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.
Modern weapons technology is irrelevant in terms of the vast majority of crimes and murders. You know, it comes down to practicality as well. And that holds today as much as it did 250 years ago. A cannon or armed frigate was not used in street crimes in 1780 obviously because they were not practical. Today as well, in spite of all the bad publicity, so called "assault weapons" are rarely used in conventional crimes. Nevermind grenades, rocket launchers, or claymore mines.
Assault riles are not used in murders (that is, select fire weapons). I will repeat that again - THERE HAS BEEN ONLY ONE MURDER BY AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON ON RECORD IN THE US (at least since the days of Bonnie and Clyde). The reason is not because it is so highly regulated, the reason is a criminal is not going to be carrying a full sized automatic rifle into a bank or on the street, it tends to attract attention. And if it is used, the untrained will find the fire rate and muzzle climb to be uncontrollable. The bad guy will hit the cealing more then his intended target. It also has a small caliber bullet, designed as it is to be used where logistical supply regarding size and weight is at a premium. The semi-auto AR15 variants used in well publicized mass shootings? These nuts aren't carrying it because of its firepower, it's not a practical street weapon in civilian form for the many of the previous reasons stated. But it's now part of a phycho uniform, a modus operandus, a copy cat device...and statistically insignificant. Needless to say, the same devestation can (and has been) be achieved via 80 year old pump shotguns.
A criminal's weapon of choice is a cheap concealable handgun, always will be, not a long gun or automatic weapon or any other modern weapon. It's as simple as that. With that in mind, technology that existed 150 years ago with the development of metal cartriges and revolvers into mass production matches there needs today, the only improvement being perhaps light weight materials and semi-automatic (but a revolver would suit them fine as well, and still does in street crime and random murders).
Not quite the right stats, or context... there have been two homicides with legal automatic weapons.
Illegal automatics used in crimes are another statistic altogether, but the percentage is still crazy low. GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns
I think what many people don't realize is that a happy switch doesn't necessarily exponentially increase the deadliness of a gun; if anything it makes it harder for an untrained shooter to hit a target... unless they open up on a large crowd of people at random and at close range. Unfortunately that exact scenario is getting more common, though statistically speaking you have more chance of dying from a shark attack than from a crazy random mass murderer.
If you really want to see bad murder stats with automatic weapons, look no further than Mexico. If full autos were as readily available here as they are down there, those statistics would change pretty fast.
Still, the danger is present and the reason why the statistics are so low are because it's so hard (and expensive) to get a full/auto here in America. I wouldn't mind killing the pre-86 weapons only rule but getting rid of the NFA altogether would be a very dumb idea. We don't need the days of Bonnie and Clyde to come back again.
The Ruger 10/22 is an even better example. Gun guys know this platform is one of the most adaptable weapons that can go from "stock" to "tacticool" in a matter of hours with the right parts. But it is still the same action and therefore the same basic weapon. It is no more deadly when it has all the parts to make it look like an AR or AK than when it has a pink laminate stock. This is a reality the general public often does not understand. Worse, it is a reality a lot of elected officials don't seem to understand.
that is why your 1st paragraph makes you more of a social liberal than any conservative or Libertarian.
Social Liberal? Come on monkey, I think that's taking it just a bit too far, don't you? I challenge you to go find a Social Liberal that holds the same views as I on guns. It probably won't be an easy task. I didn't say that nobody should be allowed to own military grade weaponry, I merely said that I have no quams with the fact that it isn't as easily available as semi-auto's, etc. That is just my own personal opinion, and I wouldn't try to stifle your rights because of it, or use it to effect policy change. Like I said, I admit that if the Heller decision would have interpreted the 2A correctly, we'd have access to those type of weapons. Like chango said, I think the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 should be repealed. If you can buy a select fire weapon manufactured before 1986, then you should be able to buy a newly manufactured one. You are right though, I agree with a lot of the Social Liberal agenda, such as gay rights, abortion { even though I see it as an evil, but maybe a necessary evil in some cases } legalizing marijuana { even though I don't think people should use it recreationaly, who am I to tell someone what they can and can't put in their own bodies }
Like I told you before, I'm a fence sitter, I like being unpredictable on any given issue. Basically, if it expands individual freedom, I'm for it, even if I don't necessarily agree personaly.
Quote:
I have no problems at all with anyone owning anything at all, including felons that have done their time and released from prison and that are not on any parole at all.
I agree, except in the case of violent felons, and especially repeat violent offenders. You rape someone, you become a drug dealer, etc, you lose your right to a firearm. I have no problem with that, and neither did the founders. There is evidence to back that up. One of them said "no peaceable citizen ought to be barred the right to arms". Stands to reason they wouldn't have a problem with making an exception for unpeaceful citizens, and deny them their firearm rights.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 06-23-2014 at 08:10 PM..
