Legal Community Against Violence Report Shows US Gun Laws Are “Inadequate”

[billbuckhead]

LCAV Report Shows US Gun Laws Are “Inadequate”

Posted On 21st August 2006 @ In Legislation, Stats, Concealed Carry, Our Readers, Courts

<1> The Legal Community Against Gun Violence has released a report detailing the United States’ gun laws, and they’re saying there is plenty of room for “opportunity.” From <2> the press release:

In a report released today, Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) presents a comprehensive, national review of federal, state and selected local laws on more than twenty topics covering all major areas of gun policy. Regulating Guns in America – An Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Federal, State and Selected Local Gun Laws, is a first of- its-kind publication designed for public officials and advocates working to reduce gun violence across the country.

Regulating Guns in America demonstrates conclusively that gaps in federal policy contribute significantly to the country’s gun violence epidemic. With 100,000 Americans killed or injured by firearms each year, the report puts to rest any notion that federal regulation is adequate.

“In the absence of federal regulation, states and local governments can enact creative laws to address the problem of gun violence in their communities and regions,” noted Nina Vinik, LCAV’s Legal Director. “The gaps in federal policy are an opportunity,” Vinik added.

You can read <3> the full report over on LCAV’s website. The study lays out very clearly the differences between gun laws in different states, and the fact that while in many states guns are heavily regulated, in some states firearms see little or no regulation. And that, as we already know, means more violence.

From assault weapons to gun shows to concealed weapons, this report makes one point very clear: gun regulation in the United States is simply inadequate. Because of that, we’re seeing too much gun violence every single day of the week. Big pictures like the one this report provides show way too many holes in our legal system when it comes to firearms. But LCAV is right about something else, too: these holes are an opportunity. They show exactly where things need to be fixed– all that remains is to put the legislation in and fix them.

Article printed from Gun Guys: http://www.gunguys.com
Whole report at <http://www.lcav.org/library/reports_analyses/regulating_guns.asp>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there any wonder we're having an epidemic of gun violence?

[ewoden]

1. Promises of knee jerk legislation regarding firearms is an issue

that gives me pause in selecting folks for my vote. I live in Maryland. Purchasing a firearm in this state, particular a handgun, has become one major PITA!! Yet the bad guys go on peppering themselves and our neighborhoods with abandon, unencumbered by the notion that by possessing firearms they are technically breaking the law.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. An agenda group puts out a report that supports its agenda,

no surprise there.

Considering the inaccuracies and omissions in the summary alone, its a waste of bandwidth.

[meldroc]

3. I'll say it again... Drop gun control.

The Democratic Party needs to completely abandon the notion of gun control. Gun control doesn't work, it violates the rights of law-abiding citizens, leaves them vulnerable to the depredations of criminals and tyrants, and it alienates voters in a time where we need every single vote we can get to defeat the neo-cons and fundies.

Thread getting moved to Gungeon in 3...2...1...

[billbuckhead]

6. Gun control does work, look at Japan and Ireland

Few guns and few gun crimes.

[benEzra]

4. Totally out of touch with reality...

They are obsessed with banning civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, but check this out:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Uniform Crime Reports, 2004
Table 20. Murder by State, 2004, by Type of Weapon
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

All rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides. Many states report ZERO rifle homicides in any given year.

If modern-looking civilian rifles were so damned dangerous and the "weapons of choice of criminals," you'd see a bit more than 2.8% of homicides involving them, now, wouldn't you?

And of course, the percentage of homicides involving .50 caliber target rifles in the two decades or more they have been on the civilian market is 0.0000000%...

It has been said that a fanatic is "one who redoubles his efforts after having lost sight of his goals"...


Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[billbuckhead]

5. So out of touch that every other advanced nation has stronger gun laws

and much less murder and mayhem because of it.

[benEzra]

9. Read slowly, or else you'll miss my point again...

Why. The. Obsession. With. Banning. Rifles?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

Many states report ZERO rifle homicides in any given year, with all rifles combined accounting for less than 3% of homicides nationally. So why, exactly, should banning rifles with modern styling be a top legislative priority?

