"Assult Rifles" - what they actually are
 

Well folks, With so many people upset that the ban on assult rifles is going away soon, I figure maybe we should compare an assult rifle to a currently legal rifle, and see what all the fuss is about...

First, to clear up any confusion about commonly used terms, I'll give you a quick brush up. I am not trying to mock or anger any of those people out there that support this ban, but I feel that many people that support gun control simply don't understand guns...

Fully automatic means that you can just hold down the trigger and the gun keeps firing in rapid succession, Semi-automatic means that each time you pull the trigger it fires a single round. Contrary to some believes, because a weapon is given the title "assult rifle" does not mean that it is fully automatic, although typically there are fully automatic versions out there. However, the redeeming factor is that fully automatic weapons are still extremely controlled, and lifting this ban on "assult rifles" won't result in fully automatic weapons becoming any more easy to obtain.

So, what is an assult rifle? Basically, it is a big, mean, nasty looking rifle. In fact, here's a picture of the M16, used by the U.S. armed forces.
http://www.firearmsmod.com/weapons/m16.jpg

See? Scary-looking, isn't it? Now what if I were to tell you that it is very similar to the .22 rifle - the same rifle that has been around for many, many years, the so called Beginner's rifle?

Not so scary looking, as you can see....
http://www.gunsport.com/CZ_ZKM_452_Scout_22.jpg

What could those two weapons possibly have in common? For one, the size of the bullet that they shoot. The .22 rifle uses ammo that is .22 caliber (surprisingly enough, lol) - the M16, the assult weapon that you see above, uses .223 - which is extremely similar in size. I personally have an old .22 rifle that has a 30 round magazine, the M16 also carries 30 rounds.

The main difference, as far as the ammunition goes, is the amount of gunpowder used in the bullet. The picture depicted below compares a .22 round to a .243, so the difference is actually more significant than if I could find a picture comparing it to the .223 instead. The bottom, golden part of the case is what stores the propellant, the smaller, different colored portion at the top is the actual projectile that is fired. As you can see, they are very similar. Although this may get a little gruesome, when shot with a .22 bullet -because of the smaller caliber - it typically has a higher chance of going through and though the target. As the caliber, for all intents and purposes is the same on the .223, the extra gunpowder (larger shell) simply gives it a longer range than your typical .22 rifle.

http://www.btinternet.com/~stephen.r...es/bullets.jpg

Well, I hope this clears a few things up - I just wanted to help people make more informed decisions. Obviously, the look of the guns are quite different, but - the largest concerns I have heard were magazine size and "power" - both of which I addressed. Also, in both cases, the civilian version of each weapons is semi-automatic, so there is no difference there.

The point I am trying to get across is that simply because assult weapons are going to be legal again - it doesn't mean that there are going to be a whole new compliment of even more dangerous guns entering civilians homes now - many of the current legal guns are extraordinarly similar, and in many cases, even more powerful than the "assult rifles" - they just look a lot more friendly...

You forgot to mention that the M16 carries a three-round burst capability, which makes it qualify for an automatic weapon.

They've been banned for a long time now, right? I'm not sure as to how long, but is there anybody who really missed them?

What's the big deal about re-banning them? They just seem completely unnecessary to me?

The main problem with banning them is that doing so IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I am all for 'sensible' gun control, believe me. However before anything sensible that involves BANNING can pass constitutional muster we must recind the second ammendment, which provides for:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the predictions of the AWB sunsetting on Monday come to fruition, it will indeed be a banner ( :thumbsup: ) day for the constitution and the founding principles of this great land

It's about time our government does something positive. This tiny little piece of inactivity is a good start.

-bear

A M16 is a military weapon that can't be purchased legally by any civilian across the counter, with or without the ban in place. The AR15 is the civilian version of the M16 and the AR15 does not come with any option other than semi-automatic. There is no three shot burst or automatic option available on any weapon that is sold to civilians whether it is labeled an assault weapon or not, period. The assualt weapons ban affected the AR15 model, not the M16 model of this weapon.

Also to be noted is while there is little difference between the diameter of a .22 and a .223, there is quite a difference in the weight of the projectile. This translates into more inertia down range.

So-called "assault weapons" are mainly semi-automatic versions of military weapons. Civilian versions of military-style weapons are not capable of being easily modified to full-auto. For example, a kit to convert a civilian MP5 to full-auto is subject to the same regulations as full-auto and other "Class 3" weapons. Additionally, the kit costs well over $9000.

What is an assault weapon?

