in seconds. Even in a pump.

The AK is a battle rifle designed to kill at medium distance. The shotgun is deployed by infantry and navy directly to kill in close quarters.

End of story.

Crackhead with gun. crack is banned, murder is banned. His actions have NOTHING to do with my right to own a rifle.

[krispos42]

102. You should tell this guy that

Scroll ahead to 1:44. He fires 10 shots in about 4 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MFvxSrfemg


With a lever-action gun who's design is 120 years old.


Now I had a chance to try something like this a couple of months ago and fired 10 rounds in about 8 seconds... and I hadn't shot a lever action in about 5 years. And that time was once at a shooting range.

[TexasObserver]

41. A pistol could have done the same thing.

You evidence a basic lack of understanding of guns, common among those who revile guns.

How about a crazy ex con with a gun shot through a door and killed an innocent child?

The type of gun is laregely irrelevant. It could have been a pistol, a hunting rifle, or a shotgun, and the child would be just as dead.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

42. Automatic weapons ARE NOT by definition assualt weapons

Assault weapon is a BS political term that they gave to 'scary' looking guns. Automatic weapons are illegal, although with the necessary expensive and difficult to obtain licenses and also expensive and difficult to obtain tax stamps, it is possible to acquire one. Since this guy was a convicted tweaker, I would guess that he bought it illegally off the street.

However, the assault weapons ban did nothing specifically to regulate fully-automatic weapons. It was political bullshit.

I do agree however that fully automatic weapons should stay illegal.

[MarkInCA]

49. You lost me at "legislate some sanity"

I don't believe you can legislate sanity anymore than you can legislate morality.

The person killed the boy, not the weapon. A smaller caliber semi-auto could do the same thing with a single shot.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

53. People just want a chance to defend themselves. Take this lady....

Notice that she was asleep and still had time to retrieve her shotgun and protect herself. There is a kernel of truth to what you say -- not all victims can get to their guns before the criminal gets to them. But I'm glad this non-victim didn't think like you and assume that it couldn't be done.

Cops: Cape Girardeau woman kills man who returned to rape her second time
By Heather Ratcliffe
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Friday, Oct. 31 2008
An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape
Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.

The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in
the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.
The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier.
Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.

In the first incident, the woman heard glass breaking in her basement about
midnight on Saturday. She went to leave the house, and the man attacked when
she opened the front door. He punched her in the face and then forced her into
a bedroom, where he raped her, said H. Morley Swingle, prosecuting attorney in
Cape Girardeau County. The victim reported the crime to police, and her landlord
repaired the broken window.

She was home alone again Friday about 2:15 a.m. when Preyer broke the same
basement window. The victim was awake watching television, when Preyer switched
off the electricity to her house. She tried to call 911, but couldn't because the
power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement
door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door. When Preyer collapsed, the
woman escaped and went to a neighbor's home, where she called police. Officers, who
arrived within a minute, found a bleeding Preyer stumbling away from the house.
He was taken to St. Francis Medical Center, where he died several hours later.

Swingle said the victim identified Preyer as the attacker in both incidents.
Preyer, of Jackson, Mo., had wet caulking from the recently repaired basement
window on his clothing when he was shot. "I will not be filing any sort of charge
against this 57-year-old woman, who was clearly justified under the law in shooting
this intruder in her home," Swingle said.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

58. I promise to not interfere with your personal choice to have a home without a firearm, as long as..

...you don't interfere with my choice to have one in my home.

[cynatnite]

56. I'm not for banning guns...I support strict gun control...

that means making sure criminals and the insane do not have access to weapons. Period.

[Endangered Specie]

118. Fortunately, those laws already exist.

[Marrah_G]

57. Umm that was not a legal gun. If they were illegal, he would still be dead

Blame the drug dealing criminal asshole for his death.

[Dukkha]

60. The child was killed by stupidity

The parents stupidity in letting him handle an automatic weapon. Now I'm all for banning stupid people from breeding it it was possible. But no current gun law or new one would've prevented this. Idiocy can not be regulated. At best the event could have prohibited children from participating in the machine gun shoot but knowing how that crowd is they would somehow see that as infringement on their rights.

[benEzra]

65. You're thinking of a different case.

This thread is about a trick-or-treater murdered by a drug dealer using a rifle that was either (1) an illegal NFA Title 2/Class III restricted machinegun or (2) a non-automatic civilian AK lookalike that was illegally possessed by a convicted felon.

You're thinking of the sad incident in Massachusetts last week in which the young child died at the machine gun demonstration.

[Dukkha]

73. ah my mistake

both are a terrible tragedy

[Greyhound]

66. This is why this "issue" is a loser for Democrats.

Too many people that don't know what they are afraid of, only that they are afraid and want somebody to do something, anything, to give them the illusion of safety.

This scenario plays out every day in America with handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Banning a few models based on some random criteria makes no difference and banning all firearms will guarantee a loss on election day. This kid was much more a victim of societal neglect than the type of weapon used to kill him.

[FM Arouet666]

69. Talk about opening a can or worms. Welcome to DU

I have given up on this topic, there seems to be no middle ground in the gun debate. If your a newbie and truly concerned then know that your up for a big fight. If your a troll stirring the pot, thanks but the pot gets stirred enough by die hard DUers.

Sit back and watch the show. :popcorn: :beer:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. You are right on several counts.

I hope your personal situation has improved and I hoped you ignored the jerks on the Health thread.

David

[FM Arouet666]

85. LOL thanks

I have found that my own health will be at risk if I post about guns. Just going to sit back and watch.

[Codename46]

70. This is why uninformed opinions should be illegal.

[jeepnstein]

74. The guy was a dope dealer.

He was already a convicted felon and shouldn't have been in possession of any type of firearm. Why should lawful citizens be stripped of their rights so animals like this can live among us?

