Assault Weapons Ban

[Bocefish]

A lot of people are thinking now is a rational time to renew the so-called assault weapons ban (AWB). Some gun stores are now reporting the busiest sales in 20 years! :lol: Everyone is expecting the ban so they're trying to get grandfathered in.

Guess what they're buying?

Evil black rifles! :shhh:

The AWB did so much good the last time that it wasn't renewed.



People were calling for this knee-jerk reaction ban before the bodies were even cold and before they knew any of the facts from the horrendous tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. People feel they MUST do something to stop this from happening again whether it will make a difference or not.

The majority of people don't think renewing the AWB will do anything to stop future mass shootings, but hey, at least they're doing something to make their happy little asses FEEL better.

I hope they also ban the various ultra-realistic, extremely violent first person shooter games that desensitize these unstable individuals to the precious value of innocent human lives. I also hope the do gooders that called for the AWB donate to and volunteer their time at homeless shelters that provide aid for the mentally ill.

I realize people want to blame something for these senseless murders, but there are no simple, immediate fixes.

So-called Assault Weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes.

Right now is the least rational time to make any permanent policy.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[Jupiter551]

I agree, reactions and laws shouldn't be knee-jerk, but they also should be valid topics for debate. The reason it becomes knee-jerk is because it always takes something like this to start the debate because it's the only time the pro-gun lobby loses enough influence for the discussion to occur.

 

[Shaun__]

I have always been opposed to high capacity magazines myself, and consider them to be more dangerous than any particular type of gun. You can make an argument that guns are not just toys, but are for self defense. I do not feel you can say the same for the high capacity magazines. They are just toys and can be removed from society.

 

[Jupiter551]

I have always been opposed to high capacity magazines myself, and consider them to be more dangerous than any particular type of gun. You can make an argument that guns are not just toys, but are for self defense. I do not feel you can say the same for the high capacity magazines. They are just toys and can be removed from society.

I agree, automatic loading and magazine size are imo the most important aspects to consider about any kind of gun reform.

 

[Bocefish]

Actually, only the ignorant, idiot wannabe Rambos buy those high capacity mags. Those mags will jam up almost EVERY time. Both the recent mall shooter and the movie theater shooter's weapons jammed. The only good thing was they were both newbs when it comes to shooting.

I'd be fine banning those type mags. I'm even open to making the so-called assault weapons more difficult to purchase with deeper, more stringent background checks.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Evidently Connecticut has a pretty strict ban on assault rifles, but the shooters weapon wasn't covered by the ban. Which is similar to my experience with my semi auto AK47. I dutifully registered it cause they listed AK47 as weapon that had to be registered. But when I sold it, the gun dealer told me it wasn't one of the models covered by the ban, it had something to do with the bayonet fixture. I guess being able bayonet people is too dangerous

 

[Bocefish]

I know! :lol: That's gubbermint reasoning for ya.

 

[SoTxBob]

If a person is practiced with almost any firearm, reloading is accomplished in mere fractions of a second. Using pistols vs revolvers..... random pic. 45acp 1911 Vs a 45cal revolver. I can reload the revolver in roughly 3 seconds while ejecting a clip and replacing with a new one is maybe 2.... capacity difference of 1.
as for 'assault weapons'.... buzzwords ... Pistols are used more than so labeled assault weapons in the comission of crimes. Local recent case.... Fort Hood massacre. -pistol legally obtained with waiting period. Even on a base, he got off 100+ rounds before he was brought down. IMO, its still not the machinery thats the problem. its the people and lack of mental care and also the head in the sand attitude so many people go through life.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Actually, only the ignorant, idiot wannabe Rambos buy those high capacity mags. Those mags will jam up almost EVERY time. Both the recent mall shooter and the movie theater shooter's weapons jammed. The only good thing was they were both newbs when it comes to shooting.

I'd be fine banning those type mags. I'm even open to making the so-called assault weapons more difficult to purchase with deeper, more stringent background checks.

I am fine with banning high cap magazine also but I doubt they'll make much difference. The standard 24 round clip on most assault rifle only take a 5-10 seconds to change less that for an experience shooter. Now that is big deal when you are in the middle of a fire fight, but really no big deal when you are terrorizing unarmed civilians, especially since can just draw an handgun while changing clips.