So, if they're just another type of semi-auto weapons, why would anyone care about them being banned? One problem is the slippery Slope. If we start arbitrarily banning guns that look scary, who can tell us where to stop?

Now that we've gotten the politics out of the way, why would anyone want to own one? Let's go feature by feature.

Rifles

1: Folding or telescopic stock. This feature allow for easier storage or transport of a firearm. In home defense usage, the lack of an extended stock allows for more maneuverability. Imagine trying to move through doorways in your own house with a long rifle ant your shoulder, trying to defend yourself against an armed intruder.

2: Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock. This is an ergonomic feature. Any hunter or target shooter can tell you that a more comfortable grip makes the gun easier to hold for extended periods of time. It also allows semi-automatic civilian versions of military weapons to be manufactured without significant alterations to the design, allowing the same body to be used in both versions. The presence of a pistol grip is necessary when the stock is in line with the barrel in order to give the user something to hold onto to control recoil and aim properly.

3: Bayonet mount. Nothing needs to be said here. I will, however, concede that I have not hear a single reliable report of a drive-by bayonetting since the AWB was passed.

4: Flash suppressor or threaded barrel. The reason this grabs the attention is because the term "flash suppressor" has been associated with the incorrectly-named "silencer" due to movies and TV. In reality, the flash suppressor prevents the flash from blinding the user while firing in the dark. It does nothing to muffle the sound. A threaded barrel does, in theory, allow a suppressor (not silencer) to be attached easily, but the sale and posession of suppressors has been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and to obtain one legally requires the same paperwork and background check as the purchase of a fullty automatic weapon.

5: Grenade launcher. These have been regulated by the NFA of 1934 since it was passed. This was attached to the AWB solely for the purpose of having a measure in the bill that makes it sound like it does something. In reality, it's a redundancy of a law that has been in place for 80 years.

Pistols

The deatachable magazine provision means that revolvers are exempted from these provisions.

1: Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip. This feature has no effect on functionality, it simply makes the gun look scary.

2: Threaded barrel. Same as with rifles. Has no effect on functionality. Some may accept a flash suppressor.

3: Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel. Holding the barrel with the other hand does not affect the functionality of the gun. Simply put. another feature that looks "scary." Specifically targets TEC-9 and MAC-10 type weapons. These shrouds prevent you from burning your hand if you have to touch the barrel after firing the gun.

4: Manufactured weight of over 50 ounces, unloaded weight. I just don't know. I can't tell you what guns it targeted, or why. It seems completely illogical.

5: Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. Once again, it looks "scary." There's no logical reason to ban them.



So, after all that, why would you want to own a civilian version of a military weapon? Here are just a few reasons:

-Military weapons are manufactured with higher quality control standards.
-Durability and reliability are important to the military. Anyone who buys anything recognizes the importance of these two features.
-Replacement parts are readily available.
-Military rifles are meant to be used for prolonged periods of time, if necessary. They are more comfortable to hold and rest on the shoulder.


Would you rather own a 6-cylinder BMW with a downtuned engine, or a top-of-the-line 6-cylinder Hyundai? I know which I'd pick.

So most people want them because they're cool.

"Right to bear arms", sure. You've got your handguns, shotguns, and rifles. I don't see where banning a certain type is infringing on your rights.

I'd like to be convinced, so far I'm not.

Yes, dammit, I've missed them.

I've missed buying cheap 20 rounders for competition, instead having to buy the same dang thing "pre-ban" at vastly inflated prices.

And it still pisses me off when people argue "they don't seem necessary to ME".

Well, ya know what, I don't see why people like to jump out of airplanes, but I don't try to make it illegal.

(But jumping out of airplanes doesn't kill people!!)

Well you know, neither do the vast majority of so called "assault weapons"! (get educated!!)

Is an assult rifle the same as an assault rifle?

Nope, it's the new cooler way to spell assult...

NoSoup <---- Changing the way to spell the english language, one word at a tyme :D

Should I even mention that an "assault rifle" is what the army uses and is NOT an "assault weapon" as newly defined by these laws?

("Assault weapon" changes in definition, depending on the legistlator/gun banner, btw.)

... you're kidding. Sure freedom of speech, you can talk about sex, drugs, school, work, religion, but discussing politics is dangerous and should be taken away from us. Shall not be infringed means shall NOT be infringed period.

Well does this mean anybody can buy an AK-47 or Uzi now?

I'm just trying to get educated here. I'm really neither for, or against it at this point.

