assault rifles

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks

To answer your question, it is an absolute.

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns"

So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms.

So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.

"There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm"

Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'.

So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:


Let's also keep in mind that AR-15's are becoming a standard for modern-day hunting rifles. Their modular design allows for the flexibility of a person to buy one receiver and switch out the upper for the game being hunted. So in your "I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles", you're right and semi-auto AR-15s should be grouped in the "hunting rifle" category. I own a mil-surplus 1943 Swiss K31. Was standard issue to all Swiss citizens during WWII. It *is* (or was rather) a military weapon. Later this year or next, I plan on using it down in FL to boar hunt with. It is bolt-action, has a 7 round magazine and an effective range of over 800 meters. Is it an assault rifle or a hunting rifle?

Some people today think that every rifle with a black synthetic stock is an "assault weapon".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

To answer your question, it is an absolute.

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?


So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.


So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:


Let's also keep in mind that AR-15's are becoming a standard for modern-day hunting rifles. Their modular design allows for the flexibility of a person to buy one receiver and switch out the upper for the game being hunted. So in your "I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles", you're right and semi-auto AR-15s should be grouped in the "hunting rifle" category. I own a mil-surplus 1943 Swiss K31. Was standard issue to all Swiss citizens during WWII. It *is* (or was rather) a military weapon. Later this year or next, I plan on using it down in FL to boar hunt with. It is bolt-action, has a 7 round magazine and an effective range of over 800 meters. Is it an assault rifle or a hunting rifle?

Some people today think that every rifle with a black synthetic stock is an "assault weapon".

"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"

Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.

But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.

Apples and oranges, no?

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

I see two parts to this discussion, one being the slippery slope of increasing government regulation, the other being the risks we take for our freedoms.
The slippery slope is true in my opinion, the legislators say we are only going to___________ and that is what they do at that time, the next time it comes up they say the same thing not recalling that the basis was all they were going to do. Examples: Taxes, seat belts, etc.
The risks we take for our freedoms are also part of this discussion, if you want limited risk and someone to control yours and others actions there are places in the world you can live.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

Probably, but you would be the best judge, if your honest, of why you are reacting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

But you would not be the best judge on other peoples actions or reactions.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Be concerned first, if the feds are doing what is legitimately in their power to do rather than trampling on either inalienable or constitutional rights. And if the feds legally have the right to take away your golden retriever they have the power to take most anything from you. And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights. If you are going to go on feelings and knee jerk reactions rather than principles, you have abandoned principle and opened the door to your subjection to any whim of the feds.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

If the feds have the power to tax your risk taking, such as not buying health insurance, they have power to tax your skydiving. They could make it expensive enough to discourage your risk taking. It's for your own, and society's good, after all. Freedom is frought with risks. It is attractive for many to give up freedoms for safety. And all you need is confidence that the fedgov knows what's best for you and will always do that best.

If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.

Generally, when one feels his neighbor is a little, or a lot, "off," one feels like his kids are in a little bit, or more, of danger. And your neighbors "offness" is not of your choosing. You might be more concerned with your neighbor's mental stability and character than what he owns. And if you choose to remain next door to him, you might want to arm yourself, in your best way of choice, to protect your kids.

Apples and oranges, no?

Are you in a little bit of danger if he owns any other gun? Is it only the assault rifle that puts your kids in danger?

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

Could your last sentence not apply to any gun?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Could your last sentence not apply to any gun?

Yes, it could, to a different degree. Detbuch, do you deny that assault rifles are inherently more dangerous than handguns? Assault rifles don't allow murderers to kill more people than handguns? Do we really need to have that discussion? If that's what you're saying, allow me to ask you the same thing I asked Likwid (who chose not to answer). When soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, how many do you think were holding their handguns, and how many do you think were holding their rifles? When my unit was attacked in Iraq, every guy under my command had a standard-issue handgun. Do you know how many of them dropped their rifles and grabbed their handguns? Exactly zero. Why do you suppose that is?

"And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights."

I hear pro-gun zealots talk about the necessity of guns to keep the feds at bay. In this country, I'm not sure that passes the common-sense test. If anything, it sounds delusionally paranoid. If someone wants a gun for hunting, that's one thing. If someone thinks they need a gun to keep the 82nd Airborne off their property, I assume that's a guy who wears a tin-foil hat so that the aliens can't control his thoughts or eat his brain.

I don't want my kids to live next door to someone with an assault rifle, or any other automatic weapon. If my neighbor is disturbed, my kids are less safe, you are correct.

Detbuch, if my neighbor is deranged but un-armed, that's one thing. If my neighbor is deranged (or even simply careless, or stupid) but has an assault rifle, do you disagree that represents a different threat to my kids? Seriously?

If you want to tell me the Constitution guarantees the right to buy an assault rifle, you have a compelling case, I have read the 2nd amendment. If you're telling me that assault rifles are not capable of significantly escalating the danger of any situation, I think you are 100% wrong.

[FishermanTim]

Hey, here's a novel approach: why not ban all idiot psychos that lose their minds in some idiotic fantasy world?
Seems that the gun issue is only a secondary concern since this wacho could have easily booby trapped some other building an killed many more people if he didn't have guns.