 

[Bocefish]

If a person is practiced with almost any firearm, reloading is accomplished in mere fractions of a second. Using pistols vs revolvers..... random pic. 45acp 1911 Vs a 45cal revolver. I can reload the revolver in roughly 3 seconds while ejecting a clip and replacing with a new one is maybe 2.... capacity difference of 1.
as for 'assault weapons'.... buzzwords ... Pistols are used more than so labeled assault weapons in the comission of crimes. Local recent case.... Fort Hood massacre. -pistol legally obtained with waiting period. Even on a base, he got off 100+ rounds before he was brought down. IMO, its still not the machinery thats the problem. its the people and lack of mental care and also the head in the sand attitude so many people go through life.

Yeppers

 

[Mirra]

I have almost no doubt that an assault weapons ban wouldn't have a huge effect all by itself. I just don't see a rational reason you'd need an assault weapon unless you're going to war or are looking to breach a guarded building. They can be used for defense but so can a shot gun... and if anything the assault rifle in the hands of someone trained to use it is more humane than the shot gun too.

On the other hand, an assault weapons ban would make a suspected criminal into a charged criminal just by possessing one illegally. An assault weapon ban would make it a bit more difficult for criminals to breach a guarded/secured building. An assault weapon ban would make being a police officer ever so slightly safer.

I don't think an assault weapon ban is how you address the issues from this year's biggest mass shootings. I simply see no compelling reason a normal citizen needs that type of weapon and believe there are benefits to there being less of them out there.

 

[Shaun__]

If a person is practiced with almost any firearm, reloading is accomplished in mere fractions of a second. Using pistols vs revolvers..... random pic. 45acp 1911 Vs a 45cal revolver. I can reload the revolver in roughly 3 seconds while ejecting a clip and replacing with a new one is maybe 2.... capacity difference of 1.
as for 'assault weapons'.... buzzwords ... Pistols are used more than so labeled assault weapons in the comission of crimes. Local recent case.... Fort Hood massacre. -pistol legally obtained with waiting period. Even on a base, he got off 100+ rounds before he was brought down. IMO, its still not the machinery thats the problem. its the people and lack of mental care and also the head in the sand attitude so many people go through life.

All you can do is try to make them reload more often and hope for the best. If there are CC people around then they will have a safer moment to act, or if you have people willing to tackle an armed man then they will. Maybe the gunman will fumble the magazine or something else. I do know if I had to choose between an insane man with a single 100 round magazine or multiple 10 round magazines which one I would pick. I do know that the Virginia Tech shooter had 10 and 15 round magazines, but I would at least like to make some effort to make the world a little safer. It is all I think is possible at this point in time.

 

[Jupiter551]

I'd say handguns restricted to revolvers, even with speedloaders you're never going to equal the firing rate of a semi-auto handgun, even before extended magazines etc. Nor are there selective fire models like the g18 (not sure if that's legal in the US or not). Surely if someone has been instructed how to confidently fire a revolver it's more than adequate for self defense.

 

[Bocefish]

These cowards choose gun free zones for a reason. The Colorado movie theater coward chose the only theater that had a "No Guns Allowed" sign posted. All the other theaters in his area allowed CCW. Coincidence?

The Virginia Tech. coward used two pistols, now the school allows CCW IIRC.

The Columbine cowards used these:



When you're shooting fish in a barrel, it doesn't matter how long it takes to reload if you take out the biggest, unarmed fish first.

I can think of several real life instances where I'd much prefer an AR15 or AK47 but those TEC-9 and similar type, gangland weapons can go AFIC. But guess what? The gang bangers and people with ill intent don't give a shit what weapons are banned, they can easily get their hands on anything they want with enough money. So once again, the AWB will only effect law abiding citizens.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I have almost no doubt that an assault weapons ban wouldn't have a huge effect all by itself. I just don't see a rational reason you'd need an assault weapon unless you're going to war or are looking to breach a guarded building. They can be used for defense but so can a shot gun... and if anything the assault rifle in the hands of someone trained to use it is more humane than the shot gun too.

