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.
So you're saying you wish to legislate the capacity to fire 15 rounds per minute, am I right?
I'll let the gun experts figure that out. I was just answering your question on what does an assault gun mean in practical terms, and to me, as a lay person, it means a gun that allows you to rapidly shoot 155 bullets in less than 5 minutes.
I'll let the gun experts figure that out. I was just answering your question on what does an assault gun mean in practical terms, and to me, as a lay person, it means a gun that allows you to rapidly shoot 155 bullets in less than 5 minutes.
My bad then, you wish to regulate the ability to fire 30 rounds per minute then?
My bad then, you wish to regulate the ability to fire 30 rounds per minute then?
Well does that seem reasonable to you? I think the gun-owners on this thread should be telling us more about what differentiates weapons developed for military use from those developed for civilians.
Well does that seem reasonable to you? I think the gun-owners on this thread should be telling us more about what differentiates weapons developed for military use from those developed for civilians.
Absolutely. In a world of high-fire-rate guns, I would not want people defending their home be defending themselves with a slow gun.
Furthermore, since it is you who wishes to take away the ability of certain gun owners to have certain guns, it is you who should be telling them why it's not right for them to have that gun.
Absolutely. In a world of high-fire-rate guns, I would not want people defending their home be defending themselves with a slow gun.
Furthermore, since it is you who wishes to take away the ability of certain gun owners to have certain guns, it is you who should be telling them why it's not right for them to have that gun.
I don't have a strong personal opinion on type of guns that should or shouldn't be restricted. Most firearm homicide is with hand guns.
I'm more interested in universal background checks, preventing illegal trafficking and straw purchases, safe storage of guns, preventing guns from falling into the hands of children, and protecting victims of domestic violence from firearm violence.
So there is no category of guns that is commonly considered an assault gun?
The term "assault rifle" was initially made up by Adolf Hitler for propaganda purposes. So, our current leftists who like to use it for the exact same purpose are certainly in good company.
Quote:
The name was chosen personally by Adolf Hitler for propaganda reasons and literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e. "assault") an enemy position". After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation "assault rifle" became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm.
"Lanza fired the 154 rounds from a Bushmaster .223-model rifle and the final bullet from a Glock 10mm handgun to take his own life, said Stephen Sedensky, the chief prosecutor investigating the shooting. Police recovered 10 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster that Lanza took to the school. Three of the magazines had a full 30 rounds still in them."
So is the Bushmaster the type of assault weapon that was previously banned under Clinton?
CT currenty has an assault weapons ban which mirrors the previous 1994 ban. Under the ban this gun is not an assault weapon:
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.