In a word; No.
The semi-automatic knockoffs, such as the Polytech Legend, yes. These, however, fire a single shot for each pull of the trigger. They -look- like AK-47's and Uzis, fire the same round, and accept the same magazines. They are not, however, machineguns. Indicentally, despite what the major media keep presenting, these rounds are not horriffically powerful. The 7.62x39mm round fired by the AK-47 and it's derivatives, for example, is roughly equivalent to the 30-30 Winchester: a 100-year-old hunting cartridge.
The AK-47 and Uzi, despite what Diane Feinstein and the Million Misguided Mommies would have you believe, are HEAVILY regulated, since they are fully-automatic weapons. In order to acquire one legally, a buyer must pay a $200 tax, submit to an intense background check, and have the permission of their local Top Cop: and this is all before paying $5000-$10,000 dollars for the weapon itself.

Not to mention have a FFL, which requires an act of God to get, and pay $500 per year per weapon.

The AWB only applies to semi-atuomatic weapons that look nasty. The guns banned were found to be used in less than 2% of crimes committed (see the PDF in my sig), and so the ban itself had a negligible effect on crime.

Come on people. Where is your spirit when we can ban all scary looking things. This is a good time to start a campaign. Lets see, there are snakes, spiders, lions, tigers, bears, sharks, people that look different, the night, assault weapons, lightning, bats
What other things we need to add to the list?

Guns are designed to kill. They're also fun for some people to play (compete) with. It's my opinion that if there was a lack of guns, there'd be a lack of gun deaths. And that this lack of gun deaths is worth the lack of "fun" derived from guns.

However, I do not feel strongly enough about this issue to have it affect my vote, as I realize that crime is generally not the fault of guns, just facilitated by them.

Most people want them because they're more reliable, more durable, and have better ergonomics. "Cool" has nothing to do with it. Anyone who wants a gun because it looks "cool" is not responsible enough to own one and deserves the performance record of the Desert Eagle they'll end up buying for the "coolness" factor.

This was covered in my first post. The fact that you're asking proves that media brainwashing has worked. They've managed to associate their so-called "assault weapons" with assault rifles. Under the ban, I still could have bought an AK-47 or UZI (not really, I'm not 21, but if I was old enough, I could have.) After the ban expires, the weapons that you're concerned about are still subject to the same regulations that have been in place since 1934. Refer to the link in my first post for details on how difficult it is to get one, and why it's nearly impossible for a criminal to get one.

With the assault weapons ban gone, you do not have to worry about criminals from obtaining automatic weapons. The ban has nothing to do with automatic weapons. The only thing you will have to worry about is people who will once again try to take away your rights.

Humans are designed to kill. The gun is a tool to help the human to kill. Humans are adaptive. Take away one tool the human will just find another tool to take its place.

I understand that you are confused by all this "assault weapons" talk. That is what the politicians want. Under the AWB, I bought an AK47 derivative, called a MAK90. It is made in China, and is intended to be a "sporter" rifle. It came with 5 round magazines, and a thumbhole stock. A thumbhole stock simply connects the stock to the pistol grip, thus making it "legal". Same functionality, etc. However, there is a provision in the AWB, which says if you have x American parts in a gun, then you can have x number of "bad" accessories. So I slapped a few American parts into the gun, and now I replaced the thumbhole stock with a pistol grip and regular stock, and put 30 round magazines in it (not to mention my 75 round drum).

So what did the AWB really do? Mainly, it made it a pain in the ass to modify your gun, and drove prices up on the "bad" features/guns. Once the ban sunsets, I'm going to a gunsmith and getting a folding stock welded onto my gun for ease of transport and storage. People always ask "Why?" I say "Why not?" I don't question why you need to drive a car, why you need to smoke cigarettes, why you need to have anal sex with your girlfriend (these are general statements, not personally addressed to anyone). I will never kill someone with my guns, except in the extremely off chance that someone breaks into my house. This shouldn't be a concern of yours unless you break into houses.

Just as a side note, fully automatic guns aren't necessarily more dangerous than semi-automatic. It is very hard to control a gun firing full auto, and it is mainly used to keep peoples heads down. Firing semi-auto is much more accurate, and you are more likely to hit your intended target. Look at the event that brought about the AWB, the bank robbery in LA where the two criminals had full auto AK47s. They wounded 9 cops and a number of civilians, but they didn't kill anyone. If they fired on semi-auto, I'd be willing to bet that they would have killed a few people atleast. Why? Because it isn't as scary, thus the police wouldn't have hid as much behind cover, taken more chances, gone out into the open more, etc.