On the other hand, an assault weapons ban would make a suspected criminal into a charged criminal just by possessing one illegally. An assault weapon ban would make it a bit more difficult for criminals to breach a guarded/secured building. An assault weapon ban would make being a police officer ever so slightly safer.

I don't think an assault weapon ban is how you address the issues from this year's biggest mass shootings. I simply see no compelling reason a normal citizen needs that type of weapon and believe there are benefits to there being less of them out there.

There is no rational reason for needing a sport car that does 150 MPH (well maybe in Germany) , a cigarette boat, a 150 MPH motorcycle or host of other fast things yet plenty of people buy them. It is more fun to shot a gun that you can fire 24+ times at a target in a several seconds than it is a bolt action rifle. I haven't done nearly the amount of shooting that a lot of guys on this thread hand, but I have definitely watched plenty of woman who were initially squeamish about guns find their inner Rambo once they got their hands on an AR15. They blast away and leave the range with big smiles on their faces. Sports cars are way more dangerous than regular cars both to their drivers and others yet we do allow them and don't even require any type of special license, why not limited the top speed of cars to 80 or 90 MPH and move the speed limit down to 55 while we are at it?

There are already huge penalties for using a gun. Criminal can't even own any gun in the first place. So what ever prohibition we put on assault rifles it would only effect first time criminal who obtain their guns legally. A group which isn't too large.

 

[Jupiter551]

I have almost no doubt that an assault weapons ban wouldn't have a huge effect all by itself. I just don't see a rational reason you'd need an assault weapon unless you're going to war or are looking to breach a guarded building. They can be used for defense but so can a shot gun... and if anything the assault rifle in the hands of someone trained to use it is more humane than the shot gun too.

On the other hand, an assault weapons ban would make a suspected criminal into a charged criminal just by possessing one illegally. An assault weapon ban would make it a bit more difficult for criminals to breach a guarded/secured building. An assault weapon ban would make being a police officer ever so slightly safer.

I don't think an assault weapon ban is how you address the issues from this year's biggest mass shootings. I simply see no compelling reason a normal citizen needs that type of weapon and believe there are benefits to there being less of them out there.

There is no rational reason for needing a sport car that does 150 MPH (well maybe in Germany) , a cigarette boat, a 150 MPH motorcycle or host of other fast things yet plenty of people buy them. It is more fun to shot a gun that you can fire 24+ times at a target in a several seconds than it is a bolt action rifle. I haven't done nearly the amount of shooting that a lot of guys on this thread hand, but I have definitely watched plenty of woman who were initially squeamish about guns find their inner Rambo once they got their hands on an AR15. They blast away and leave the range with big smiles on their faces. Sports cars are way more dangerous than regular cars both to their drivers and others yet we do allow them and don't even require any type of special license, why not limited the top speed of cars to 80 or 90 MPH and move the speed limit down to 55 while we are at it?

There are already huge penalties for using a gun. Criminal can't even own any gun in the first place. So what ever prohibition we put on assault rifles it would only effect first time criminal who obtain their guns legally. A group which isn't too large.

Well the sports car argument doesn't always work because other cars are just as capable of killing people, and in their favour sports cars have better handling and can quickly avoid situations that other vehicles, like SUVs which have more damage potential, cannot.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Well the sports car argument doesn't always work because other cars are just as capable of killing people, and in their favour sports cars have better handling and can quickly avoid situations that other vehicles, like SUVs which have more damage potential, cannot.

Your chance of surviving a collision with a sport car going 120 MPH is way less than being hit at 60 MPH by most SUV, since force= mass * velocity^2. Sports cars have a much higher incidents of accidents and fatal accident than other type of cars,especially in the hands of young drivers, which is why the insurance on them is so expensive. What ever safety benefit of better brakes and handling is more than outweighed the tendency of them being driven at speeds way above the speed limit. They really are the assault rife equivalent of cars.
However, they are a hell of lot more fun to drive than regular cars,which is why I owned two for 15 years.

The Beltway sniper killed 10 people and seriously wounded 3 more with a bolt action rifle.
The Texas tower sniper killed 13 and wounded 32 mostly with bolt action rifles.
The deadliest school attack in the US didn't use any guns.

