GunControl

[Busta]

Rifles in .50 BMG have existed all century long, and have been used in virtually NO crimes. Meanwhile, they are used in tons of long - range shooting sports, where they excel. Typically they are large 15-30lb rifles that are about 6 feet long, and hold 5-10 bullets, and are generally single-shot, bolt action, or semi-automatic(that means it fires once per-trigger-pull for the ignorant people who believe sarah brady when she says that is full-auto[machinegun]), and pack one heck of a recoil whallop. Also, the cheapest of these guns are $3000 and they usually range from $7000-12000. To shoot them costs about a dollar to a dollar fifty a round. Does that sound like a weapon that would be used for mass-killing?

M4a1? Well the civilian semi-auto versions have also been existing ever since the AR-15 existed. To date, they haven't been used improportionately to other guns in crime. As far as them being less enticing for crowd killing, Quite frankly, if you really think about it Full-Auto is crap for "mass-killing" Say you were a mass-killer. What would you rather do, waste 30 rounds in about a second or two all into about three people in a crowd, or fire about 1 bullet into about thirty people in a crowd? Full auto isn't like the movies. There are TWO(2) purposes for full-auto. (Why the military has them)

#1, They are good for suppression fire (that means good for keeping the enemies covering)

#2, They are good for EXTREME close quarters. That does not mean for mass-killing. That means getting off as many rounds possible into an individual target as fast as possible to take them down before they take you down.

M60, well, I suppose if you had it belt-fed and a long enough belt, you could cause a significant amount of damage with it. But of course nobody will notice that you are toting a light machine gun into town. The record still has it that these wouldn't be the preferred mechanism to a criminal. Criminals generally have no problem in obtaining any gun they want. 86% of crimes in total are committed with illegally purchased guns, and for another example from the murder-capital of the free world (Washington D.C.) where virtually all guns are banned, 20% of the guns used in crime are home-made. It really isn't too difficult to make guns, even machine guns are simple devices. If I had a pipe, and a welding tool and a few other easy to get raw materials, I myself contain the necessary knowledge to create simple small automatic weapons and easier yet, a simple single-shot zip gun which virtually anybody could make from a pipe a nail and a home made stock and action. Of course, since I don't intend to go to jail for 10 years if I am caught, and I'm not a criminal and don't intend to commit any crimes, I won't be making anything like this anytime soon. But like I said, criminals don't care about the law. The law only prevents law-abiding citizens such as myself from getting the fun stuff.

Also, in 1934, when machineguns were essentially removed from civilians without license there is an interesting thing. Since then and before, there has only been 1(one) crime committed with a legally owned machine gun. The irony here, is that the person who commited a crime, was a police officer!

Before 1934, there are no records of any legal machineguns being used in a crime.

Now, you may be saying, "but, what about the mobsters who have used them and the gangsters and stuff" Well, it may come as a surprise to you, but they just don't care much about the law, and usually prefer to buy guns illegally where they'll be harder to trace anyways. (Even without registration, it'd still be dangerous to buy legally. Guns can be traced to where you bought it based off of credit card information and simple business operations and reciepts. They investigate this stuff for any item used in any crime. That's another reason why Registration isn't very useful for much except for allowing the gov to see exactly where all the guns are so they can take them. And so far every major country that has done registration has taken advantage of it. They said it would never happen in Britain)

In general, for the average murder, any tool ranging from a knife to any sort of firearm is sufficient against attacking an unprepared victim. Where criminals have popularly used machineguns (which have, in ALL cases been illegally obtained ones) they have consistently been used against other gangsters in tactical combat. Once again, tactical combat doesn't mean killing mass numbers of people, that means the capability to take specific objectives efficiently. For example, it might be useful for the military when clearing out buildings if there are insurgents cowering behind the wall ready to fire a burst. Against the unarmed person in a building, time isn't so critical as someone is probably not worrying about being shot or ambushed inside. For the mob, the limited numbers of guns that they had in full auto were useful for killing other mobsters at close range before they could attack back.


The whole point? If criminals wanted machine guns, they could get them. No law is going to stop them from getting at the abundant source of illegally imported, illegally manufactured, and illegally stolen firearms. It's kind of like the prohibition for alcohol. First off, they don't work. Second, they create a whole new line of work for criminals who can get rich off of selling taboo goods.(these are the same criminals who commit a lot of violent crimes) (And it's not like the people buying them [criminals] are going to be spending their own money) Am I saying that criminals don't use machine guns? Well some do, but they are not the majority, and I'm mainly trying to say, that banning them isn't doing a thing to stop them. In fact, with the prices of legal machine guns becoming extremely high due to supply & demand (now theres a lot of civilian law-abiding demand and little supply of legal machineguns) they can actually get them cheaper on the black market, which is unusual for most things sold illegally.