Anyway, I could go on about this but I'll digress.

I believe MrSelfDestruct explains my view on all this perfectly...

I'm curious... would the people who are strongly against gun control approve if weapons such as an AK47 automatic were made available to the gun buying public, or do you believe that some level of control is necessary?

If the purpose is to maintain a 'well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', then surely the militia should have access to the best equipment available in order to be effective. Anything less could be considered a compromise.

jwoody:
PRECISELY. And since the Militia is defined by Federal Law as all persons capable of bearing arms, EVERYONE has a right to such weapons. As James Madison said "The Sword, and every terrible impliment of the Soldier, are theirs..."

Sorry if this goes off topic but... given the slippery slope arguement, do you then feel that any ban on any form of arms is unaccaptable? In other words should people have access to all forms of weapons such as fully automatic, grenade launchers etc.

No reason to be a prick about it.

It doesn't mean I've been "brainwashed" by the media. It means I don't follow what's going on in the gun ownership world, or read much about gun control.

Careful dude, I wouldn't call a Mod a prick... I think SelfDestruct was simply commenting on the media's envolvement hurting general knowledge about this subject. They love to put their own spin on things. Some of us don't have any other source for information on the subject.

It's my opinion that if there was a lack of sissors there'd be a lack of sissor deaths. Or how about cars? or the use of electrisity? or how about the consumption of food (lots of death by obesities you know..) Sound obsurd? That's how we view it.

So by that logic Nuclear weapons are ok to own. Assault weapons need a ban because they to easily facilitate killing of more than one person at a time.

You know what we need? A constitutional amendment meant to address the huge advances in firearms technology since the framers wrote that document. Then an assault weapon ban wouldn't be unconstitutional anymore. We've changed the document to reflect other advances in our society; black people are no longer property, women can vote, etc.

Without reservation, I am wholeheartedly honored to agree with you. Good to see you again.

I doubt we would agree on the substance of such a change, but to see you acknowledge that a change is so clearly needed, is very encouraging to me.

-bear

You are correct. According to the 2nd ammendment of the Consitution Nuclear Weapons ARE OK TO OWN. Without question, as far as I'm concerned.

That is why I keep saying we NEED TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. Not continue to violate it.

It is currently unconstitutional to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. End of discussion. This is unquestionably ludicrous, imho. Yet remaims a reality. Arms needs to be clarified and limitations placed on their bearability.

The limitations should not be at 'machine gun,' 'rocket launcher,' or 'assault weapon.' That limitation of 'Arms' should be whatever your government is able to posess and use...the citizens MUST also be able to posess and use. If a government doesn't want it's citizens to posess a certain designation of 'ARMS' then they also must be forbiden from posessing it. This to me is the essense of the second ammendment, and essentially the 'fourth' check on the power of your government. An oft unrecognized 'check' available to the citizenry or perhaps even 'well regulated militia' to ensure the fox doesn't run the hen house.

All for a change of the constitution,

-bear

Ok, lets get to some real examples shall we. (I'm basing what's banned or not on Mr. SelfDestruct's post.)

Ok, here is a picture of a "banned" AK-47 type rifle.
http://images.gunsamerica.com/upload/976308564-1.jpg
Now, this gun has a fold able stock and a pistol type handle which is what makes it fall under the banned category. This picture has it equipped with a large clip but lets assume that it has a ten bullet clip (clip types are easy to change on both banned rifles and not banned rifles.)

Next, a picture of a fully legal russian made SKS.
http://images.gunsamerica.com/upload/976495573-1.jpg
This gun has only one of the modifications that apply to the ban. The gun is using the typical ten bullet clip.

Similarities include:
Semi-auto
Made for military purposes
able to attach bay-o-net
changeable clip sizes

Differences include:
The AKish rifle uses .233 ammo
The SKS uses 7.62x39 ammo (larger)
The AKish rifle "looks scary."
SKS costs $325.
AKish rifle costs $2,795.


I own a SKS. It's fun for both target practice and hunting because it has a ten bullet clip and it has less recoil than 30-06. The problem with the SKS is that it has very little accuracy, the trigger requires to much pressure to fire, and has the potential to fire when it's being loaded.

What's the temptation to own the AKish gun? It will provide safer loading, easier storage, and greater accuracy (less chance I will ruin a weekend when I fire and miss a deer).

Why do we make things normal people have a reasonable use for illegal?

Here is another take on this subject. Why ban the tool used to commit a crime. I can kill someone with my car, a hammer, a stick, a rock, or even the most important thing mankind needs, water. Yet I have no want or need to kill somone or use any of those items for any purpose other than what they are legally allowed to be used for.