Of course when the founding fathers were framing the Constitution they could never imagine the destructive power of modern weapons.
There were 47000 dead at the Battle of Waterloo alone. Civil War casualties were absolutely horrific. More Americans were killed in the Civil War than in all of our other wars combined. Weapons in the 1700s and 1800s had plenty of destructive power!
Not quite the right stats, or context... there have been two homicides with legal automatic weapons.
Illegal automatics used in crimes are another statistic altogether, but the percentage is still crazy low. GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns
I think what many people don't realize is that a happy switch doesn't necessarily exponentially increase the deadliness of a gun; if anything it makes it harder for an untrained shooter to hit a target... unless they open up on a large crowd of people at random and at close range. Unfortunately that exact scenario is getting more common, though statistically speaking you have more chance of dying from a shark attack than from a crazy random mass murderer.
If you really want to see bad murder stats with automatic weapons, look no further than Mexico. If full autos were as readily available here as they are down there, those statistics would change pretty fast.
Still, the danger is present and the reason why the statistics are so low are because it's so hard (and expensive) to get a full/auto here in America. I wouldn't mind killing the pre-86 weapons only rule but getting rid of the NFA altogether would be a very dumb idea. We don't need the days of Bonnie and Clyde to come back again.
Ha...OK 2 then, maybe 3.
But the crime in Mexico, and/or the days of Bonnie and Clyde, are not related to the types of crime in the US today. Mexican cartels use some military grade weapons, including rocket launchers, because it essentially is a state of war for them. By the way Mexico ironically has extremely strict gun control laws. In the old gangster era with the rat-a-tat of Tommy guns (Clyde Barrow actually preferred Browning Automatic Rifles) was somewhat the stuff of Hollywood legend. Bonnie and Clyde's most effective crime device was a flathead v8 Ford. Although sure they were used, the legend has a basis in reality - and was involved in some well publicized murders similar to the publicity with today's shootings. In other words - statistically insignificant. Just like today, most of the crime was done by some cheap revolver or shotgun.
I'm not arguing that the regulation of automatic weapons be opened up by the way. I am happy with the status quo. I am just saying weapons development was maximized for today's common street crime use 150 years ago with the development of repeating handguns and metal cartridges. This "todays technology" weapons debate is irrelevant as it applies to the type of criminal activity that is common today in the US.
I think I would be more intimidated staring down the barrel of an 80 year old pump shotgun vs an AR15. Toss some slugs in it and there's just WAY more power in that weapon vs a .223/5.56.
....
The pump shotgun was developed in the 1890s. Before that they had old "cowboy action" lever shotguns. The technology hasn't changed much. The 12 guage Remington 870. Tens of millions have been sold. I own one.
Shotguns are absolutely devastating in close combat. Many of these mass shooting nuts carried a pump action shotgun as well, used when there semi-auto jammed or when they grew tired of uncontrolled fire into the roof. The media ignores how many casualties were caused by the shotgun as opposed to the "scary black rifle". The nuts in Columbine carried a shotgun, there was a mass shooting in DC using a shotgun alone, the Aurora Colorado Theater shooter used a shotgun when his semi-auto jammed. The media downplayed this - but the types of injuries give you a clue - splinters and shrapenel wounds turning wooden theater seats into deadly paper mache, pellet wounds, dozens of them. 70 people were injured. I assure you that's from a shotgun, that level of devestation could not be achieved with a small caliber AR15 round, but from your 120 year old technology based slide action shotgun.
I'm going to order a Colt LE6920 - either the standard M4 or the MPB. They've been on sale now & then for $852 - $899, which is pretty darn good.
Comes with a 30 round Pmag. Will probably get at least 6 or 7 more to go with it. Maybe a red dot optic.
Already have a S&W M&P 15 Sport, which is a great little rifle for under $600.
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.
I challenge you to go find a Social Liberal that holds the same views as I on guns. It probably won't be an easy task. I didn't say that nobody should be allowed to own military grade weaponry, I merely said that I have no quams with the fact that it isn't as easily available as semi-auto's, etc. That is just my own personal opinion, and I wouldn't try to stifle your rights because of it, or use it to effect policy change. Like I said, I admit that if the Heller decision would have interpreted the 2A correctly, we'd have access to those type of weapons. Like chango said, I think the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 should be repealed. If you can buy a select fire weapon manufactured before 1986, then you should be able to buy a newly manufactured one. You are right though, I agree with a lot of the Social Liberal agenda, such as gay rights, abortion { even though I see it as an evil, but maybe a necessary evil in some cases } legalizing marijuana { even though I don't think people should use it recreationaly, who am I to tell someone what they can and can't put in their own bodies }