The same is true I believe for the War on Drugs. In fact, I believe that is one of the major things in this country that cause crime. I don't endorse the use of drugs, but I also don't endorse useless spending of tax-payer dollars to increase crime. That's where the majority of the gangs and mafias get formed, is when the people want something that the government won't let them have. Bottom line? If you want something bad enough, you get it.

A great post!!

 

[Busta]

I'm sorry, I lose interest easily, so I didn't read your whole post, all I am saying is that civilians have no business using war weapons. I don't hunt, so I don't know the names of these guns but you get my idea, if you are hunting, you don't need to blow the deer away, just kill it painlessly and quick. Self defense, you only need enough to incapacitate the attacker. You said that most guns used in crimes are purchased illegally, but lets keep it that way. It would be a lot worse if they could purchase these guns legally.

If you show others the curticy of reading their entire posts, they may be more inclined to respect what you have to say.

Gun civilian ownership and the second Amendment are not about hunting, but killing an out-of-controle government and killing lethal-force-welding criminals. Hunting is a nice byproduct, but not the core purpose.

Criminals who can perchis guns legally may still be more inclined to perchis their guns illegally. Why buy a $400 gun at a pawn shop and waite 3 days when they could buy a $40 "throw-away" gun on the street now?

 

[Busta]

I would almost agree with you, but I think our nation is growing unstable. If you see enough posts, you'll begin to see what I mean. There is deep-seated rift between the liberals and the conservatives. I think it has grown dramatically under the illegitimate rule of GWB. I'm thinking about getting a gun... just in case something ridiculous happens... and I know that sounds paranoid... but It may be better to be safe than sorry. That's all I am saying. If this was a more perfect world, under different circumstances, I would agree with you. I would say lets replace lethal weapons with non-lethal high-tech incapacitators, and such. But I think we are living in unstable times as a nation. And I do worry the tension could snap. And that would not be a pretty sight if you had to defend yourself against gun-totin red--necks and yahoos!!:shock:

A long time ago I came across a saying that I have found too apply to allot of different issues; from gun ownership to sex ed.

I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

 

[HTColeman]

If you show others the curticy of reading their entire posts, they may be more inclined to respect what you have to say.

Thanks for your opinion on what I should show others, it wasn't disrespect, it is simply hard for my eyes to focus on the computer screen that long.

Gun civilian ownership and the second Amendment are not about hunting, but killing an out-of-controle government and killing lethal-force-welding criminals. Hunting is a nice byproduct, but not the core purpose.

Out-of-controle gov't? You really think that you can stop the gov't with an assault rifle, and you really think our gov't is out of control? If it came down to that, we, as civilians, really have no hope, I don't care how many guns we have.

Lethal force wielding criminals? Whatever gun the civilians carry, the criminals will carry something stronger. Do you want it to come down to that? Civilians walking around with military weapons, as the everyday norm?

Criminals who can perchis guns legally may still be more inclined to perchis their gun illegally. Why buy a $400 gun at a pawn shop and waite 3 days when they could buy a $40 "throw-away" gun on the street now?

I am not sure what you are saying, all I am saying is that they are already buying illegal guns, don't make it easier for them by making them legal.

 

[HTColeman]

A long time ago I came across a saying that I have found too apply to allot of different issues; from gun ownership to sex ed.

I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

I'd rather foster a society that does not need it. In Africa they have fostered societies that need to carry around assault rifles, because they always are trying to get stronger than their enemy, who in turn tries to get stronger than them.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Out-of-controle gov't? You really think that you can stop the gov't with an assault rifle, and you really think our gov't is out of control? If it came down to that, we, as civilians, really have no hope, I don't care how many guns we have.

I don't know HT, that would depend on the military's will to enforce protections of said government against it's own citizens. I'd say it's a 50/50 shot either way.

Lethal force wielding criminals? Whatever gun the civilians carry, the criminals will carry something stronger. Do you want it to come down to that? Civilians walking around with military weapons, as the everyday norm?

Most criminals use small calibur handguns because they are cheap and easily available, so someone who (forgive me) outguns them has a good chance of self-defense.