You can't legislate sanity among criminals and it was a criminal who pulled the trigger. It doesn't matter what kind of gun it was, the boy is dead. I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the criminal who fired the shots.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. I'm sorry that you are so uninformed, that makes me sad.

The loss of this child, to a murder by a convicted felon, makes me more sad. By the way automatic weapons aren't assault weapons, any firearms was illegal for this felon to be in possession of.

David

[jody]

80. Your ignorance on this topic is astounding. Automatic firearms have been tightly controlled since

1934.

An AK-47 is an assault rifle governed by federal law since 1934.

Assault weapons are not defined by federal law today.

The defunct assault weapons ban is a bait and switch scheme by the Violence Policy Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to ban semiautomatic firearms. Those two organizations are funded by the Joyce Foundation and Annenberg Foundation and their directors have approved millions of dollars in grants to support banning handguns and semiautomatic firearms.

Those facts can be easily confirmed by any person hoping to learn the truth rather than passing on rumors that are simply not true.

[Tejas]

81. Caroleeena, you are TWO DAYS late with your DUPE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=189554&mesg_id=189554


imagine that!

[Citizen Number 9]

86. All emotion and no logic.

A 1969 Caddy driven into a crowd can kill more folks quicker, yet there is no push to make them illegal.

It's not about the weapon, it's the whacko on the other end.

As a society, we don't want to take preemptive action against sorry pieces like this, so the alternative is to wait until they do something that really makes us sick. Since this is what people do, we have to live with the consequences of our decision to give folks every opportunity.

It is NOT about the gun.

[krispos42]

88. It was a semi-auto rifle, not fully automatic.

It fires one shot per trigger pull.

This was not "spray and pray", this was a convicted criminal deliberately pulling the trigger 30 times.

And I've personally seen people shoot lever-action guns about a fast as you can shoot a civilian-legal AK-47-style rifle.

[Howzit]

91. Here is your basic problem

"Patrick has multiple convictions for possession with intent to distribute, is a felon and is prohibited from possessing a firearm, police said."

He was prohibited from having any gun, so does it matter what gun he used? Would it have been any different if he had used a shotgun? I say no. Scum is as scum does - I hope his trial and execution go swiftly.

[SteveM]

98. Remember: do not feed, romance or enable the crim. (nt)

[Howzit]

99. We enabled him by not locking him up

Why are we responsible for his choices and actions?

[JonQ]

100. Guns weren't the problem

His possession of a firearm was harmless until he used it to commit murder. Clearly we need to outlaw murder so it will never happen again.

[Rabon]

103. Shooting

I would be inclined to focus attention on the shooter and the judicial systen which allowed this to happen.

[friendly_iconoclast]

104. Trying to gin up a moral panic, are we?

Gonna use it to try and infringe Constitutional rights?

This has been done before by a couple of fine gentlemen named Cheney and Gonzales.

It's no more palatable when it is done by one of 'us'.

[derby378]

107. You want sanity? Why punish me for the actions of a CONVICTED FELON?

Let's say that I'm behind the door when that trick-or-treater comes up. Let's also say that I've got an AK in the home. When that boy knocks on my door, what will he see? This big goofy guy with a bowlful of candy for that boy, his brother, and his father. Hey, it's Halloween - candy for everyone! And not a single bullet.

So think before you try to punish gentle, law-abiding folk like me because of the actions of a convicted drug dealer.

[spin]

108. Gun control should be focused on taking firearms from criminals...

Patrick has multiple convictions for possession with intent to distribute, is a felon and is prohibited from possessing a firearm, police said.
underlining mine

I wonder if any kids out trick or treating were killed by honest responsible citizens.

[joshcryer]

116. It worked for DUIs which *still* *kill* more than guns do (and that's *including* suicides).

Suicides, which, btw, still pad the stats so incredibly that it's a joke.

Of course when you point out the need to ban cars the really radical gun nuts go crazy about it. :)

[Endangered Specie]

119. Theres a simple solution to that...

free up the prisons by releasing NON violent recreational drug offenders and making simple narcotic possession and production for personal uses either legal, or punishable only by fine. You could even make some revenue by doing to marijuana what we do to alcohol, legalize it, but tax/regulate its production and sale.

Then immediately fill up the space with violent felons, no parole until all time is served.

Also, pass a national three strikes law... three felonies = 25-life.

[madville]

117. The AWB wouldn't have prevented this

You could still buy AK clones during the ban and hi-capacity magazines have always been plentiful. The AWB configuration clones didn't have a muzzle device or bayonet lug, the rifles still functioned the same but were just missing some unimportant cosmetic features/functions. It really is a worthless piece of legislation when it comes to actually saving lives or having any effect on crime.

In this incident the guy was a felon and out on bond for some pending felonies, it was already illegal for him to own a gun.

[-Wolverine-]

120. Tell me the difference

Tell me the difference between an "assault weapon" and any other semi-automatic rifle, and I will believe you.

[Farmall]

122. IF he was shot with an AUTOMATIC WEAPON......

Then the firearm is already banned, so banning more guns won't do a damn bit of good.

Instead of making more laws, let's start by enforcing the ones that we already have.

[JonQ]

123. We could respon to this event rationally

and see it as a criminal illegally owning an automatic weapon that he illegally used to murder a child; a tragedy but not one requiring any new laws to deal with it.

Or we could respond emotionally and demand the government start passing laws and stripping us of various freedoms until we can feel safe again.

The people who fall for the second line of reasoning I tend to pity. Those that see a dead and child and think this is a great opportunity to pass their favorite legislature on the back of this tragedy and get the voters stirred up for whatever candidate, well those people I tend to despise.