That's not the point though, they can be and they'd make a hell of a choice for a mass shooter.
Weren't AK-47 clones used in the North Hollywood bank raid ?
Australia is a really good example. There was a mass shooting. They implemented laws to reduce gun violence, and that's what happened.
I believe so-illegally converted to full auto; Only people killed were the perpetrators so apparently, they weren't nearly as effective as the civilian legal hunting rifles that cops borrowed from a gun shop to take the baddies out
A corporal once told me that the British version of the FN-FAL (the SLR) could be converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic with a simple wooden match stick
Those two robber would a few cops in the process and changed the LAPD's firearms policy.
never fired the British version--I own the Belgian version, an American made version and a south american version. I have fired the full automatic version-not a great weapon in full auto.
That's not the point though, they can be and they'd make a hell of a choice for a mass shooter.
Weren't AK-47 clones used in the North Hollywood bank raid ?
The British version was semi-auto only (and built to British imperial measurements so parts weren't inter-changeable).
The rifle was designed to fire a smaller round, like the German 7.92mm Kurz but the USA made all of NATO adopt the 7.62x51mm.
I've seen it said that the FN should have been the M-14 rifle but the trials were rigged.
NY jumped on the bannedWagon years ago, and limited honest people to ten round magazines, mainly as a reaction to a felon who used a already banned (for him) AR with 30 round magazines to perpetrate some nastiness. Cuomo then tried to push that limit to 7 rounds-he couldn't name a crime that justified it but many of us who claimed that the 10 round limit was going to ultimately be reduced even further, were told that we were making bogus slippery slope arguments. We were not
we pointed out that the mindset of the gun banner is usually one of two things
1) those who actually believe the bs they want to pass will reduce crime. If it does not (such as the ten round limit) they engage in a faith based belief that further restrictions will be successful when prior ones failed or
if the crime goes down, no matter what reason, they will demand more restrictions, claiming it will mean more reductions in crime
2) those who lie about what really motivates them-and mostly the real motivation is to harass honest people and punish pro gun voters for opposing the anti gunner politicians and their schemes to pander to weak minded voters. In this case, they will keep pushing no matter what happens, because harassing honest gun owners is their goal
You hit the reply button. How come you didn't reply to what I said at all? I was talking about Australia, which implemented gun laws that work. You bring up New York out of nowhere, and then say everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or lying.
Australia really has no relevance to the USA and the topic is why compromise is stupid. And I showed why
Bullseye asked for examples of countries that have implemented successful gun laws. I replied to Bullseye. You replied to me and started talking about New York. My point is that you're ranting.
Hardly. There is no evidence that the gun laws were the reason why crime allegedly decreased
Are you sure that's true? Maybe you just haven't looked for the evidence. Would you examine the evidence with me if I provided it?
Many times there is a correlation but no causation or other things can explain it. Australia banned magazine fed rifles, Believe the same about shotguns and heavier caliber pistols (target crossbows were restricted btw) but the number of people owning smaller caliber pistols increase. and in most countries, it is smaller caliber handguns that are used in most of the crimes and suicides.
OK, so you're already well aware of the correlation. Yes, correlation does not prove causation on its own. But if you're so concerned with the minutia of debate, what are you doing basing a whole thread on a slipper slope fallacy?
A strong correlation between an action (gun laws) and its desired result (reducing gun deaths) is hard to dismiss in the absence of an alternate explanation. You say that "other things can explain it." Would you expound?
in the USA, since 1993, millions more people are carrying guns since many states adopted shall issue laws. 15-18 shot handguns have become the most popular handguns in the USA and the AR 15 rifle has become the most popular centerfire rifle in America. yet violent crime went down.
The goal of the anti gun movement in the USA is two fold
1) to curry votes with low intelligence voters who think their schemes actually decrease crime and
2) to harass the pro gun movement for political reasons. so people who work for gun bans are always going to push for more restrictions which is why it really isn't a slippery slope argument anymore than noting untreated cancer will continue to spread.
Yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with you is either lying or stupid. And they're out to ruin America for some ill defined nefarious reason. We get it.
Is there a way to get Americans to stop shooting each other quite so much that doesn't hand the country over to the lib commie conspiracy? That would be the best way to take the issue away from them. What do you propose to solve the problem? Or do you not believe there is a problem? It seems like you're A OK with the status quo of lots of Americans dying from gun violence.
Are you a US citizen? I am and have dealt with the anti gun movement for decades: debated them on radio, TV, in front of law schools, universities, local governmental bodies etc and I stand by what I say about their motivations
now how do we decrease violent crime
get rid of the idiotic war on drugs
stop putting non violent people in prison-which turns them into more violent criminals when they get out
really hammer the small percentage of criminals who cause most of the violence
teach firearms safety in public schools
get rid of "gun free zones"
hammer those who lie on form 4473
We have some common ground on mass incarceration. But it isn't the liberal politicians who started the War on Drugs,
and so it won't be the liberals who end it.
Here's a suggestion. The next time you talk to a gun law advocate, instead of going straight for the recriminations, try to find common ground. I'll bet they want to dismantle the police state built around the War on Drugs too!
Then when gun violence declines, it won't be an issue any more.
And besides they look scary and make a lot of noise!!
I agree- you see parts kits for INCH pattern and METRIC pattern. Mine are all metric.
I have a civilian version of the M14-the super national match with the douglas barrel, double lugged receiver and is guaranteed to shoot under an inch at 100 meters. I had the basic version but sold it when I got the NM. and you are right, the only area where the M14 was better is long range sniper roles (the flexible cover on the top of the FAL is not conducive to a solid scope mount-though there are some remedies, they are not cheap nor easily installed). The M14 is slightly better in full auto, but again that was a waste of ammo.
Australia is a really good example. There was a mass shooting. They implemented laws to reduce gun violence, and that's what happened.
A lot of British soldiers discovered that parts are not interchangeable in the 1982 Falklands War.
I knew a soldier who got himself a spare gas plug for the SLR, it saved him ages when cleaning rifles for inspection.
I read that the M-14 rifle was issued to the infantry for only 6 years...so it must have been really bad. Shame the the British MOD are so stubborn keeping the SA-80 but seems to be OK now, nevertheless it's regarded as total junk. I hated mine. It was actually heavier that the SLR when fully loaded.
Apart from the gas plug the SLR was easy to clean and reliable and by all accounts Australian soldiers loved theirs in Vietnam.
Today, the rifle I wish would replace the SLR is the HK-416 / 417.
So you compromise and give in, and more "common sense" gun control laws are passed. Afterwards:
If gun violence goes up or remains the same, that's evidence that still more gun control laws are needed.
If gun violence goes down, that's evidence that gun control works - hence more gun control laws are needed to reduce gun violence further.
Compromising on gun rights is foolish. Give a filthy leftist an inch, and he'll take a mile and a half every time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?