I am not sure what you are saying, all I am saying is that they are already buying illegal guns, don't make it easier for them by making them legal.

That one's been more succinctly adressed than I could, so I'll bow to the superior point.

 

[HTColeman]

I don't know HT, that would depend on the military's will to enforce protections of said government against it's own citizens. I'd say it's a 50/50 shot either way.

Yes, if the military is on our side, then we win. But Gun control or lack thereof won't help us if the gov't is against us.

Most criminals use small calibur handguns because they are cheap and easily available, so someone who (forgive me) outguns them has a good chance of self-defense.

They use small handguns because most don't have guns. If people start carrying around handguns, they will look for something stronger. Then the people will look for a gun stronger than the criminals, then the criminals will look for something stronger than the civilians, not to mention that gangs are now fighting with assault rifles. The more dangerous guns you put on the market, the more dangerous your society becomes

 

[Busta]

"Thanks for your opinion on what I should show others, it wasn't disrespect, it is simply hard for my eyes to focus on the computer screen that long."

Oh, I have a similar problem. I thought that you were just being sarcastic. I apologies.

Though I do see the government overstepping it's bounds regularly, I do not think that it is, yet, so far gone as too warrant a revolution. That day may not come for many more decades.
That day will come, however.
On that terrible day the civilian population will not only have "assult" rifles, but launch weapons, explosives, armored vehicles...etc.
The Military could not stay united during the last civil war, so do not assume that the Military would stay united during the next. This means that the revolter's would not just have small arms and explosives, but F-16s, Los-Angeles-Class Submarines, B-1 bombers, satelites, Nuclear warheads.......
In the unlikely event that civilians were disarmed before the inevitable revolution, the civilians would be armed with home-made truck bombs, home-made fire-arms, and may we not forget, Boeing 747s.....

The average off-duty Cop carries a 238 cal., 7 or 9 mill. pistol (buy a Glock) loaded with 150-200 grain, hollow point rounds.
I would be happy with the same.
Though if I feel that a Desert Eagle (made by Israeli Arms) (357 Magnum, 200-300 grain full-metal-jacket) suets my mood, so be it.

Civilians walking around with military weapons, as the everyday norm....Yes. Absolutely. Without doubt or regret. Whatever the individual civilian requires in order to secure their safety, that civilian should have. Military ordinance included.

Posted by Busta;
"Criminals who can perchis guns legally may still be more inclined to perchis their gun illegally. Why buy a $400 gun at a pawn shop and wait 3 days when they could buy a $40 "throw-away" gun on the street now?"

Posted by HTColeman;
"I am not sure what you are saying, all I am saying is that they are already buying illegal guns, don't make it easier for them by making them legal."

If I wanted an illegal gun, right now at this very moment, all I need is $40 and 20 minuts. I have both.

If I want a legal gun, I need $200-$800 and 3 days. I do not have either.

It is currently easier to buy a gun illegally than legally.

I don't care if you have a gun because I will drop you in an instent if you use it agents me & mine.

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

Yes, if the military is on our side, then we win. But Gun control or lack thereof won't help us if the gov't is against us.



They use small handguns because most don't have guns. If people start carrying around handguns, they will look for something stronger. Then the people will look for a gun stronger than the criminals, then the criminals will look for something stronger than the civilians, not to mention that gangs are now fighting with assault rifles. The more dangerous guns you put on the market, the more dangerous your society becomes

Hmm, that's kind of funny, because In Israel almost everyone carries a long gun on their backs or a handgun on their person and they have one of the safest societies around as far as criminal gun use is concerned... All they have to worry about is palestineans. In Switzerland everyone has an Assault rifle in their home. They are the #1 safest nation.

Think about it... If you were a criminal, would you want to rob a bank if you knew that every one in the bank had an assault rifle and was willing to use it?

Oh yeah, and thats an interesting thing you note... Gangs are using assault rfles eh? If you are seriously meaning Assault Rifles and not "Assault Weapons" then guess what? Assault Rifles are illegal. I guess the gun laws really helped out there now didn't it! :roll: Wait, I thought you said they'd only carry bigger guns if the average citizen carried bigger guns. So what's this phenomenon! Can you give an example of a place where what you are saying is true (where criminals only decide to use crappy guns until civilians have good guns)?