So a crazy man got some weapons? Go after the person that supplied him with them. Apply the gun laws that already exist, and stop trying to change them to fit this one scenario.

Why didn't anyone notice this guys drastic change of personality?
If he was a "loner" that kept to himself, maybe they could request a psyche evaluation when applying for or renewing a gun permit or FID card?

Why won't the mental stability (or lack of) be considered MORE of a driving factor? Because we have become a spineless society that doesn't want to offend ANYONE, ever to the extent of our own safety!!!

Keep the guns, maybe be more aware of the type of ammo being purchased, and be MORE aware of the mental state of the person buying the weapon(s).

AS for the car comparison, I'd say that if the operator of any device, be it gun, cannon, car, bike, boat or even plane does so while willingly impaired, THEY are at fault and not the device.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, it could, to a different degree. Detbuch, do you deny that assault rifles are inherently more dangerous than handguns? Assault rifles don't allow murderers to kill more people than handguns? Do we really need to have that discussion? If that's what you're saying, allow me to ask you the same thing I asked Likwid (who chose not to answer). When soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, how many do you think were holding their handguns, and how many do you
think were holding their rifles? When my unit was attacked in Iraq, every guy under my command had a standard-issue handgun. Do you know how many of them dropped their rifles and grabbed their handguns? Exactly zero. Why do you suppose that is?

I have not stated nor implied that assault weapons or rifles are less or as equally "dangerous" than hand guns. I have implied just the opposite in my previous two posts in this thread, especially when I asked what if all the Jews of Germany during Nazi power were armed with assault weapons and sufficient ammo? That might have led to an easier task, if necessary, when our troops stormed the beaches of Normandy.

"And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights."

I hear pro-gun zealots talk about the necessity of guns to keep the feds at bay. In this country, I'm not sure that passes the common-sense test. If anything, it sounds delusionally paranoid. If someone wants a gun for hunting, that's one thing. If someone thinks they need a gun to keep the 82nd Airborne off their property, I assume that's a guy who wears a tin-foil hat so that the aliens can't control his thoughts or eat his brain.

One might then say the rebels of our revolution were delusionally paranoid. They took on the greatest military might of their time, and even half of their neighbors not only didn't support them, they openly fought them and gave aid and comfort to the British. If you assume that you have no chance from the start, much will never be accomplished. Might it be more difficult now, maybe so, but that's what the second ammendment is for, not hunting. And it surely would not be possible without a commitment to liberty and the virtue to stand up for that principle.

I don't want my kids to live next door to someone with an assault rifle, or any other automatic weapon. If my neighbor is disturbed, my kids are less safe, you are correct.

You're entitled to your personal desires, but how does that trump your neighbor's desires?

Detbuch, if my neighbor is deranged but un-armed, that's one thing. If my neighbor is deranged (or even simply careless, or stupid) but has an assault rifle, do you disagree that represents a different threat to my kids? Seriously?

Yes, that's one thing. Every thing is one thing, different than all the other one things. What is the principle behind banning things simply because they are different?

If you want to tell me the Constitution guarantees the right to buy an assault rifle, you have a compelling case, I have read the 2nd amendment. If you're telling me that assault rifles are not capable of significantly escalating the danger of any situation, I think you are 100% wrong.

I am telling you no such thing. On the contrary, if you wish to protect yourself against a tryrannical government, then you and your cohorts must have the firepower that can escalate the danger to your enemy--just as the troops who stormed the beaches of Normandy had. If you think you would be able to do that with handguns, I think you are 100% wrong.

The argument about alllowing some guns but not others because some are less dangerous is puzzling to me. If you can kill 10 or 30 people quickly, that's a no-no, but if you can only kill one or two or five in the same amount of time, that's OK.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Hollow point armour piercing.

Paul, I sincerely mean this respectfully but this response demonstrates that conclusions are made based on completely inaccurate information. Couple things, the common full metal jacket bullet has a better penetration ability than hollow-point rounds. Hollow-points are designed to flatten out and transfer the maximum amount of energy into whatever it penetrates. However, from what I understand, this design to "flatten" also makes hollow-points *less* effective than common full metal jacket rounds at piercing bullet-proof vests.

"Hollow point armor piercing" is a load of hogwash created through propaganda and holds no actual credibility.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"

Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.

But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a slippery slope argument or either-or argument. What I'm saying is that on the premise of outlawing things based on their danger and a lack of perceived "need", then the same people that thinks a 60rd magazine should be banned because no one "needs" them should also support making alcohol illegal.

My point comes down to a lack of priorities. People keep saying, "we need to outlaw these guns because they kill people." Then I say we should outlaw alcohol because it kills people, causes addition and is frequently a factor in sexual assaults.

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

Just to reemphasize the above, I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm not saying that if we let big brother outlaw specific guns, that any at-risk activities will be banned. My argument is based more on the premise of how people are justifying the reasons arbitrary aspects to firearms should be banned.

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

You've mentioned a few times that you're conflicted about the whole situation and I think it's because there's an emotional and rational response that are in conflict. Emotionally, you think "these things are bad and people shouldn't have access to them." Rationally, you think "do we really want the government imposing more restrictions on the American public? and if they do, would those restrictions even be effective?" Or I'm completely off-base

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?

Hollow point armour piercing.