[billbuckhead]

10. Some states have less population than obscure urban counties

and yet sell guns openly to anyone. I bet wolf-dog hybrids didn't kill anyone in those states either. I bet plastic explosives didn't kill many as well. Get my point benEzra, you gerrymander and play sophist all you want, the USA as a nation, has a terrible problem with guns. How about the terror the DC snipers caused? Just because they didn't make it back to Maine where they bought the sniper rifle doesn't make it any less a tragedy for our nation. I heard people say the DC snipers were actually more effective as terrorists than the 9-11 terrorists by the measure that schools were closed and people stayed away from highway gas stations, malls and other public locations. I guess to some the killings of JFK and MLK by rifles are close to a statistical blip about how few people are killed by rifles. History knows better. Terrorist mastermind Tim McVeigh said if he could do it over again, he would use a sniper rifle instead of a bomb because it's more selective. without qustion, permissive gun laws and attitudes about guns are hurting America.

How can it be an obsession for Americans to want what all other free civilized nations already have. It's well known that a solid majority of Americans are for stronger gun regulations and enforcement but the gun lobby spends incredible amounts of money and allies itself with some of the most corrupt government officials in American history such as Dick Cheney, Grover Norquist, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, just getting started. It came as no surprise when Democratic traitor Zell Miller came out of the reichwing neoCON closet at an NRA convention. It's now legal to shoot first and ask qustions later in many states. Sounds a lot like the preventive invasions Iraq and Lebanon.

[benEzra]

13. Ad hoc rationalization of a nonsensical position...

Some states have less population than obscure urban counties and yet sell guns openly to anyone. I bet wolf-dog hybrids didn't kill anyone in those states either. I bet plastic explosives didn't kill many as well.

So, you think wolf-dog hybrids and plastic explosives are as common in the United States as rifles? You aren't seriously be arguing that rifles are rarely used in crime because they're so rare relative to handguns, are you? Because it would only take about two minutes of Googling to see that there are even more rifles in private hands than there are handguns.

Let's see.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

Alabama: 247 homicides in 2004, zero rifle homicides. Are you going to argue that in Alabama, rifles are as rare as wolf hybrids and plastic explosives?

Illinois: 448 homicides, 4 rifle homicides. That's less than 0.9%, and Illinois includes Chicago.

Maryland: 520 homicides, 2 rifle homicides. Yep, I can see that modern-looking rifles are the "weapons of choice of criminals" in Maryland... :eyes:

Montana: 23 homicides, 0 rifle homicides. Guess nobody in Montana owns rifles...

Pennsylvania: 632 homicides, 8 rifle homicides. See the pattern here?


The state with the most rifle homicides in the nation was California; out of 2,391 homicides, 75 involved rifles (3.1 percent) and 69 involved shotguns.

Get my point benEzra, you gerrymander and play sophist all you want, the USA as a nation, has a terrible problem with guns.

But not with rifles. If you download the FBI spreadsheet in Excel and sum the columns, you'll find that of 14,121 homicides in 2004, all rifles COMBINED accounted for only 393, or 2.8 percent. That's less than half as many people (933) as were murdered using fists and feet.

In fact, if you divide 393 rifle homicides by the population of the USA (don't remember off the top of my head, so I'll use 275 million), you'll find that the USA rifle homicide rate is somewhere around 0.14 per 100,000, a rate comparable to (or lower than) the gun homicide rate in the United Kingdom.

The United States does NOT have a significant rifle crime problem, and never has.

How about the terror the DC snipers caused? Just because they didn't make it back to Maine where they bought the sniper rifle doesn't make it any less a tragedy for our nation.

They didn't buy the rifle, they stole it (and IIRC, not in Maine); they didn't use a sniper rifle, just a lightweight .223 carbine with an unmagnified sight; and all their shots were taken at point-blank range (30 to 90 yards), meaning every single shot they took was well within the capability of a Revolutionary War era muzzleloader. They were shooting from so close that they could have used a freaking shotgun (like the Phoenix serial shooter did, as it turned out, IIRC, a little .410 bird gun).

I heard people say the DC snipers were actually more effective as terrorists than the 9-11 terrorists by the measure that schools were closed and people stayed away from highway gas stations, malls and other public locations.

Yeah, the D.C. shootings were worse than flying widebody jetliners into skyscrapers on national TV, and bringing the buildings down with thousands of people trapped inside.

I suspect that 9-11 shut down Manhattan a lot more completely, and for a longer time, than the D.C. shooters did the D.C. area.

I guess to some the killings of JFK and MLK by rifles are close to a statistical blip about how few people are killed by rifles.

Over the years, more presidents and celebrities have been shot and killed using handguns. Citing two rifle deaths in 45 years doesn't exactly help your argument that we're facing a rifle crime problem.

You didn't mention the Texas Tower mass shooting with a bolt-action hunting rifle, but that doesn't help you, either. Because if you sum ALL rifle homicides over any given time period, they still work out to only a tiny percentage of homicides, generally 3% or less.