Did you know that criminals don't generally want to die? (Suicide bombers excluded.) If a criminal see's two people, one that has a gun and the other that doesn't, chances are he won't risk his life trying to rob the armed one. (Despite what the Brady Campaign says. They'd leave you to believe that a potential rape victim was better off giving in to it than thwarting it)



By the way, the term "assault weapon" (not to be confused with assault rifle, which is defined as a selective fire medium-caliber rifle) for those of you unfamiliar with it, has no definition. The media has used the term to describe virtually every type of gun at one time or another. The Assault Weapons ban only banned certain features of certain guns that didn't effect performance, and production of those guns continued on without the "Scary features" that I doubt anyone that didn't know guns could recognize.

 

[Busta]

I remember that, maybe 8 or 10 years ago, Wall-Mart sold a shotgun called "Home Defense". This shot gun was a perfectly normal shotgun, except for the fact that the barrel was shortened to be 1mm. longer than the leagal limit. This pistol griped, 3-5 round clip sporting sawed-off shotgun looked and operated identically to the illegal version; except that it was perfectly legal.

(It had a shot barrel, in case anyone was wondering)

 

[kal-el]

I don't see a purpose to banning guns. Maybe asault weapons. Besides, if there is a ban on guns, normal people won't be able to protect theirselves, because guns will Always be available somewhere. On the flip side of the arguement, I consider guns an extension of one's arm- it dosen't have the power to negotiate, just inflict pain and death. How would you feel if you were going to a football game, and there's violence between supporters of different teams. Would you feel safer if they were armed?

 

[stsburns]

I voted: "There should be significant limits on the types, features, possesion and strict carry laws" But my respose is, that we already have these laws in place.

For example: My uncle owns and shoots an AK-14 sub machine gun, but without certain features. BY LAW he CANNOT add a device in his gun that will enable him to shoot 3 rounds at once (3-round burst), and he cannot by law add any other device that will give the gun ANY of the capabilities of the Military AK-47 sub-machine gun. It is illegal! By a loop hole in the system, he can legally own the gun. He can ONLY own the gun, because it is used. He cannot, by law own a brand new AK-14 sub-machine gun. Also to be on the lighter side, he uses his gun for recreation. He is very greatful that he lives in a secluded part of his state, outside of city limits, where he can freely shoot at water filled milk jugs. And believe it or not I got to shoot it once. Then he explained to me, everything. So should gun control laws be more strict? I don't think they should, because if people couldn't shoot them for recreation, how are police officers, soldiers, supposed to defend our freedoms. When they don't have the previlage to practice their shooting skills. A majority of gun owners in the US own guns legally. But crimes commited by guns are usually done with stolen weapons, in which the law can't restrict.

 

[Busta]

I don't see a purpose to banning guns. Maybe asault weapons. Besides, if there is a ban on guns, normal people won't be able to protect theirselves, because guns will Always be available somewhere. On the flip side of the arguement, I consider guns an extension of one's arm- it dosen't have the power to negotiate, just inflict pain and death. How would you feel if you were going to a football game, and there's violence between supporters of different teams. Would you feel safer if they were armed?

I don't know what you mien by "assault weapons". What is an "assault weapon"?

As for football games and such, lets not forget that, even if there were no restrictions on what weapons you could poses and cary publicly, privet persons would still have the right to not let you carry your weapon on their property. Sure, you could carry your M-16 around town, but if you need to stop for gas at a station that has a "no guns" sign, you have too go elsware. You have to go to Same's Club or Cosco for groceries? Better leave your gun in the car.
Stadiums do not allow guns now, I doubt that that would change.

 

[HTColeman]

Hmm, that's kind of funny, because In Israel almost everyone carries a long gun on their backs or a handgun on their person and they have one of the safest societies around as far as criminal gun use is concerned... All they have to worry about is palestineans. In Switzerland everyone has an Assault rifle in their home. They are the #1 safest nation.

Oh yes, I would love to have safety and security like Israel, absolutely peaceful:roll:. Deep in mind they have fewer freedoms than we do and nearly all have military training in public schools. Switzerland also has a large amount of gun training, similar to military. That is why they are so safe, not because they carry around guns. Look at all the factors

Think about it... If you were a criminal, would you want to rob a bank if you knew that every one in the bank had an assault rifle and was willing to use it?

Now think realistically, in American culture. We have high school students shooting up schools, people shooting up churches, and serial killers everywhere, we obviously have a problem with violence. You want to give them assault weapons?