 

[Mirra]

Criminal can't even own any gun in the first place. So what ever prohibition we put on assault rifles it would only effect first time criminal who obtain their guns legally. A group which isn't too large.

Except by having one in the first place under a ban would make anyone who wasn't an exception to the ban for occupational reasons a criminal. First time or with a record, it wouldn't matter. You don't think being able to charge a person with that before they commit any other crimes would ever matter?

Also your analogy is so weak. You're talking about cars as a weapon. Sports cars increase the danger of the people inside them more than the people sharing the road with them. Assault weapons don't tend to do that. If I wanted the car equivalent of an assault rifle, I would probably go with either a large, solidly built, high powered luxury sedan or a solidly built, high powered SUV probably slightly lowered for a lower center of gravity.

Edit:

Sports cars have a much higher incidents of accidents and fatal accident than other type of cars,especially in the hands of young drivers, which is why the insurance on them is so expensive. What ever safety benefit of better brakes and handling is more than outweighed the tendency of them being driven at speeds way above the speed limit. They really are the assault rife equivalent of cars.

What? You're not going to point out that it's even MORE the case for Red cars? BAN ALL RED CARS! You're being ridiculous. In those fatal accidents, what % of the time did the driver in the sports car die? What % of the time did the driver of some other vehicle die? My money says the sports car passengers had a MUCH higher mortality rate than the people they ran into. A whole lot of sports cars are light as hell too so that mass number is often 67-75% of similar cars their size... unless of course you're talking about something similar to a Viper with a V-10 push rod engine mounted in the front of it probably weighing nearly as much by itself as a Smart Car.

The Beltway sniper killed 10 people and seriously wounded 3 more with a bolt action rifle.
The Texas tower sniper killed 13 and wounded 32 mostly with bolt action rifles.
The deadliest school attack in the US didn't use any guns.

Yep... not surprised. Like I said, I don't see an assault weapons ban making a bit dent in incidents like that. I just don't see why a civilian has any use for one unless used by his/her occupation.

 

[Bocefish]

I just don't see why a civilian has any use for one unless used by his/her occupation.

Home defense is not a valid enough reason?

Those who enjoy shooting sports don't enjoy firing them?

It wouldn't be a good weapon for a rancher to use on coyotes or wolves harassing his stock or other predators?

It wouldn't be a good weapon to carry in the winter time on your snowmobile or 4 wheeler for protection against wolves?

To defend yourself and family against looters after a natural disaster or some other major catastrophe or extended blackout hit your area?

I could go on but you get the point. People familiar with firearms and enjoy shooting them have plenty of valid reasons. They're excellent all around weapons and very intimidating to intruders. The mere sight of one pointed at a criminal with bad intent would likely send them running or just freeze them until the po-po came. Many effective civilian uses, provided your trained and experienced handling one.

 

[Mirra]

I just don't see why a civilian has any use for one unless used by his/her occupation.

Home defense is not a valid enough reason?

Those who enjoy shooting sports don't enjoy firing them?

It wouldn't be a good weapon for a rancher to use on coyotes or wolves harassing his stock or other predators?

It wouldn't be a good weapon to carry in the winter time on your snowmobile or 4 wheeler for protection against wolves?

To defend yourself and family against looters after a natural disaster or some other major catastrophe or extended blackout hit your area?

I could go on but you get the point. People familiar with firearms and enjoy shooting them have plenty of valid reasons. They're excellent all around weapons and very intimidating to intruders. The mere sight of one pointed at a criminal with bad intent would likely send them running or just freeze them until the po-po came. Many effective civilian uses, provided your trained and experienced handling one.

Right right... oh wait. I've already mentioned a little something about that.

I have almost no doubt that an assault weapons ban wouldn't have a huge effect all by itself. I just don't see a rational reason you'd need an assault weapon unless you're going to war or are looking to breach a guarded building. They can be used for defense but so can a shot gun... and if anything the assault rifle in the hands of someone trained to use it is more humane than the shot gun too.

 

[Anonymous]

Yep... not surprised. Like I said, I don't see an assault weapons ban making a bit dent in incidents like that. I just don't see why a civilian has any use for one unless used by his/her occupation.