Terrorist mastermind Tim McVeigh said if he could do it over again, he would use a sniper rifle instead of a bomb because it's more selective. without qustion, permissive gun laws and attitudes about guns are hurting America.

I've never heard that claim, but if he had, I suspect that about 250-260 fewer people would have died...

How can it be an obsession for Americans to want what all other free civilized nations already have.

What, an extremely low rifle homicide rate? We have it. As I said, America's homicide problem does NOT involve rifles; more than twice as many people are murdered annually using fists and feet.

[billbuckhead]

19. Vermont didn't have any school shootings till today

We have low homicide rate where rifles are used compared to what country? Iraq?

[benEzra]

20. Our rifle homicide rate is comparable with many European nations...

as I said, it's on the order of 0.14 per 100,000, using 275 million as a working figure.

There were only 393 rifle homicides recorded in the entire United States in 2004, out of 14,121 homicides total. By comparison, 933 homicides were perpetrated using fists and feet, 1,866 homicides were perpetrated using edged weapons, and 1,996 were perpetrated using other non-firearm weapons (bats, chains, wrenches, whatever).

Don't take my word for it; download the Excel spreadsheet from the FBI at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl20a.xls and sum the columns in Excel. (For those who don't grok Excel, just open the spreadsheet, enter the function SUM(xx:yy) in the cell below each column, where xx is the first cell in the column and yy is the last cell, and click OK).

In this country, rifles of any type just aren't commonly used in crimes.

[billbuckhead]

21. Ireland, the UK, Singapore, Japan have less than 0.14 for ALL guns!

<http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html>

Those freedom hating Swedes and Kiwi's weren't too far behind in the rifles in the USA vs ALL guns in more civilized nations.

[Selatius]

24. It's the weak regulation of handguns that is the problem

Weak prevention mechanisms for people with criminal records and a lack of a gun safety education mechanism for the population is our problem. People die as a result. If we want to live responsibly with guns, we've got to get educated, and if that cannot be done--I believe it most certainly can--then we shouldn't have guns. We just haven't made it a national priority yet.

If the Swiss can have the 2nd highest gun ownership rate in the entire industrialized world and achieve literally a faction the number of violent crimes committed with firearms in general, we could most certainly match them.

[billbuckhead]

25. Why would we be able to match the Swiss

The Swiss high a gun homicide rate for Europe.

[Selatius]

27. Compare US rates to Swiss rates.

Per 100,000 people, 27.9 individuals were the victim of gun homicides in the US. Per 100,000, 5.3 individuals were the victim of gun homicides in Switzerland.

In fact, there are 9 (if you consider Yugoslavia as one nation instead of several now) other countries in Europe that rank worse than Switzerland.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

The reason, as I said, is because we have weak regulations.

[billbuckhead]

28. This survey has Switzerland 5 time higher in gun homicide than the UK!

The former Yugoslavia? Don't they still have war kinda sorta going on?

[Paladin]

7. "Civilian Rifles With Handgrips That Stick Out"??

Oh, you mean assault weapons. Why didn't you just say so?

[benEzra]

8. Because "assault weapon" is a buzzword intended to obfuscate

as to what is being talked about.

For example, this is not an "assault weapon" in California:




This is an "assault weapon" in California:




The thing is, this is the same rifle. Not just the same model, but the same specimen. Straight stock, "sporting rifle," per Dianne Feinstein herself. Add a handgrip that sticks out, and it's an "assault weapon."


"Assault weapon" is the same class of term as "subversive speech." It's a term of obfuscation, not a class of firearms.


Under most proposed bans, an "assault weapon" is any civilian (NFA Title 1) detachable-mag, self-loading firearm with a handgrip that sticks out. As a concession to gun owners, the 1994 AWB required one additional feature besides the handgrip, but the more draconian AWB's (California's, S.1431 in 2004, etc.) require only the handgrip.

[billbuckhead]

11. The original "assault rifle" so named by Adolph Hitler had a pistol grip

[benEzra]

12. It was also a freaking MACHINEGUN, unlike the guns we're discussing

and of course, all machineguns and selective-fire weapons are tightly controlled in the United States by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, as are all guns determined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to be easily convertible to full-auto. By definition, an assault-rifle is selective-fire.

The civilian guns we're discussing, of course, are non-automatic, and it is barrel length and the ability to fire automatically that distinguish a civilian firearm from a restricted military/law enforcement firearm.

