Ignorance on firearms and no im not talking about statistics...

[VoodooChild]

I myself am a firearm owner who of course is strongly pro-guns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me a lot of the drive from the gun control side is based off fear. I find the reason for this comes from the majority of gun control enthusiast, from my experience, don’t own weapons and have never fired one. Therefore their experience with guns comes from movies and discussions about guns with many people who do not have any experience with firearms.

The big one is “assault rifles”. The fact that there are millions in the country who think I should not be allowed to own an AR-15, to put it bluntly, pisses me off to no end. It’s a scary word. But what does it mean and where did it come from?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

Well, the first major “assault rifle” was produced back in WWII by the Germans. The Sturmgewehr-44, Or STG-44. One of Hitler’s weapons researchers found out that most firefights were never engaged past 300 meters with the average soldier carrying a bolt action rifle that is effective up to 800-1000 meters. So he had the brilliant idea or taking the properties of the low recoil, fully automatic SMG, and the power and accuracy of the rifle and putting them in one weapon. What he came up with was a small rifle cartridge and built a SMG around that round. Then he came up with the STG-44. The world’s first assault rifle.

It being designed in 1944 it was too late to have a huge impact on the war, but it did however change the concept of the of the rifleman’s weapon.

So today, the term assault rifle continues to be used. It is thrown around in a manner that is used as a fear tactic in my opinion. Even while most people don’t understand why it’s even called that. Today all an “assault rifle” is is a semi-auto rifle, with a removable magazine, and a pistol grip. It is the today’s equivalent of what bolt actions and lever action rifles where back in there day when they were new hot pieces of technology. Like those rifles they also were in use by the military then they caught on in the hunting community. The AR-15 is now in the phase where it is getting popular in the hunting community. The only difference is firearms aren’t a norm like it was back when the bolt and lever actions were the new kid on the block. So they are getting bashed as nothing but weapons of war. Well wasn’t every type of firearm ever used a weapon of war at one point?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

The AR-15 does not stand for “assault rifle-15” or “automatic rifle-15” like SOOO many people think it does. It was designed by a fella named Eugene Stoner. The first company to produce this rifle was a company by the name of ArmaLite. So they called it the ArmaLite-15, or AR-15. It was later produced by Colt during the Vietnam war as the M-16, which today the Marine doesn’t even use fully-automatic M-16, M-4s (its carbine cousin). Why, you might ask. Why should it? It has a burst feature. I have talked to many of my Senior NCOs who fought in bloody parts or Iraq back in 03-04. And you rarely ever hear one of them say they ever used burst. It’s a waste of ammo and you can’t put bullets exactly where you want like you can with semi.

People hear the words “civilians with assault rifles” and they think about some madman spraying bullets into crowds of people running for their lives. Even though you can’t get a fully automatic rifle without a special permit that isn’t necessarily easy to obtain, and even when you get it you still have to buy firearms that were made before a certain date. I want to say 1993, but I’m too lazy to surf through bills to find the regulation and cite, sorry.

My point is that this ignorance allows laws that aren’t even attempt to remove the AR-15; they just discourage someone from owning one due to too many restrictions. Example, I have a buddy from CT. In CT you can own a semi- auto rifle but out of these options, pistol grip, removable magazine, bayonet lug, compensator, and collapsible buttstock you can only choose 2 out of the 5. Most modern AR’s have all 5. Answer me this, how is a madman with all 5 options, pistol grip removable magazine, compensator, bayonet lug, and a collapsible buttstock, going to cause more destruction than someone with only a removable magazine and pistol grip. There isn’t going to be a difference. The law isn’t there to make the weapon less dangerous. It’s there to make owning a nice AR such a pain in someone’s ass that they just don’t bother. It’s just a kick in the balls to gun owners, while not even attempting to make it a safer place to live.

People want the 50 cal banned. When is the last time you heard of 50 cals being the weapon of choice for criminals. It’s not. The thing weights like 30 pounds naked. People see the movie Shooter and have this fear that people that own 50 cals could kill the president if they want. Even if you did own the rifle, there are probably only a handful of people in the world that could shoot someone at 2000m. And the government knows who they are because they trained most of them.

