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.
Wrong...the term “assault weapons” is not a military term, it was made up by the left and used to scare gun grabbers.
An assault rifle is a term the military uses. It’s a weapon the military uses that has select fire capabilities to switch between semi-auto or fully automatic mode. The AR-15s available to citizens do not have this capability.
It would seem - as a weapon designed for the military - that design for offensive use (in addition to defense) might be what they are talking about. Semi-auto and auto mean little in this context because most soldiers seem to agree auto means almost nothing in such a weapon. I think there were about 100K bullets fired in vietnam for each enemy death.
If we were talking the same here among mass murderers we wouldn't be having this conversation. A semi-auto is actually better for the particular job them are doing (slaying children or innocents at close - or FAR - range). Auto may have helped the Vegas shooter a bit (bump stock), but not too much. If he had a few rifles lined up with decent sized mags and many extra mags, he's have been able to get off 100's of shots, which would have done a job on the crowd. With the bump stocks I think he got off 1100. !0 minutes at 1 a second (semi-auto) would have been "only" 600 shots. I think, tho, it was a lot longer until his room was found, right? Yep - took an hour. He could have gotten off thousands of semi-auto shots if he had multiple rifles and mags.
But that surely took a lot more planning and was an older man with some experience. Most proposed gun regs are designed to stop the "mad" shooter who doesn't do as much planning and might not have as much experience.
Obviously cutting down (50% ?) on innocents killed would be a great accomplishment. We'd still be the most murderous first world country in the world, but it would save a lot of families and grief.
We were specifically discussing AR-15s and their equivalents. Do you have a pet name?
and what ""in your opinion""" makes a standard rifle like the ar15 to be called an assault rifle/weapon
define (you want a ban/regulation) of what an assault weapon is
everyone of these below is was an ar15 could have....with the exception of caliber size (and even that too)
is it caliber size
is it magazine(round storage) size
is it semi-auto
is it a handguard to protect the hands from a hot barrel
is it that it can have a scope mounted
is it that it can have a bipod mounted
is it because its (as the rolling stones said) Painted Black
nearly everyone of those option is available on nearly every weapon...to include handguns
the only one that is not available on nearly every weapon is: and its NOT available on the ar15 without an ILLEGAL mod....is it full auto
nearly every rifle has those different options,,,over 65% of ALL rifles are semi
nearly every PISTOL has those different options,,,over 98% of ALL handguns are semi
so what makes a ar15 an assault weapon and not any other semi-automatic weapon
In 1789, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them.
They put a command into the Constitution saying "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And they even put an explanatory clause before it, as normal English suggests: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". Even though that clause has no effect on the command, they included it so people would know why controversial things such as weapons were being given such ironclad protection. They did this with other parts of the Constitution too.
Most of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and later added the Bill of Rights, were students of the history of government and the abuses it could inflict. And they knew that government after government had long records of disarming their own people, and then later inflicting serious abuse and oppression on them, sometimes even leading to mass murders of their own subjects. Our own Revolutionary war started in 1775 at Concord and Lexington, Mass., when soldiers of the British government tried to confiscate privately-owned weapons of the colonists.
And the Framers also knew that the people themselves were a far more effective deterrent to crime, than a hired police force who the criminals could identify by sight and dodge as it suited them when committing crimes.
Even if all so-called "gun control" laws were repealed and everybody was allowed to carry, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would. And the criminals would know that when they were contemplating committing a crime, a few people in the crowd would likely be carrying a gun and know how to use it. And would never know which person(s) it was, and so wouldn't know who to defend against. For many of the criminals, this would cause them to not commit the crime in the first place. The result would be a reduction in crime, without a shot being fired.
And even when we have an event where someone in our country grabs a gun and starts shooting, sometimes killing many innocent people, it remains a fact that there would be a lot MORE innocent people injured or dead if government had the power to take away or restrict our guns and other weapons. How many more potential muggers, rapists, and murderers would decide to commit their crimes if they were sure that nobody in the crowd could possibly have a gun of their own?
Today, far more such crimes are committed in so-called "gun free zones", where there are laws forbidding the carrying of guns in the area. Such laws protect the rapist or murderer from danger, of course, while disarming only the law-abiding.
And yet every time we have a shooting, whether it's in San Bernardino, Georgia disco, Ft. Hood military base, Las Vegas, or Douglas High School in Florida, the same panic-stricken talking heads do their best to throw the baby out with the bath water. They demand we give our government the authority to restrict or ban some or all of our guns.
Now, as floods follow a hurricane, they are doing the same thing again. Don't these people ever learn? Have they ever even bothered examining the reasons why the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and BOR, decided unanimously to forbid all governments in the U.S. from infringing our right to own and carry guns? Despite their having just as much trouble with nutcases and guns then, as we do now?
If these shortsighted people get their way, we will see a lot more Americans oppressed, injured, and killed that we ever have outside of outright war. And if other governments' actions are anything to go by, our government could yet exceed even that total, if they get even a little authority. Because history also demonstrates that if you give them an inch they will eventually take a mile.