If you haven't noticed, most hand tools have pistol grips. The only reason rifles didn't for centuries was that wood splits easily along the grain, and recoil forces necessitate that the woodgrain of all but the smallest rifles run parallel to the recoil axis; also, a straight wooden stock is easier to carry in a scabbard on horseback. It wasn't until the advent of rifles with squarish metal receivers that the more natural vertical grip became popular.

High-end freestyle target rifles almost always have vertical grips, either separate pistol grips or thumbhole stocks, because such grips conform better to human forearm anatomy when shooting from the shoulder.


High-end bolt-action European competition rifle (Anschutz). Note also the adjustable-length stock, another ergonomic feature sometimes labeled as an "assault weapon" characteristic by gun prohibitionists



Another bolt-action smallbore European precision rifle



So do a growing number of hunting rifles and shotguns, as ergonomics are considered more important than they used to be:


Benenelli 12-gauge turkey hunting shotgun

[stepnw1f]

14. What's the Purpose of Such a Gun

when there are already so many to chose from for say, protection? Serious question.

[benEzra]

15. By "such a gun," I'm assuming you're speaking of civilian AR-15's

What's the Purpose of Such a Gun when there are already so many to chose from for say, protection? Serious question.

By "such a gun," I'm assuming you're speaking of civilian AR-15's, civvie AK lookalikes, mini-14's with aftermarket stocks, and such? (Just making sure I'm understanding you, and that you're not talking about the Anschutz target rifle above, for example.)

Most people, including me, who own small-caliber self-loadering carbines own them largely because they are fun as recreational target rifles (the AR-15 platform is probably the most popular centerfire target rifle in America), and a lot of us Gen-X and Gen-Y types are also drawn to the more modern aesthetics. They don't beat up your shoulder like full-power rifles can, and ammunition is cheaper, but they have much better ballistics than .22 rimfire rifles.

AR-15's in particularly have a reputation for very good accuracy; for example, Rock River Arms guarantees that its carbines will shoot a 1" group at 100 yards. AK lookalikes are a bit less accurate (more like a Winchester 94 in .30-30, say 3-5 inch groups), but still fun guns to shoot.


But to address your specific question, as far as home-defense use goes, IMO a .223 carbine like a mini-14 or a 16" barreled AR-15 type rifle has advantages over both handguns and shotguns.


Versus handguns, advantages include:

--Easier to shoot well under stress than a full-power handgun, because of the longer sight radius and the fact that your hands are further apart.

--WAY less recoil than a full-power handgun of comparable effectiveness. For example, full-house .357 loads can be pretty brutal to shoot, but a .223 carbine offers similar effectiveness in a firearm that recoils like a .22 (because it is a .22; a .223 bullet weighs about 1/2 to 1/4 as much as a typical handgun bullet, and is pretty close to the bullet weight of a .22LR).

--.223 JHP's are less likely to overpenetrate in building materials than most handgun rounds.

--Might possibly have a greater deterrent effect against an intruder than a handgun (don't know how real that effect would be, but a carbine definitely gets your attention than a small pistol)


Disadvantages of the carbine vs. a handgun:

--Lack of portability. Thanks to the shoulder stock, thicker and longer receiver, bulkier magazine (rifle rounds are longer than handgun rounds), and the minimum 16" barrel length and 26" overall length required by Federal law, a carbine is way less portable than a handgun. In and around your house, the carbine is great, but you can't exactly carry one on your person for self-defense, and they are definitely harder to travel with. Even with the stock folded for storage, my mini-14 is around 30 inches long, 8 to 10 inches high, and weighs 6 or 7 pounds. Compare that to the size of a handgun, and think about the transportability/concealability implications:



--A safe big enough to hold a carbine is more expensive than a handgun safe, and you can't stick one just anywhere in your house. So a handgun is easier to store than a carbine, although if you have a safe then it's a moot point.

--A handgun is more easily kept in a higher state of readiness. A 9mm pistol can be safely kept with the chamber loaded, safety on, as long as it is secured from children and unauthorized users. Rifles are generally stored chamber empty, magazine loaded, like a shotgun. Meaning it takes a second, and two hands, to get a rifle going. Generally not a big deal, but it's a difference.

--You can hold a carbine one-handed for a minute to open a door, help your kid to safety, or whatever with your other hand, but carbines are awfully hard to operate one-handed, unlike a handgun.

--Rifles are somewhat louder than handguns, which may slightly increase your risk of some hearing damage if you ever have to use one in a defensive situation. Given the rarity and the gravity of such an event, that's probably not an issue.