Why is there a wait period to buy a pistol? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it was created for a situation like this… A man catches his wife cheating on him with his neighbor because he comes home early from work. He decides he is going to off both of them. Goes to a gun store says “I need a .40 glock.” He has to wait 10 days, and then he cools down and rethinks the situation… The thing is if he really was wanting to go through with it all he would do then would be fork over 300 bucks for a 12ga 870 and a box of buckshot. Then go out with his plan. Once again the law does nothing to stop that crime from happening. It just makes the act of buying a firearm a pain in the ass.

Me and my buddy where going to buy a stripped AR lower receiver and a parts kit to build our own AR from the ground up. We go in to a gun store and start asking the guy about buying a lower. Turns out that a couple months before a federal law was passed that did not allow persons under the age of 21 to buy lowers because someone could buy an AR pistol kit to make an “AR pistol”. Which is the stupidest firearm know to man. So we had to wait. What was the point of that law? What criminal have you heard of using an AR-pistol to commit crimes. None…

Probably the worst crime done with “assault rifles” was the LA bank robbery where it ended up bloody. The only reason it had gotten as bloody as it did was because the local law enforcement didn’t have any weapons that would penetrate their full suits of body armor. They only had pistols and shotguns. Sense then, law enforcement officers have been issued weapons like AR-15s to be able to combat the problem in case it ever happens again, they will at least have the firepower to do it. Should that result in a law that doesn’t allow me to own an AK-47?

My question is, with all the ignorance of firearms, does that ignorance turn into laws that only restrict my right to own a firearm while not stopping criminals from committing crimes and killing people with guns?

Sorry for making it so long…

 

[MXracer169]

right on Voodoo Child, when I was a Marine in Iraq I never fired my M16 on burst... it is simply meant to be a semi-automatic rifle. I own an M-4 now, and by no means do I think the term "Assault Rifle" is used correctly. The term assault rifle is emplyed strictly to conjur up fear among the masses.
The reality is, those who use weapons for gang warfare and criminal means will find ways to get these weapons regardless, taking away the right to own weapons will only impact those who legally own and operate firearms properly. I really have no idea why the far left is so vehemently against the 2nd Ammendment. I enjoy going to the range and firing the weapon I used in combat, that is all I will ever use it for. Why is this so offensive to some? Any of my liberal counterparts wish to clue me in?

 

[lizzie]

Very good points. It seems to be primarily based on fear, but also on ignorance. People who aren't raised around guns, or who don't make a concerted effort later in life to learn how to use and handle guns, are afraid of them. There's nothing mysterious about them at all, and in the hands of an person educated in their use, who follows good safety practices, they are not a danger. There's also the misconception that guns are dangerous, rather than the realization that guns don't kill anyone- people do. If guns were banned, crime would not go down, and we've seen plenty of evidence of that in other countries over the past 20 or so years. If criminals didn't have guns, they would be using knives, clubs, baseball bats, or whatever object at their disposal could be used for a weapon. It's humans that are the problem, not guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

gun control is not intended to control criminals.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

I guess what people don't realize is that every morning they wake up to birds chirping because somewhere in this world some soldier is on the front lines carrying one of these "assault rifles" (I've never been assaulted with a rifle, but anyway) and protecting their freedom and keeping the peace through force.

 

[rathi]

I have to agree. There a whole bunch of gun laws that are just completely absurd. For example, a gun with a rifled barrel under 16.5 inches and stock is a highly restricted weapon. So a glock can go from legal to illegal by putting a stock on it. There is no rational explanation for why two legal feature become illegal when combined. The people who wrote that law must have been completely ignorant about how firearms actually work. You could replace nearly every existing gun law with something as simple as : it must fire one bullet per trigger pull and said bullet must have under 21,000 joules of muzzle energy without changing the practical lethality of current firearms at all.