Oh yeah, and thats an interesting thing you note... Gangs are using assault rfles eh? If you are seriously meaning Assault Rifles and not "Assault Weapons" then guess what? Assault Rifles are illegal. I guess the gun laws really helped out there now didn't it! :roll: Wait, I thought you said they'd only carry bigger guns if the average citizen carried bigger guns. So what's this phenomenon! Can you give an example of a place where what you are saying is true (where criminals only decide to use crappy guns until civilians have good guns)?

If you read the post that I was replying to, most criminals now use small handguns. I was referring to a slippery slope that as civilians carry bigger weapons, criminals carry bigger weapons. When I said now, it was referring to "now they would be doing this, because of this", not "now" here and present. You must read the whole argument, before you jump in with sarcasm.

Did you know that criminals don't generally want to die? (Suicide bombers excluded.) If a criminal see's two people, one that has a gun and the other that doesn't, chances are he won't risk his life trying to rob the armed one. (Despite what the Brady Campaign says. They'd leave you to believe that a potential rape victim was better off giving in to it than thwarting it)

Oh, could you provide some sort of source, because I see most people involved in public shootings killing themselves after they are done.

By the way, the term "assault weapon" (not to be confused with assault rifle, which is defined as a selective fire medium-caliber rifle) for those of you unfamiliar with it, has no definition. The media has used the term to describe virtually every type of gun at one time or another. The Assault Weapons ban only banned certain features of certain guns that didn't effect performance, and production of those guns continued on without the "Scary features" that I doubt anyone that didn't know guns could recognize.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

Definition of Assault Weapon
The law created a definition of assault weapon: Certain models (all of which apply to only semi-automatic weapons), such as the Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all Kalashnikovs (including the AK-47), Uzi, and others were banned by name; other firearms were banned for having certain features:

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and two or more of:

folding or telescoping stock
conspicuous pistol grip
bayonet mount
flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
grenade launcher
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of:

magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
unloaded weight of 50 oz or more
a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
(all but the last pistol feature are found in the pre-ban TEC-9, the probable inspiration for that section of the law)

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of:

folding or telescoping stock
pistol grip
capacity of more than 5 rounds
detachable magazine

fully automatic guns are also illegal since the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Now we all know about Assault Weapons (which are now allowed)

 

[HTColeman]

I voted: "There should be significant limits on the types, features, possesion and strict carry laws" But my respose is, that we already have these laws in place.

For example: My uncle owns and shoots an AK-14 sub machine gun, but without certain features. BY LAW he CANNOT add a device in his gun that will enable him to shoot 3 rounds at once (3-round burst), and he cannot by law add any other device that will give the gun ANY of the capabilities of the Military AK-47 sub-machine gun. It is illegal! By a loop hole in the system, he can legally own the gun. He can ONLY own the gun, because it is used. He cannot, by law own a brand new AK-14 sub-machine gun. Also to be on the lighter side, he uses his gun for recreation. He is very greatful that he lives in a secluded part of his state, outside of city limits, where he can freely shoot at water filled milk jugs. And believe it or not I got to shoot it once. Then he explained to me, everything. So should gun control laws be more strict? I don't think they should, because if people couldn't shoot them for recreation, how are police officers, soldiers, supposed to defend our freedoms. When they don't have the previlage to practice their shooting skills. A majority of gun owners in the US own guns legally. But crimes commited by guns are usually done with stolen weapons, in which the law can't restrict.

Many of the laws, however, recently expired, and were not renewed. As far as policemen, they aren't considered your average citizen, they have police training for target practice. Soldiers, they can have whatever gun the military gives them, they have alot of military shooting practice. Limiting guns doesn't mean the end of safety.

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

Oh yes, I would love to have safety and security like Israel, absolutely peaceful:roll:. Deep in mind they have fewer freedoms than we do and nearly all have military training in public schools. Switzerland also has a large amount of gun training, similar to military. That is why they are so safe, not because they carry around guns. Look at all the factors

Hmm.. Irsrael is really a peaceful place as far as criminal activity is concerned. If you read the news everyday you'd think it was living hell. What's wrong with military training in schools? To me it sounds like practical knowledge that will be a lot more useful in your life than football ! I never said the reason they are safe is because they had guns... I was pointing out that everyone carrying guns in a region does not lead to crime. There are pleanty of safe places with lots of Gun Control, to include Britain and Australia. They were also safe before gun control.

Now think realistically, in American culture. We have high school students shooting up schools, people shooting up churches, and serial killers everywhere, we obviously have a problem with violence. You want to give them assault weapons?