--If you live in the city, you may have to drive a bit further to find a rifle range. Many indoor handgun ranges don't allow centerfire rifles because of backstop erosion issues.


Advantages of a small-caliber carbine vs. a shotgun:

--The carbine doesn't have the brutal recoil of a shotgun (a .223-caliber bullet is a HECK of a lot lighter than a .729 caliber shotgun slug or a heavy buckshot load); you certainly lose some incapacitation ability vs. a shotgun, but you gain precision and the ability to more easily recover from a miss.

--Magazine capacity. A typical defensive shotgun has about the same capacity as a revolver, six to eight rounds. A typical carbine will have a magazine capacity of 20 or 30.

--Ease of loading. If you choose to store the gun completely unloaded, it's a lot easier to insert a magazine in a carbine than to feed six or eight shotgun shells through a loading port.

--The carbine offers less chance of stray projectiles than a shotgun with buckshot at anything more than across-the-room distances, and penetrates much less in building materials than a shotgun with slugs.

--A carbine is more fun to practice with than a shotgun or a full-power rifle. Target shooting is more fun with a rifle that doesn't kick much; honestly you'll probably never fire a gun in self-defense, but target shooting is an end in itself. Shooting a couple hundred rounds of .223 won't even leave your shoulder sore, but even fifty rounds of 12-gauge will beat you up unless you're wearing a shooting jacket. Also, carbines are much cheaper to shoot than shotguns,

--Carbines are much less delicate than shotguns, and tend to be more reliable. Partly because shotgun barrels are so freaking BIG, they tend to be quite thin in order to save weight, and they also operate at much lower chamber pressures. So it's easy to dent/bend the barrel of a shotgun. Shotgun receivers and action components also tend to be much more delicate than rifle parts.


Disadvantages of a carbine relative to a shotgun:

--Somewhat less effective than a shotgun. Obviously, a .223 caliber carbine will have less incapacitation ability than a .729 caliber shotgun slug, or the eight or nine .355 caliber projectiles in a 000 buckshot shell.

--Carbines generally cost more than shotguns.

--No carbine can probably match the deterrent effect of a .729 caliber shotgun barrel pointed at the guy breaking in...



Advantages of an AR-type carbine/civilian AK lookalike/mini-14 with aftermarket stock over a more traditional rifle for defensive purposes:

--WAY less recoil than a full-power rifle.

--WAY less penetration in building materials than a full-power rifle.

--Lighter than full-power rifles, even ones with 16" barrels.

--Smaller rounds = smaller, lighter magazines for a given capacity.

--Pistol grip stock allows you to use a low-ready position (gun pointed at the floor in front of your feet) instead of the port-arms or high-ready positions that a traditional stock would lead you to use. Low ready is safer in confined spaces, IMHO.

--Pistol grip stock makes it harder for an attacker to lever the gun away from you by grabbing the barrel.

--With a pistol-grip stock, it is easier to short-stock the rifle (put the butt of the rifle behind your shoulder) while you're moving through a doorway. You can do this with a traditional stock, but it bends your wrist like a chicken wing and would make it very easy to have the gun taken away from you.

--AR-15's and civvie AK lookalikes are more robust, durable, and reliable than some traditional designs (coughRemington7400cough).

--Easier to mount a flashlight on an AR (IMO a safety feature).

--.223 and 7.62x39mm are much less expensive than full-power rifle calibers.


Disadvantages vs. traditional rifles:

--The carbine will have WAY less energy at long ranges (more like a .30-30). For defensive purposes, this is not a big deal, as you can't exactly claim self-defense if you're shooting at somebody 500 yards away...






Someday, when I can afford to, I plan to get one of these, but I'll have to sell the Ruger to swing it:





Rock River Arms carbine with the mid-length gas system. All the advantages of the mini-14 as far as light recoil and reliability go, but it is more ergonomic (safety, mag release, and bolt stop are more intelligently designed), looks great, excellent accuracy, high-quality sights, and built-in optics rails. The only downside is price (MSRP is $1100, eek!). But IMHO that's the perfect target-shooting gun that can also serve as an excellent defensive carbine.

[stepnw1f]

16. "For Fun".... Thanks

That's exactly what I thought, but knowing you are a gun owner I thought I'd ask.

[benEzra]

17. Fun and utility, in equal amounts...

they are more fun than more traditionally styled rifles, and also better defensive tools.