 

[ecofarm]

There is some legitimate fear that drives gun control. That is, gun owners are irresponsible. This is true to some extent and it is why most guns are used against their owners... not because guns are particularly apt (as weapons go) to be turned upon someone but because people buy a gun and fail to obtain even a modicrum of training. It is also why there are so many gun "accidents", or negligent discharges.

We should focus on gun (safety) training more and on red-tape control less. The source of the problems (or accidents) is not guns or people, it's a lack of respect and training for the weapon.


Our kids are taught about sex in public school when they are what, 8? But at the same age they could encounter a weapon ("hey, look what my parents have") and not have any idea the respect and safety it deserves - having never handled a weapon, fired one or really been taught about them (other than "Don't mess with them at all - because I say so!", which we all know is just fantastic advice for a curious kid).
"Cool, let me point it" *bang*... that's our fault, not the weapon's.

I'm not underhandedly trying to militarize our public schools, but gun safety is a course best taken as early as possible. Perhaps proof of training should be required for the purchase of a weapon, but I don't like registration (of training or firearms), thus that's not so easy.


So, what do you guys think? Should gun safety be a class in public school, including a field-trip to the range? Not a whole semester kind of thing, but like sex-ed is incorporated.

 

[ecofarm]

Sorry, I ran out of edit time.

If we look at the gun violence and accident situation clearly, I think the only question is at what age should we provide gun safety class in public school.

I think doing so would go alot farther towards reducing not only accidents but even gun violence... than worrying about barrel size, mag capacity or powder load and spending a ton of time and money enforcing those eccentricities.


ps. AR pistol LOL. Just in case you gotta carry concealed AND reach out and touch someone at 200m (could have a pretty long barrel, right)? It's so useless it's funny. It's basically a really big pistol That pwns, kinda.


Crocodile Dundee..
You call that a pistol?
Now THAT's a pistol!

 

[Hoplite]

People want the 50 cal banned. When is the last time you heard of 50 cals being the weapon of choice for criminals. It’s not. The thing weights like 30 pounds naked. People see the movie Shooter and have this fear that people that own 50 cals could kill the president if they want. Even if you did own the rifle, there are probably only a handful of people in the world that could shoot someone at 2000m. And the government knows who they are because they trained most of them.

Quick question, why does the average person NEED .50 bullets?

Probably the worst crime done with “assault rifles” was the LA bank robbery where it ended up bloody. The only reason it had gotten as bloody as it did was because the local law enforcement didn’t have any weapons that would penetrate their full suits of body armor. They only had pistols and shotguns. Sense then, law enforcement officers have been issued weapons like AR-15s to be able to combat the problem in case it ever happens again, they will at least have the firepower to do it. Should that result in a law that doesn’t allow me to own an AK-47?

The point is expected use. You dont generally use a 47 to go hunting and for home defense, you dont really need something that powerful.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Quick question, why does the average person NEED .50 bullets?

The point is expected use. You dont generally use a 47 to go hunting and for home defense, you dont really need something that powerful.

If our lives always revolved around needs, everything would be incredibly boring and no one would be in debt.
Not to mention that we have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

No one needs a .50 cal but that doesn't matter because someone wants it and is willing to part with their money for it.
Why do you need a computer? the internet? a car that goes faster than 50mph? any food that goes beyond filling your basic nutritional needs? stylish clothing? and on and on.

See what happens when you judge, what people should be allowed to have, based on need.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Quick question, why does the average person NEED .50 bullets?

The point is expected use. You dont generally use a 47 to go hunting and for home defense, you dont really need something that powerful.

Need has nothing to do with it.

 

[Hoplite]

If our lives always revolved around needs, everything would be incredibly boring and no one would be in debt.
Not to mention that we have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

No one needs a .50 cal but that doesn't matter because someone wants it and is willing to part with their money for it.
Why do you need a computer? the internet? a car that goes faster than 50mph? any food that goes beyond filling your basic nutritional needs? stylish clothing? and on and on.

See what happens when you judge, what people should be allowed to have, based on need.

Except a .50 bullet is not a computer nor is it clothing. It's a weapon.

