Sandy - now NO assault weapon used - WTH (Denver, Florida, own)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but AR certainly does NOT stand for 'Assault Rifle'. And standard military M16 / M4 do not come with granade launchers either. They are additions.
True. In the 1950s the ArmaLite Company manuactured both the AR-10 and AR-15 (AR = "ArmaLite Rifle"). However, due to financial difficulties ArmaLite sold both the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. Colt kept the AR-10 and AR-15 names, even though they now owned the copyright, and began civilian sales of those weapons in 1963. Colt converted the AR-15 into the fully automatic M-16A1 in the late-60s and early-70s. By the mid-1970s the modified M-16A2 was changed from fully automatic to a three-round burst.
Today the AR-15 can be chambered for a wide-variety of different caliber rounds, from a .22 LR center-fire round, to a bolt-action .50 cal. BMG, and everything in between, including a 12-gauge shotgun variant.
Gotta give them a break. They are helpless against the NRA "orders" to their gullible minions about what assault weapon was used to kill all those kids. Bad for Corporate images and all.
I don't see that at all. If Lanza did not take his AR into the school than the kids were shot with hand guns. Most likely 9mm and maybe the 10mm he is said to have had. So the AR did not shoot any of the kids. A hand gun is much easier to maneuver than an AR in close quarters. I don't see your argument at all in this new development.
A semiautomatic pistol like the Glock that Mr Lanza used is a superior weapon to use in a classroom where the targets are at best only 25-30 feet from the shooter. Such weapons come with magazines of up to 33 rounds so you have more than enough rounds to murder 20 or more 6-7 years olds and havce more than enough to off a couple of teachers as well. In fact you have enough ammo to do this and you don't have to be a very good marksman.
Good point,thats a rightie line of logic i've been noticing lately, if a law isnt 100% effective then why have the law at all, lets have no laws at all because people just break the laws anyway, pointless to have any gun laws especially as people are still getting shot and killed,We can never guarantee through laws that mass shootings will never happen again so therefore whats the point of doing anything..
This is the best example defining the complete absence liberals have regarding fundamental reasoning and common sense, and the general cluelessness of what laws are, and what laws do.
The FACTS are, there is no "percentage" of effectiveness of laws relative to preventing crime. Laws are ZERO PERCENT EFFECTIVE at preventing crime ... ZERO ... i.e. TOTALLY USELESS as a measure to "prevent" crime from occurring. Laws only provide the basis for legal prosecution and punishment of law breakers ... that's it ... and absolutely nothing more!
So, demanding more and more laws to prevent crime is quite literally a demonstration of pure stupidity, since we already have every law needed to cover and prosecute every conceivable act of criminal conduct, including specific ones that make punishment more severe in cases where the criminal uses a firearm in the commission of crimes.
We have laws regarding robbery. Those laws do not prevent a robber robbing a bank. They only provide law enforcement and the justice system with the legal grounds to arrest and prosecute the robber for his criminal conduct, AFTER THE FACT, but does absolutely nothing to prevent him from robbing that bank to begin with. We have laws regarding plain old robbery, and laws with add additional consequences to those who commit "armed robbery". We have laws specifically addressing all sorts of criminal behaviors, including the use of firearms in those criminal acts ... none of them prevent the criminal act itself ... or the use of firearms in doing so, and ONLY provides the means to apprehend and punish the offender.
So, once you understand this VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT ... you ought to be able to understand why passing more laws that do nothing other than to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms, and more laws to make it a criminal offense for otherwise law abiding citizens to simply own certain types of firearms, will do NOTHING to prevent criminals from illegally obtaining those weapons and using them to commit crimes.
This is very raw, very elementary common sense, for which there is NO EXCUSE for you or anyone else not to understand ... particularly when it is explained in such a manner that an 5 year old should understand. You are told when you were a small child that you must ask mommy for a cookie, and not just stand on a chair, climb up to the cookie jar and grab one anytime you like. That was the law. But that didn't prevent you from doing it ... it just meant that your little bottom was going to be spanked if you did do it.
So again, if you are over the age of 5, nothing I've said here should confuse you at all.
Gotta give them a break. They are helpless against the NRA "orders" to their gullible minions about what assault weapon was used to kill all those kids. Bad for Corporate images and all.