There are modern-looking rifles in hunting calibers also (for example, the Armalite AR-10, or civilian FAL's and CETME's), but as I'm a nonhunter, I stick with the small-caliber stuff.

[Selatius]

18. You know your firearms.

The problem is most people who own firearms probably don't know as much, and that's a problem, especially when it comes to living safely with these weapons. So many people are dying in gun accidents, and it's appalling we don't have an organized program to educate gun owners on how to properly handle and store these firearms. If you are not competent with a firearm, you shouldn't own a firearm for the sake of others' lives.

[billbuckhead]

22. About as different as a front wheel drive subaru and a 4x4 subaru

True or false gun experts? The new sturmgewehr would have been a huge advancement in NAZI firepower whether it was single shot, semi automatic or a true machine gun?

[benEzra]

23. False.

About as different as a front wheel drive subaru and a 4x4 subaru

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on the topic.

Funny that the difference between non-automatic civilian (NFA Title 1) firearms and NFA Title 2 machineguns has been considered monumental for a hundred years, but now all of a sudden it's an inconsequential difference?

Do you consider the difference between an ordinary 9mm pistol (like the one your local police officer might carry on her hip) and a Glock 18 submachinegun to be trivial?

Remember, the Germans were already using submachineguns for close-range engagements and Mauser 98's for long-range engagements.

True or false gun experts? The new sturmgewehr would have been a huge advancement in NAZI firepower whether it was single shot, semi automatic or a true machine gun?

False. The revolutionary part of the design was that it was selective-fire, meaning that it could function as a one-shot-at-a-time semiauto for distance shooting, or be switched to full-auto for close-range engagements, room clearing, alley sweeping, or whatever.

In semiauto mode, it didn't have the range or killing power of the Mauser 98 due to the MP43's smaller caliber, but it was passable. And in full-auto mode, it wasn't as compact or as controllable as a submachinegun, but the automatic fire gave it most of the subgun's capabilities.

What was revolutionary about it was the fact that the same rifle could do BOTH. Semiauto for careful shooting and full-auto for CQB. So instead of issuing different types of weapons to different soldiers, and having to provide ammo for both, and having your subgun guys useless at long range and your rifle guys useless at close range, you could issue one rifle to everybody, and everybody could engage targets at long range in semiauto mode, and everybody could engage targets in CQB in full-auto mode.

It was the selective-fire capability that gave the MP43 the ability to replace both the Mauser 98 and the submachinegun, and THAT was what made it such an advance.

Which is why the very definition of the term "assault rifle" includes the criterion that the weapon is selective-fire, able to be switched between semi-auto and burst or full-auto.

[billbuckhead]

26. Can you tell difference between a real assault rifle& a fake at 20 yards?

I didn't think so. Why should cops and good guys be subject to telling the difference?

[derby378]

29. It's called the National Firearms Act of 1934

Look into it. Why should law-abiding citizens have their rights subordinated to placate paranoid law-enforcement officials?

[petronius]

31. Why would anyone need to?

I would imagine that a police officer encountering a person with a firearm is going to respond to that person the same way no matter what the gun is. Providing a useless bit of information to cops and good guys (info that may or may not be accurate in any given situation) is hardly a valid argument against the ownership of semi-auto assault rifle lookalikes...

[benEzra]

32. Probably...

Can you tell difference between a real assault rifle& a fake at 20 yards?

I didn't think so. Why should cops and good guys be subject to telling the difference?

Probably...if it's in the possession of a a clean-cut, middle-aged guy wearing a $400 shirt, $300 shorts, $200 shoes, and a $2000 Rolex watch, and he takes the rifle out of a velvet-lined case and treats it like it's worth $15,000 to $75,000, it's probably a real assault rifle. But ask to see his BATFE Form 4 anyway. :)

If it's in the possession of a guy wearing a $50 shirt, $40 shorts, $30 sandals, and a plain Seiko watch, and he's treating it like a $500 sporting rifle, it's probably a civilian lookalike. That be me...

If someone is shooting the gun, it'd be a snap to tell, unless it was a Title 2 selective-fire gun with the selector set on single-shot.

The fact is, though, that rifles of any description are rarely used in crimes, as you well know:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

All rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides annually, less than half as many as fists and feet.

[Raydawg1234]

30. hmmm.. I wonder why this is comming out before the election

what a nice thing to do, get the Repub base up in arms (excuse the pun) about their guns.

[derby378]

33. Repubs? Hell, son, this is Democratic territory

I'm just doing my own little part to get my fellow donkeys up in arms about their Constitutional rights.