 

[Goobieman]

There is some legitimate fear that drives gun control. That is, gun owners are irresponsible. This is true to some extent and it is why most guns are used against their owners

Most guns are -not- used against their owners.
And, there's noi support for the syatement that gun owners are irresponsible. SOME of them are, but the tiny % of those that re in no way makes a case against th erest.

It is also why there are so many gun "accidents", or negligent discharges.

"So many"? I laugh.
In 2006 there were 642 accidental deaths related to a firearm, compared to 300,000,000 guns and 100,000,000 gun owners.

Our kids are taught about sex in public school when they are what, 8?

I am --all-- for teachng age-appropriate gun safety in public schools, as a requirement for graduation.

 

[Goobieman]

Quick question, why does the average person NEED .50 bullets?

For the exactl same reason he needs the right to burn a flag - you never know when the situation might warrant it.

The point is expected use. You dont generally use a 47 to go hunting and for home defense, you dont really need something that powerful.

An "AK-47" is well-suited (though maybe not perfect)for home defense and certain kinds of hunting certain kinds of game in certain kinds of terrian. There is no way to soundly argue that there is no 'legitimate use' for an AK47 as it can be effectively used for just about any legal purpose someone might have for a gun.

 

[Goobieman]

Except a .50 bullet is not a computer nor is it clothing. It's a weapon.

You mean .50BMG, right?
Yes it is. It's one hell of a round. There are just some things that need to be done the .50BMG way, and for it there is no substitute.

 

[Cephus]

No one needs a .50 cal but that doesn't matter because someone wants it and is willing to part with their money for it.
Why do you need a computer? the internet? a car that goes faster than 50mph? any food that goes beyond filling your basic nutritional needs? stylish clothing? and on and on.

Sure, but where does that end? What about someone who wants nuclear weapons, a bazooka or functional howitzer, etc? What about someone who wants to own a coal-fired power plant in their back yard? What about a car that theoretically cannot operate *BELOW* 80mph? What about someone who wants to own slaves? If they want it and are willing to part with their money for it, who are you to stop them?

In reality, as a part of a cooperative society, there will *ALWAYS* be limitations to what you can own. That's just simple reality.

 

[Cephus]

Unfortunately, while it is absolutely right to say that some people are terribly ignorant of firearms and therefore leap to banning and the like, it's equally valid to say that some people on the pro-gun side operate on paranoia. They fear criminals robbing them on the street and the government breaking down their doors and confiscating their guns. Both sides have plenty to learn and a much more moderate view ought to win.

 

[Goobieman]

Sure, but where does that end? What about someone who wants nuclear weapons, a bazooka or functional howitzer, etc?

It ends with the definition of "arms", as the term is used in the context of the 2nd. Some weapons qualify, some do not. The court decisions on the matter describe the general area of the boundary.

Under those decisions, any and every class of firearm falls under the definition, and as such, that's all the further the discussion needs to go, as your right to own and use those weapons cannot be infringed.

 

[Deuce]

It ends with the definition of "arms", as the term is used in the context of the 2nd. Some weapons qualify, some do not. The court decisions on the matter describe the general area of the boundary.

Under those decisions, any and every class of firearm falls under the definition, and as such, that's all the further the discussion needs to go, as your right to own and use those weapons cannot be infringed.

A howitzer is essentially the same thing as a pistol, just in far larger size

I wonder what the courts will decide about laser pistols when we invent those.

 

[Goobieman]

I wonder what the courts will decide about laser pistols when we invent those.

That will depend on their use by the military.
The 2nd protect weapons that are suitable for use in the milita. The Militia is intended to, among other things, assist (or resist) the military thru force of arms. For that, it needs appropriate weapons; if the average soldier is equipped plasma rufes and mass drivers, then the 2nd proctects the individual right to own and use plasma rifles and mass drivers.

 

[Cephus]

It ends with the definition of "arms", as the term is used in the context of the 2nd. Some weapons qualify, some do not. The court decisions on the matter describe the general area of the boundary.

Under those decisions, any and every class of firearm falls under the definition, and as such, that's all the further the discussion needs to go, as your right to own and use those weapons cannot be infringed.