If a person is a law abiding, responsible citizen why shouldn't they be able to have one? Its like saying I shouldn't be able to own a Ferrari because a Corolla does a good enough job. I have a Winchester Model 70 bolt action that I love shooting, but if I wanted an M4, a SCAR, or 416, there should be no reason I couldn't own one. Its not about whether or not I "have a use" for it. Most people who enjoy shooting enjoy shooting different types of weapons. Its like playing guitar. I don't own just one guitar. While I still like playing my Squier Strat, I really get a kick out of playing my American made 57 resissue. One cost me $100, the other cost me a lot more. Why did I buy the more expensive one when I already owned a guitar? Because I wanted to.

 

[Bocefish]

I just don't see why a civilian has any use for one unless used by his/her occupation.

Home defense is not a valid enough reason?

Those who enjoy shooting sports don't enjoy firing them?

It wouldn't be a good weapon for a rancher to use on coyotes or wolves harassing his stock or other predators?

It wouldn't be a good weapon to carry in the winter time on your snowmobile or 4 wheeler for protection against wolves?

To defend yourself and family against looters after a natural disaster or some other major catastrophe or extended blackout hit your area?

I could go on but you get the point. People familiar with firearms and enjoy shooting them have plenty of valid reasons. They're excellent all around weapons and very intimidating to intruders. The mere sight of one pointed at a criminal with bad intent would likely send them running or just freeze them until the po-po came. Many effective civilian uses, provided your trained and experienced handling one.

Right right... oh wait. I've already mentioned a little something about that.

I have almost no doubt that an assault weapons ban wouldn't have a huge effect all by itself. I just don't see a rational reason you'd need an assault weapon unless you're going to war or are looking to breach a guarded building. They can be used for defense but so can a shot gun... and if anything the assault rifle in the hands of someone trained to use it is more humane than the shot gun too.

Shotguns are good for home defense but have their limitations outdoors. An AWB would have approximately zero effect since they're used in crimes .20 to one percentage of the time. The bad guy will still use them and the whackos will just use something else. But hey, it will make the antis feel better and the politicians can say they did something.

 

[Anonymous]

CA has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Didn't mean sqaut for these guys

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

Criminals had the cops outgunned. Banning "scary black rifles" isn't the answer.

 

[Jupiter551]

I have a Winchester Model 70 bolt action that I love shooting, but if I wanted an M4, a SCAR, or 416, there should be no reason I couldn't own one. Its not about whether or not I "have a use" for it. Most people who enjoy shooting enjoy shooting different types of weapons.

Oh sure, why shouldn't a civilian be able to own a Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR), hell why not a vulcan minigun? Why not a tank?

For that matter, why can't I use mustard gas to kill garden pests - chemical weapons never killed ANYONE! Only crazy people with chemical weapons did!

 

[Jupiter551]

The Beltway sniper killed 10 people and seriously wounded 3 more with a bolt action rifle.

Lol funny you should mention the beltway sniper because ACTUALLY he used a .223 Bushmaster assault rifle, guess where else one was used? Sandy Hook Elementary.

In 2004, Bushmaster Firearms agreed to contribute $500,000 to a $2.5 million settlement along with co-defendant Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, paid to some victims and families of victims of the 2002 Beltway snipers. A Bushmaster-manufactured .223 caliber rifle was used in the attacks. The company cited mounting legal fees as the reason for settling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Firearms_International#Beltway_sniper_lawsuit

The two used a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a civilian version of the military M-16.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/9/20040909-095944-5026r/

All the victims of the Connecticut elementary school shooting were killed up close by multiple rifle shots, a medical examiner said on Saturday.

(a .223 Bushmaster FYI)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...cf63e8-fe84-4f9b-ad20-5aff1e178c78_video.html

 

[Nordling]

Rachel Maddow has some interesting commentary about gun laws and the future--including some information about "printable weapons."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#50232154

 

[lexmark402003]

The Beltway sniper killed 10 people and seriously wounded 3 more with a bolt action rifle.