Hmm... Schools, Churches, Notice anything in common with those? Virtually all schools and most churches completey dissallow guns on their properties. Funny, I guess the serial killers didn't see the sign. While there isn't exactly a coorelation between violence and guns (as I have mentioned in an earlier post in this thread) there IS a coorelation between the severity. Like I said before, and yes, I'm going to use Israel again... In Israel, if you have a psycopathic serial killer, he's on his last leg pretty fast. Walks into a market place, or wherever he chooses and starts unloading, he gets about 1 or two guys and he gets nailed... Now, how many people were shot columbine and other schools? How about in D.C.? They have some pretty big shootings. Recently, the shooting that happened with that one student on the Indian reservation brought up something else. The schools already have school police and security guards, how come in most areas of the United States these security guards who are regularly on campass aren't armed? What is the purpose of even having them if they can't stop a threat? On the indian reservation, the armed security guard was the first guy targeted, meaning that if he retaliated, the kid who started it wouldn't have caused any more trouble (by the way, gun control wouldn't have stopped this kid, as he got his guns from his dads police car)

If you read the post that I was replying to, most criminals now use small handguns. I was referring to a slippery slope that as civilians carry bigger weapons, criminals carry bigger weapons. When I said now, it was referring to "now they would be doing this, because of this", not "now" here and present. You must read the whole argument, before you jump in with sarcasm.

You really think that criminals are nice enough to only use crappy guns until civilians use better ones? Right. :roll: Criminals use whatever is easiest to obtain and suits their particular need. Like I said before, do you have any proof or examples of a region where when civilians got bigger guns criminals got bigger guns? I can think of a lot of examples where exactly the opposite happened.

Oh, could you provide some sort of source, because I see most people involved in public shootings killing themselves after they are done.

Well, first off, kids who go on shooting sprees aren't the average criminal that's motivated by success or furthering there "career." Second off, they are usually thinking they need to exact revenge or something similar, and it's usually that these people are doing this because they are depressed. (I said suicide bombers exempt in my post) And additionally, the will to live still exists here. If there only goal was to die, than they'd just shoot themselves. Usually they want to do some damage first, and because of that, if they had the option of taking his uncles crappy pos gun, or his dads excellent gun (and was wise enough to know the difference) I don't think he'd have to think very hard.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban


fully automatic guns are also illegal since the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Now we all know about Assault Weapons (which are now allowed)

Did you even read my posts?

Okay... an Assault Rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

is NOT an assault weapon. ASSAULT RIFLES fire a lot of rounds when you pull the trigger, hence they are "machineguns" Assault Weapons, let me reiterate myself about those.

Okay, for the last few decades, some really smart journalists thought "Hey, if I add the word "assault" to all of the weapons used in the crimes I report, it'll add some spice and make things exciting!"

So then, from that point on, new journals around the country began refferring to virtually EVERY gun used in a crime is an Assault Weapon. This included the average semi-automatic handgun or revolver.

:::::READ THIS:::::
Semi-automatic is NOT a machine gun, that means it will fire once EVERY time you pull the trigger, not to be confused with FULL AUTO. Revolvers, crank guns have existed for a long time that could all a semi-auto can today, but operate off of a different mechanism (rotating chamber or spring instead of gas)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

This also included your dads hunting rifle, any given shotgun, any surplus weapon (Not guns that fall under the AWB which is entirely different, according to the military an assault weapon is an assault rifle (which is pretty different from the dictionary definition), and with the exception of its hasty addition to the dictionary(Which most words don't get) it's not a recognized term among anybody who speaks guns snd know firearm terminology. Essentially, a meaningless word.), and finally, in 1989 and 1994, the government started to say "Hmm, these assault weapons are really becoming a problem" So they went to their buddies at the Brady Campaign and said, "Oh you guys must know a lot about guns! What are Assault Weapons and what can we ban to make our cities safer?"

So they said

Definition of Assault Weapon
The law created a definition of assault weapon: Certain models (all of which apply to only semi-automatic weapons), such as the Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all Kalashnikovs (including the AK-47), Uzi, and others were banned by name;

AK47s and AK47s clones are two different breeds of weapons, same goes for Uzi's... Neither of these covered by the ban were assault rifles. Also, the specific names they banned didn't do anything. Everything that was a clone of specified on list was still produced legally. (no loophole as they always claim, the clones were made under different names before the ban)

other firearms were banned for having certain features:

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and two or more of:

folding or telescoping stock
conspicuous pistol grip
bayonet mount
flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
grenade launcher