What needs to be done is to utilize the laws already in place to remove the lawbreakers from our midst. I agree that the criminals will have to commit a crime before we can remove them and people may die when those crimes are committed. But when the criminal does bad make them pay. It may seem third world or barbaric but, In my opinion if you commit a crime and kill someone there is no option other than to kill you for the crime. We all know wrong from right criminals know wrong from right as well, they also know that if they commit a crime and are caught they will have to pay the price. Make the price so exorbantly high that, and follow through with the punishments. So that criminals know we will punish them not just slap their wrists. Then maybe just maybe they will choose not to commit the crime.

Also I would like to all of you for gun control and the banning of all firearms. Google the crime statistics before and after firearms were banned in Australia. Criminals knowing that law abiding citizens do not have firearms to protect themselves are not afraid to commit crimes against those people because only the lawabiding citizens gave up their guns yet the criminals did not turn in their firearms.

Food for thought.

Nuclear weapons are only good if they are used.

Would you mind posting a picture of the top rifle folded up?

For the best dramatic punch and most realistic use value, I would like to see it in shooter A's hands folded up walking into a store versus shooter B holding a long rifle up to his shoulder or hip.

I'd like to see a comparison between both guns laying on the back seat of a '65 Impala, and I'd like to see them under a coat on that back seat.

I'd be very curious if you can find a picture of either one hanging out the back of a Ford Mark IV and which one would be easiest to handle in that situation. Let's assume for the sake of the scenario that I don't care about accuracy, just straigh spray and pray with a few 50 round clips laying next to me. If you saw me hanging out the side of one of those cars or walking into a shop:

Which one would you think I'd be holding and which one would you rather be up against?

Which one do you think the police want to deal with?

Now, I may agree with some of your points in regard to the notion of an armed populace, but don't give me bullshit about the whole thing a farce based on looks and not function.

Let's also point out that the fact manufacturers figured out how to get really close to that legal line without crossing doesn't impugn the bill.

If my mom told me not to poke my sister in the eye anymore and I stick my finger right up to her eyelash--I'd get fucking backhanded. My mom's rule wasn't the stupid thing, my finger pushing that envelope was what needed fixing.

The AK47 Automatic is available to the gun-buying public. There are so many restrictions in place on them that most people don't realize that.

I can't really say this without sounding at least a bit sarcastic, but ... did you read a single word of what I posted? Nothing that was banned in 1994 easily facilitates the killing of more than one person at a time.

This is incorrect. A person does not need an FFL to own a fully automatic weapon. The $500 per year per weapon is also incorrect. The FFL (Federal Fireamrs License) is only needed by the person selling the weapon (this goes for any type of firearm). The $500 per year fee is not per weapon and is only payable by person/store/company selling the Class 3 (full auto) device. This is a Special Occupational Tax levied on them by the Department of the Treasury.

I will conceed that a folded teloscoping stock makes the overall length of a firearm shorter than a non-teloscoping stock, however, in most crimes it's handguns that are used not rifle or "assault weapons". In 1995, the Clinton Administration conducted a study which found that less than 1 percent of state and federal inmates carried "military style" weapons which is a greater set of weapons than the AWB deals with. In 1997 another survey was done of prisoners and it found that during the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun. (sources: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103454,00.html and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm)

I couldn't disagree with you more on this point. It was based upon looks. Keep in mind, the AWB only dealt with semi-automatic firearms. If the ban would have been based on function, then no semi-automatic rifles would have been produced in the last 10 years period. They all would have been on the assault weapons ban because the all function the same way....squeeze the trigger - BANG.....squeeze the trigger - BANG.

The studies you cite are faulty on at least one count--they only surveyed people incarcerated.

That leaves a gaping unknown hole regarding actual crimes committed.

Given that we are discussing portability and ease of using/getting rid of a weapon, the characteristic bears a direct relationship to whether the stats those studies are using is accurate. I'm surprised the authors didn't raise that question themselves, but maybe they did. I haven't read those studies personally. But it's highly inaccurate to argue how often a weapon is used in a crime based on who is sitting in prison.

Also, unless we know what percent of the population actually committed a gun related offense, those figures are artificially inflated. If 70% of our population is incarcerated due to drug related offenses (it is) and only ~8% are due to violent offenses (they are), then we want to know the percentage of those 8% who used such a weapon, not the entire 100% population--because we know that an IV heroin user isn't relevant to the count of how many people use these weapons unless his crime was bucking a .45 for a fix.