Lol funny you should mention the beltway sniper because ACTUALLY he used a .223 Bushmaster assault rifle, guess where else one was used? Sandy Hook Elementary.
[/url]

If he used a .223 Bushmaster as a sniper rifle, he's an idiot.

It's a piss poor weapon to choose as a sniper rifle.

Also, I don't consider any semi-auto to be an "assault" weapon. Maybe the reporters and dimwits in Congress call a semi-auto an "assault weapon," but the rate of fire is far to slow to assault anything. The only way a Bushmaster .223 would be useful as an assault weapon would be if it was modified to allow full auto (or at the very least, 3 shot bursts).

I've never understood why these crazy bastards choose pistols or .223 semi-autos. Probably because they know little or nothing about guns. Seems to me that if someone wanted to cause maximum damage in a crowded, close range setting, that person would go with a semi-auto shotgun (or 2), with a semi-auto pistol (or 2) as backup.

Although in a "gun free zone" like a school, where only the bad guy has a gun is the bad guy, I guess it doesn't matter much.

I hope one day to read an article about a "school shooter" being taken out by a teacher with a concealed carry permit. But that won't happen as long as schools are "gun free zones." Making schools, churches, and government buildings "gun free zones" just tells the wolf that the sheep inside are defenseless.

 

[Jupiter551]

The Beltway sniper killed 10 people and seriously wounded 3 more with a bolt action rifle.

Lol funny you should mention the beltway sniper because ACTUALLY he used a .223 Bushmaster assault rifle, guess where else one was used? Sandy Hook Elementary.
[/url]

If he used a .223 Bushmaster as a sniper rifle, he's an idiot.

It's a piss poor weapon to choose as a sniper rifle.

Also, I don't consider any semi-auto to be an "assault" weapon. Maybe the reporters and dimwits in Congress call a semi-auto an "assault weapon," but the rate of fire is far to slow to assault anything. The only way a Bushmaster .223 would be useful as an assault weapon would be if it was modified to allow full auto (or at the very least, 3 shot bursts).

I've never understood why these crazy bastards choose pistols or .223 semi-autos. Probably because they know little or nothing about guns. Seems to me that if someone wanted to cause maximum damage in a crowded, close range setting, that person would go with a semi-auto shotgun (or 2), with a semi-auto pistol (or 2) as backup.

Although in a "gun free zone" like a school, where only the bad guy has a gun is the bad guy, I guess it doesn't matter much.

I hope one day to read an article about a "school shooter" being taken out by a teacher with a concealed carry permit. But that won't happen as long as schools are "gun free zones." Making schools, churches, and government buildings "gun free zones" just tells the wolf that the sheep inside are defenseless.

yeah, well I dunno why he used a bushmaster but he did, apparently.

Assault or semi-auto with a decent size magazine is kind of beside the point, something like a civilian version M14 is more than enough to kill people in a reliable and rapid fashion, even in single shot fire.

 

[Anonymous]

I have a Winchester Model 70 bolt action that I love shooting, but if I wanted an M4, a SCAR, or 416, there should be no reason I couldn't own one. Its not about whether or not I "have a use" for it. Most people who enjoy shooting enjoy shooting different types of weapons.

Oh sure, why shouldn't a civilian be able to own a Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR), hell why not a vulcan minigun? Why not a tank?

For that matter, why can't I use mustard gas to kill garden pests - chemical weapons never killed ANYONE! Only crazy people with chemical weapons did!

There are semi-automatic versions of the SCAR that civilians are allowed to own. I'm not allowed in CA, because our gun laws are silly and defy common sense. The rest of your post is just beyond silly and not worth commenting on.

Oh, and for the record, there are mini-guns in the hands of civilians. States that allow Class III weapons heavily regulate and tax them and the ATF makes you fill out paperwork, but they do have them. Funny how no one has ever used that type of weapon in any crime. Maybe because the sort of firearm enthusiast who own such a thing are actually responsible people.

 

[Jupiter551]

For that matter, why can't I use mustard gas to kill garden pests - chemical weapons never killed ANYONE! Only crazy people with chemical weapons did!

The rest of your post is just beyond silly and not worth commenting on.

So then by extension I take it you mean so is the oft-quoted logic that a gun never killed anyone, people did?