In other words, you're just arbitrarily picking which "arms" you like and which ones you don't. The context of the 2nd amendment was entirely different, it was under the assumption that, without a standing army, every able-bodied white male (let's be honest, that's all they were talking about) would have to provide their own weapons and come to the aid of their town/state/nation. At the time, individuals owned fully-functional cannons, the most powerful weapon available on the battlefield. So you're for people owning, say, howitzers, the modern-day equivalent?

 

[Goshin]

There is some legitimate fear that drives gun control. That is, gun owners are irresponsible. This is true to some extent and it is why most guns are used against their owners... not because guns are particularly apt (as weapons go) to be turned upon someone but because people buy a gun and fail to obtain even a modicrum of training. It is also why there are so many gun "accidents", or negligent discharges.

Sorry but this is utter nonsense. Gun accidents are relatively very rare, and have been falling for a century. Even the most conservative of estimates of defensive use would make the ratio of defensive-use-to-accidents 50 to 1.

The idea that most guns are used against their owners is a fallacy perpetuated by the Brady group and other anti-gunners, and has been thoroughly debunked.

So, what do you guys think? Should gun safety be a class in public school, including a field-trip to the range? Not a whole semester kind of thing, but like sex-ed is incorporated

Yes, it should be, at a minimum. "Education" is the answer to everything else, says some.... except guns, from which they run away screaming instead of seeking knowlege.

 

[Goobieman]

In other words, you're just arbitrarily picking which "arms" you like and which ones you don't.

Nothong in my post or in my position supports this.
I said that the term cleasrly covers all classes of firearms, which is inarguable. If you want to discuss whatever else it might cover - grenades, AT4s, mortars - be my guest, but as doing so in no way does anything to negate the argumen that all classes of firearms are 'arms' under the 2nd. I shant participate.

The context of the 2nd amendment was entirely different....

Than what? The court was very clear about the context in which the term was to be interpreted, and the standards by which the term 'arms" was to be judged.
I suggest you go read US v Miller.

 

[Deuce]

That will depend on their use by the military.
The 2nd protect weapons that are suitable for use in the milita. The Militia is intended to, among other things, assist (or resist) the military thru force of arms. For that, it needs appropriate weapons; if the average soldier is equipped plasma rufes and mass drivers, then the 2nd proctects the individual right to own and use plasma rifles and mass drivers.

Sweet. I am totally signing up for the Space Marines.

 

[Hoplite]

For the exactl same reason he needs the right to burn a flag - you never know when the situation might warrant it.

By that logic, let's let people have RPGs and thermonuclear weapons because, hey, you never know when the situation might warrant it.

An "AK-47" is well-suited (though maybe not perfect)for home defense

Yeah, in Liberia.

The Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947 is one of the finest firearms ever produced by the hand of man, I agree. HOWEVER, if you need 30 rounds of 7.62 to keep you safe at home, you need the military, not an AK.

and certain kinds of hunting certain kinds of game in certain kinds of terrian.

Ah yes, the infamous Kevlar Bears.

There is no way to soundly argue that there is no 'legitimate use' for an AK47 as it can be effectively used for just about any legal purpose someone might have for a gun.

There is no reason for a civilian to need a military weapon when any task he may require the AK-47 to perform can be performed above or beyond his needs with a civilian weapon.

You mean .50BMG, right?
Yes it is. It's one hell of a round. There are just some things that need to be done the .50BMG way, and for it there is no substitute.

And what, pray tell, would a civilian need it for? There aren't an over-abundance of M2's on my street, I dont know about yours.

That will depend on their use by the military.
The 2nd protect weapons that are suitable for use in the milita. The Militia is intended to, among other things, assist (or resist) the military thru force of arms. For that, it needs appropriate weapons; if the average soldier is equipped plasma rufes and mass drivers, then the 2nd proctects the individual right to own and use plasma rifles and mass drivers.

This has always bugged me. Our founding fathers were not stupid men, surely they realized that weapons technology would advance at some point and bring about more lethal means of destroying one's neighbors.

With that in mind, I seriously doubt they meant the 2nd amendment to cover modern military weapons.