gun people wont give anything on guns (legal, abortion, concealed carry)

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by Chango

The one used to assault someone.

Bzzzzztt.

Want to guess again?

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by LostInHouston

LOL, reading comprehension is obviously not your forte. I was not calling semi-auto assault rifles "weapons of war". I asked the poster if he is in favor of eliminating all current gun laws and restrictions and allowing weapons of war into the civilian populace... e.g. shoulder fired missiles, tanks, fully auto guns, grenades, bombs, etc.

Well, I've heard the phrase out of POTUS and several members of Congress in the past couple of days, and they ARE talking about semi-auto rifles.

And this is a perfect example of WHY they're using what is no doubt a heavily researched, focus-group tested phrase. They want the general public to confuse "semi-auto but military looking" with "fully auto (actual) weapons of war".

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Vejadu

Assault weapons is a vague term that is used to inspire fear in anti-gun nuts. It inspires scary images of fully-automatic machine guns with belt-fed magazines. Clip size is irrelevant, as if it takes much time to reload when there is no armed or threatening opposition.

This is about our 2nd amendment rights being threatened, because it won't end. Ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and someone will go on a shooting rampage with handguns instead. Then the calls for banning handguns will start to pour in. At what point do we draw the line? At what point will anti-gun proponents be satisfied? When we're back to using 6 shot revolvers? When there are no guns available to the public at all?

The Tucson shooter was taken down by unarmed people when his clip ran out and he was forced to pause to reload. He had a 30 shot mag; with a 10 shot he might not have killed or injured as many. My Glocks hold 15 rounds with the standard mag. I think that is more than enough. If I could get a bigger clip when I go to the range and turn it in when I left, I would be OK with that.

[LostInHouston]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

A 6-year-old kid is going to tackle an adult shooter??

Only 6-year olds were killed?

Reports indicated the shooter used multiple rounds to take out the glass door, enter the school and then proceed down a hallway towards classrooms. 3 adult administrators left a meeting at the front of the school and came running towards the shooter... 2 being killed, the other taking cover and surviving. Had he only had a 10 round magazine (remember, he expelled a number of rounds entering the school), he may have ran out of rounds before taking out the administrators lunging towards him. That's just one example of how things might have been different.

[staywarm2]

Instead of restricting assualt weapons, the NRA wants us to place armed security officers in every school. Great idea, if the NRA wants to contribute $20-30 Billion to pay for it!!!

I wonder how NRA Chief Executive LaPierre would feel if it had been his kid who was killed.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

Which of the following weapons is an assault weapon?

The term was first coined by the Germans in WWII, to refer to a rifle-sized gun that could either fire single shots, or a series of them like a machine gun, at the flip of a switch.

The definition remained the same for fifty years, until American politicians trying to demonize firearms, announced that anything that evern LOOKED like an assault weapon, suddenly was one, whether or not it really was or not. Suddenly any rifle that was scary-looking to these people (and a great many rifles were scary-looking to them), became an "assault weapon", even if it had only the same capability as an ordinary plinking rifle. Unable to fire like a machine gun, they were now called machine guns anyway.

The confusion has gone on since then. Even when sensible people tried to point out how badly they had gotten the definition wrong, the paranoid ones started trying to make up new qualifications for a gun to be an "assault weapon", instead of simply admitting their error. Now if a gun has a flash hider, it was somehow an "assault weapon", as though the flash hider had anything to do with the gun's firing characteristics or lethality (it doesn't). Then if it had a handle mounted at a right angle behind the trigger, that somehow made it an "assault weapon", though that also had no effect on what the gun could do, other than making it a little harder for a trembling politician to accidentally drop. Same for those that had a hole through the stock, or a folding stock, or a bayonet lug.

At various times all these things abruptly became identifying characteristics of an "assault weapon", evn though genuine assault weapons never had most of them. (Note that some of the muskets of George Washington's time had bayonet lugs, and some had holes through the stock in various places).

"Assault weapon" used to be well defined, until politicians trying to lie about firearms seized on the term to push a failing agenda.

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by LostInHouston

That's just one example of how things might have been different.

Here's another one.

The principal, upon seeing the shooter, instead of attempting to chase him and getting shot and killed in the process, instead ducks back into the room she just left, reaches into her purse and pulls out a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, turns the safety off, steps back into the hallway, and puts 5 rounds center of mass in the shooter.

I think that's a much better scenario.

[blackhemi]

Originally Posted by LostInHouston

Only 6-year olds were killed?

Reports indicated the shooter used multiple rounds to take out the glass door, enter the school and then proceed down a hallway towards classrooms. 3 adult administrators left a meeting at the front of the school and came running towards the shooter... 2 being killed, the other taking cover and surviving. Had he only had a 10 round magazine (remember, he expelled a number of rounds entering the school), he may have ran out of rounds before taking out the administrators lunging towards him. That's just one example of how things might have been different.

ok, so if he had a 10 round clip everybody would fine? He was prepared. He had handguns too. Nothing worse then a prepared mass killer. The unprepared got tackled.

Banning of types and parts still would make no difference.

My Glock holds 10+1, plus I carry 2 extra 10 round clips. The house and car both have 30 round clips. I want to make sure I have enough firepower to protect my *****. Seems more often then not these days, but the bad guys like to play in groups!

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

"Assault weapon" used to be well defined, until politicians trying to lie about firearms seized on the term to push a failing agenda.

Very true. And now they're using the phrase "weapons of war" to further confuse people.

[staywarm2]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

Here's another one.

The principal, upon seeing the shooter, instead of attempting to chase him and getting shot and killed in the process, instead ducks back into the room she just left, reaches into her purse and pulls out a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, turns the safety off, steps back into the hallway, and puts 5 rounds center of mass in the shooter.

I think that's a much better scenario.

By then Lanza would already have shot a bunch of kids. And who says the principal would be that good a shot, given the tension of the situation.