"More guns off the streets" is a BAD idea. It would let criminals commit more crimes in relative safety, while disarming only the law-abiding. If everyone were allowed to carry (i.e. if the 2nd amendment were obeyed for a change), most people still wouldn't bother. But criminals would be more cautious and fearful when committing crimes, and would do it less for fear of a few people out of the crowd probably being armed. And that would cause a reduction in crime, far more effectively than the latest useless attempt to "get guns off the streets".
Obviously cutting down (50% ?) on innocents killed would be a great accomplishment. We'd still be the most murderous first world country in the world, but it would save a lot of families and grief.
The gun homicide rate has already decreased by 50% over the last 20 years. Interestingly enough, that occurred at the same time that gun ownership increased by 50%. Additionally, also during that same time frame, the nonfatal violent gun crimes rate decreased by 76%.
First of all, you're interchanging 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon.' There is such a thing as an assault rifle. You can find the definition in Jane's military publications. There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon.' There was exactly ONE gun publication that used the term--Gun Digest 'book of assault weapons.' And they took a lot of flack from the firearms community for that. Can you cite for me just one other firearms publication that used the term 'assault weapon?' And more importantly, no manufacturer has ever used the term.
If a term cannot be defined, the person who uses it can't know what he's talking about. Nor can anyone who listens to him.
when it comes down to writing legislation, this complaint isn't going to slow down anything or anyone.
Originally Posted by cuebald We were specifically discussing AR-15s and their equivalents. Do you have a pet name?
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
and what ""in your opinion""" makes a standard rifle like the ar15 to be called an assault rifle/weapon
define (you want a ban/regulation) of what an assault weapon is
everyone of these below is was an ar15 could have....with the exception of caliber size (and even that too)
is it caliber size
is it magazine(round storage) size
is it semi-auto
is it a handguard to protect the hands from a hot barrel
is it that it can have a scope mounted
is it that it can have a bipod mounted
is it because its (as the rolling stones said) Painted Black
nearly everyone of those option is available on nearly every weapon...to include handguns
the only one that is not available on nearly every weapon is: and its NOT available on the ar15 without an ILLEGAL mod....is it full auto
nearly every rifle has those different options,,,over 65% of ALL rifles are semi
nearly every PISTOL has those different options,,,over 98% of ALL handguns are semi
so what makes a ar15 an assault weapon and not any other semi-automatic weapon
Curious to hear the answer. I'm willing to be it will be along the lines of it is the one being use the most in these killings, or that it can kill people in a shorter amount of time...
The gun homicide rate has already decreased by 50% over the last 20 years. Interestingly enough, that occurred at the same time that gun ownership increased by 50%. Additionally, also during that same time frame, the nonfatal violent gun crimes rate decreased by 76%.
This is very well known and is probably a product of a very violent generation dying off...
It's very confusing to a layman because the POTUS is telling everyone that immigrants and all kinds of bad people are responsible for multitudes of deaths. Then the Echo Chamber on the Right is repeating the same and telling us about urban gun violence (and no one of sound mind can deny that it is loose gun laws making that a "thing" - and, yes, we know the guns are bought in neighboring states and then brought in).
It must be one or the other. You can't have it both ways.
I really doubt gun violence is down because of more guns.
Gun deaths in the US from 1968 to present are more than from EVERY war the USA ever fought.
Also, as you well know, the US Government (CDC) is banned from studying this - due to the NRA and paid-for legislation. Reasonable people would not do such a thing - that is, ban the study of a problem.
And it is a problem.
BTW, gun homicide deaths appear to be stable over the last 15 years. Is this chart wrong? Again, when you stop study on the matter, you make it even more difficult to get to the truth...
Now - if we take the last 35 years we will see a decline.
Look at the bar chart. Wow - gun homicide rates are UP in many states. It appears the numbers are/were skewed by NYC (with strong gun control) being the leader in curbing violence..
Why do you think gun violence increased or hardly decreased in so many states?
Also "the rate" is somewhat misleading as we have gained vast population during that time. As a result, many of those decreases still mean as many people dying......
the fourth circuit made an incorrect decision, as did the scotus, considering that there are millions of AR15s out there, and considering that the AR15 is the civilian version of the M16, which by the way IS a true assault weapon.
Well it’s the law of the land as of today and no matter what two Internet jockeys with no legal training or acumen want to say. Declaring that the AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment because it is in “common use” will do about as much good as declaring that the moon is made out of cheese.
Given the current state of the law, your opinion and $2.75 will be just enough get you on the subway.
Why do you think gun violence increased or hardly decreased in so many states?
Also "the rate" is somewhat misleading as we have gained vast population during that time. As a result, many of those decreases still mean as many people dying......
that's a fascinating chart.
some of these states have issues that make comparisons difficult, like CA, AK, DE, TX, NY. however , im left wondering why north carolina had a ~45% drop while south carolina had a small rise.
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.