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and two or more of:
Pistol Grip... In other words, something for your hand to grab onto at a natural angle. Pistol grips don't do crap to enhance performance, and usually many models of the same hunting gun will come with different types of grips to suit the shooter. Almost all rifles [Hunting rifles as well as whatever else you can think of]accept detatchable magazines)

Folding stocks were designed and produced with the hunter in mind, because it's easier to sling it to your back if the rifle is lighter and small enough that it doesn't get in the way. They were also designed for Paratroopers for obvious reasons. Most of the time, folding stocks fold over the trigger, so to me that sounds real useless if it can't fire. Brady will tell you it makes them easier to handle in close range. Which is true of anything shorter, including pistols which aren't covered by the ban. If you had to defend yourself in close range would you rather have something that was easy to handle or hard to handle?

Bayonet mount... Okay. So in other words, any rifle made before 1930 is an assault weapon? Virtually all rifles made back then had these, and usually included other features. A bayonet is a fancy term for a knife. It doesn't make your gun a super-charged killing machine. This also is aimed at taking a cheap shot at the millions of surplus rifles (which can easily be made into hunting rifles or kept in their original configurations as such) from WWII, post WWII, WWI and before. Why? Surplus rifles are cheap because back when there values haven't quite kept up with inflation. A rifle similar to my surplus WWII 98 Mauser (that I got for $300) would have cost me ($1000-3000) in todays bolt action manufactures. My rifle has a bayonet, and a "semi-pistol grip" (which looks like a traditional rifle grip but has a little groove in it), and can also except a rifle-grenade launcher (But mine doesn't have one) Additionally, ANY Rifle can except a bayonet, as there are bayonets that fit right over the barrel. So essentially, if a barrel is a bayonet mount, every rifle has one.

Flash suppressor. Okay, THIS IS NOT a silencer. A flash suppressor does not effect sound in any way. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR will eliminate FLASH. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, if you try to shoot a rifle at night, you will become blind really fast. "Oh there's no legitimate purpose to shooting at night" might be your rebuttal. which is totally lame, some game can only be hunted at night, and any activity done at day can just as easily be done at night. Many hunting rifles also have these. They wouldn't even look like an Ak47, they'd just look like what you see in movies when joe wants to go huting.

Grenade launcher. Hmm... Well since nobody has made the grenades for these rifle grenades (Rifle grenade launches require you to put a blank charge into the gun, and mount a grenade over the barrel.)

Okay for pistols.

magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
unloaded weight of 50 oz or more
a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
(all but the last pistol feature are found in the pre-ban TEC-9, the probable inspiration for that section of the law)

Magazine out side of the grip? What difference does it make where it goes? There are just as many .22lr plinking pistols that do this to "look" cool just as well as the so called "Assault Weapons" (Why would this make it a more desirable feature? It'd add bulk to the weapon(double the space it takes up), and thus be less useful for sneaking into places, which according to the brady campaign would make it less useful to a criminal) The only possible thing I can think of is that it could be used as a grip, and for the calibers pistols that have external magazines are chambered in (.22lr, .32ACP .380, and some in 9mm except some russian guns in 9x18 which is less powerful then our 9mm) All of which don't have enough recoil in them to make for much compensation. If they did, target shooters would want them to reduce there groupings.

Barrel shroud to be used as hand-hold. Geez, ever held a barrel shrowd of a gun that you've been firing (at least the ones that are on pistols). It's STILL really hot after shooting a while. no way you'll be using that as a handhold I take it the people who wrote that never grabbed one.

Unloaded weight of 50oz? What does that have ANYTHING to do with it's effectiveness? A heavier gun may have less recoil, but it will also be harder to conceal, harder to tote, and harder to manage. The recoil advantages of added weight are not very good at all for attacking moving targets. If they were, the miltary would put a hunk of lead underneath all of their guns.

Semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm. Again, the same reasons the military want them is the same reason the public wants them. They are durable, light, and can be filled full of dirt and still use them. When hunters go out into the wild to hunt, they are filled with similar tasks, and these firearms are in fact ideal for these conditions. If you were a hunter, would you want a rifle that jammed all the time, broke if you dropped it, exploded when you shot it(I thought the Brady Campaign wanted safe guns?) or filled full of mud and wouldn't work? How about when the automatic version of a firearm is made after the semi-auto version? For example, the Glock 17 is a standard handgun used by many militaries for it's reliability. Police wanted a fully-automatic version of this pistol to help them when they are outgunned. Now, the glock 18 looks just like an ordinary handgun, but is fully auto. Does that make the glock-17 an assault weapon? How about the 92FS (visible in my avatar) The policia di stato italiano requested a version (93R)that fired three times when the trigger is pulled. The 92FS and Glock -17 are not considered assault weapons though.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of:

folding or telescoping stock
pistol grip
capacity of more than 5 rounds
detachable magazine