Oh, yes. Let's just maintain the glamour of the gun. Let's ignore the results of all that power and pretend it doesn't exist, just like we closed our eyes to the coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan for so many years.
It is extremely interesting to me that the same people who talk so glowingly about the power and capability of these weapons run from any discussion of the damage that they inflict.
I mean, isn't that kind of the point?
If they didn't possess the power to kill and maim, why buy them? And if you are going to embrace the capability, I think you darned well should embrace the carnage. Otherwise, you are as cowardly as the people who use them to kill scores of people.
Does anyone here actually know WHO coined the term assault weapon?
It initially was used by the Military as a term to cover specific weaponry.
It was THEN used by a Gun Control activist in a book, mostly to cover what appears to be "Scary Looking" civilian weaponry, and then picked up by the Brady campaign.
It's a stupid term, with a loose definition, and in many cases totally inaccurate. What YOU may think is an Assault Weapon, in many cases is thought of as a toy gun by those who have REAL Assault Rifles and weapons.
People call an AR-15 an assault weapon. It isn't. It's a civilian version of the M-16, that is semiautomatic, and fires a 5.56 mm round. My 8mm Mauser fires a round that's substantially more dangerous, and has several types of rounds, including armour piercing rounds that will cut through body armour at 100 meters like a hot knife through butter. It's lethal at over 800 meters, and people are worried about an AR-15? Seriously? Because it holds more rounds?
At the distances most people are using these rifles, MANY people, are just as accurate with a pistol.
Now, at Sandy Hook, all that was used was handguns. The same type MANY people have. The same kind that civilians use to save MORE lives every year than criminals take with gun violence. The same type that if you ban them, you will ONLY remove from the hands of LEGAL, Legitimate owners, and not criminals, who will ALWAYS find a way to get their hands on a gun.
Does anyone here actually know WHO coined the term assault weapon?
It initially was used by the Military as a term to cover specific weaponry.
It was THEN used by a Gun Control activist in a book, mostly to cover what appears to be "Scary Looking" civilian weaponry, and then picked up by the Brady campaign.
It's a stupid term, with a loose definition, and in many cases totally inaccurate. What YOU may think is an Assault Weapon, in many cases is thought of as a toy gun by those who have REAL Assault Rifles and weapons.
People call an AR-15 an assault weapon. It isn't. It's a civilian version of the M-16, that is semiautomatic, and fires a 5.56 mm round. My 8mm Mauser fires a round that's substantially more dangerous, and has several types of rounds, including armour piercing rounds that will cut through body armour at 100 meters like a hot knife through butter. It's lethal at over 800 meters, and people are worried about an AR-15? Seriously? Because it holds more rounds?
At the distances most people are using these rifles, MANY people, are just as accurate with a pistol.
Now, at Sandy Hook, all that was used was handguns. The same type MANY people have. The same kind that civilians use to save MORE lives every year than criminals take with gun violence. The same type that if you ban them, you will ONLY remove from the hands of LEGAL, Legitimate owners, and not criminals, who will ALWAYS find a way to get their hands on a gun.
The FBI defined an "assault weapon" to be a fully-automatic firearm. That was in 1934, just after the National Firearm Act of 1934 was enacted into law.
Actually, the M-16 is the military version of the civilian AR-15. The AR-15 was invented first in the 1950s and sold to civilians by Colt in 1963, long before the M-16 existed. The AR-15 can also be chambered for several different calibers, including a .50 caliber BMG.
All rifles are lethal at over 800 meters. Even the .22 LR center-fire round is lethal to a mile. I think what you are looking for is called "effective range."
The FBI defined an "assault weapon" to be a fully-automatic firearm. That was in 1934, just after the National Firearm Act of 1934 was enacted into law.
Actually, the M-16 is the military version of the civilian AR-15. The AR-15 was invented first in the 1950s and sold to civilians by Colt in 1963, long before the M-16 existed. The AR-15 can also be chambered for several different calibers, including a .50 caliber BMG.
All rifles are lethal at over 800 meters. Even the .22 LR center-fire round is lethal to a mile. I think what you are looking for is called "effective range."
Man . . We got nuclear missiles that aren't even termed "assault weapons"
I'll stick with my AK's... Dependable and reliable. Throw it in the mud and roll it around a few times, pick it up, shake it off a little and fire. Try that with an AR....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