Hmm, that seems to cover most semi-auto shotguns. Most can hold more than 7 rounds, have a pistol grip and/or a detatchable magazine. I already covered folding stocks.
(Detatchable magazine automatically qualifies any gun for more than 5 round capacity)


The Assault Weapons ban also covered something else which isn't mentioned.
All magazines were required to contain no more than 10 rounds and have special nutered magazines... First of all, this did not apply to magazines already in circulation (which is enough that all shooters for the next two decades could have as many standard capacity mags as they wanted.)
-----
Second, if you had to defend yourself against ten thugs (where you're probably screwed anyways) would you rather have

A. Six rounds
B. 10 rounds
C. 15 rounds
D. 30 rounds
-----

Third, if you were plinking would you rather reload your magazines every
A. six rounds
B. 10 rounds.
C. 15 rounds.
or D. 30 rounds.

Have you ever loaded a magazine? it's a major PITA and will make your fingers sore. The larger mags also have looser springs, thus easier on your fingers.

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

Now if you were a criminal, do you think you'd even care what the government said? As far as magazines are concerned, you can make your magazines longer simply by welding two together. Thus, the law isn't going to do a THING to stop them from getting the capacity they want.

In addition, guns such as the one appearing in my avatar are less reliable with the nuetered 10 round magazines, because the design of the magazine and it's spring and body were designed for 15 rounds, and now you have to extend a weaker spring in the same body as well as alter the shape of the walls of the magazine thus changing the pressures and tensions of the springs. While the factory 10 round magazines are still more reliable than a lot of the third party hi-cap magazines, they are less reliable than the standard 15 round magazines for which it was designed for. And if you are defending yourself, a jam is your worst enemy.

 

[Busta]

"Now think realistically, in American culture. We have high school students shooting up schools..."

That's why citizens should be as well armed as they wish.

"...people shooting up churches..."

That's why citizens should be as well armed as they wish.

"and serial killers everywhere..."

That's why citizens should be as well armed as they wish.

"we obviously have a problem with violence."

That's why citizens should be as well armed as they wish.

"You want to give them assault weapons?"

I can't stop a criminal from getting an illegal weapon. I can, however, with a little help from my pet Colt, stop a criminal from using one.......

Fully automatic firearms are NOT illegal to acquire and poses, there's just an added hoop to jump through:
"...The transfer of machine guns that were manufactured before May 1986 is permitted but a fee of $200 is required..."

Hay C.J....check this out....gun registration is currently illegal.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3623/is_200404/ai_n9407344

 

[new coup for you]

intellectually i understand that guns should have greater restriction...

but god damn if they aren't awesome

i have a .38 cheif's special and i love it. nothing is more fun then blazing away wiht my uncles M1 Garand

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

As further proof that an assault weapon is an undefined term, the proposed documents for reproposal of the ban are a lot further. If they ever inact a new ban (you can easily find the documents people are trying to pass through for a new ban) they will ban everything semi-automatic that contains a detatchable magazine. In otherwords all pistols, half of all shotguns, and half of all rifles. (To exclude some guns with fixed magazines and the guns that still fire off of mechanisms such as bolt-action, lever action, and revolving firearms)

 

[new coup for you]

well the problem is that people who write gun control laws hate guns and therefore know nothing about them

so they dont know what an assault weapon is

 

[ElGringo17]

"The Right to Keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

What part of "shall not be infringed" to you not get?!

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

intellectually i understand that guns should have greater restriction...

but god damn if they aren't awesome

i have a .38 cheif's special and i love it. nothing is more fun then blazing away wiht my uncles M1 Garand

So? Then what's more important, freedom or potential safety? If everything was always in favor of safety, we wouldn't have any rights. Just think about cars, which happen to be the most dangerous things in the ordinary persons daily life.

The same can be said for other things we need, such as privacy. Intellectually, if the government always spied on you, they could potentially stop you from committing crimes.


"Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety are not deserving of either liberty or safety." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[new coup for you]

are you leading into the whole "we need guns to control the government" angle?

because if all of us pooled all of our money on weapons, we could probably buy like a tenth of a modern tank