In regard to your last paragraph. You can disagree with my statement, I can't convince you about the intent of the bill because your mine appears made up already. When a bill winds its way through Congress, everyone gets to piddle with it until it's passable. I don't know what the machinations were that rendered it toothless in the end. But our representatives didn't sit around thinking of ways to scare the public into losing their 2nd amendment rights. They were dealing with a real problem of people shooting larger numbers of people than was the usual case in a more rapid fashion than a typical handgun and sport rifle.

I also made my position clear on the matter that it's downright nonsense to say a bill didn't intend to ban a particular function when manufacturers found loopholes to continue making rifles that did not vary in too much function.

Are you suggesting that you would support a ban if it criminalized all multi-round rifles that were easily concealable, highly portable, and rapid firing?

Or are you just picking at a bill and finding reasons retrospectively that justify the conclusion you already came to?

The gun I showed in the picture would be obvious even if you did fold it up. It's not a thin gun and the pistol grip wouldn't help anything. In either hypothetical situation it would have to be a trench coat and I would argue that a trench coat could hold either gun, remember the "long rifle" has a shoulder strap which would allow you to hide it while you're wearing your coat. I guess I should apologize for not coming up with twenty different possible situations.

I think you'd rather be holding the AK-ish one because it has a comfortable pistol grip and good stock (supposing you had $3000 to buy a gun to use for illegal purposes). The question of which would I rather be up against question is a hard one. What distance? Close I'd rather go up against the AK-ish one do to smaller bullet size. Long distance I would choose "going up against" the SKS, my chances would be high if you were to "spray and pray." Remember, none of these guns really allow you to spray but I guess that's a minor point. I think the police would like to go up against neither. (I also apologize about going over some of this when someone else has replied to your statements but they seemed addressed to me so I felt complied to supply an answer.)

I hate to point out that your point about the fold able stock doesn't prove a whole lot. Remember the rules, a rifle could contain a fold able stock and not a pistol grip which would make it completely legal.

I don't view this as the manufacturers getting really close to the legal line. They are in full compliance with the law, why be upset with them?

If your mother said, you can have candy A or candy B but not both, would she be made at you for taking candy A?


I feel that this thread has proved that the banned guns are perfectly logical for legal uses and pose no more threat than guns that are unaffected by the ban.

Semi-auto is semi-auto. I don't see that any of the above law has anything to do with a gun being "rapid fire."

I thank you for your opposing viewpoint and interest in a open discussion of the issues brought up in this thread.

It's called cross sampling and every poll in the world is based on cross sampling. Look at the polls in the presidential race. Do you get a call for each and every one of those polls? It's a sampling of a group that represents a whole. I will agree that the numbers are not going to be 100%, but the will be close.

Yes, only those incarcerated were polled. How do you suggest we survey those who never got caught?

You should read the survey. It si broken apart with type of gun, type of crime, where they got the gun and a few other items.

A real problem of people shoting larger numbers of than was the usual case in a more rapid fashion that a typical handgun and sport rifle huh? Explain how a semi-automatic rifle shoots faster than a semi-automatic pistol? Or did you mean that to shoot 30 people with a glock required a reload where with a AR-15 you wouldn't have to with a 30 round mag? An AR-15 is a sport rifle so I will assume you are talking about bolt action type rifles here. But if we are talking about rounds being thrown downrange in a given time frame, what about the SKS, it didn't make the list but will fire 30 rounds just as fast as an AR-15.

Using the same logic that was used on the AWB, here is my solution to vehicular homocide by drunk drivers. First we survey everyone that goes into a bar as to what they will drink, then we look to see if those people get into wrecks that result in a person loosing their life. Then whatever drinks caused the most fatality accidents, we make illegeal. Now I know that won't solve the problem because people will drink other things, but hey, it looks good on paper, I'm trying to solve the problem of people killing people by doing something that is already illegeal.

I'm not arguing about intent. I'm arguing about what the bill did when it was passed....not a whole lot. Wheather the intent of the bill or not, it made certain rifles illegeal to manufacture that contained certain physical charistics. No weapon was baned based on how it functioned. Tell me, how does a telescoping stock affect the function of a rifle? How does a bayonet lug affect the function of a rifle?

First, I would not support such legislation, however if I were to endorce a bill, then yes it would have to ban all semi-automatic rifles, not just the ones that look scary. I am not mearly picking at a bill retrospectively....I have been picking at this bill for about 3 to 4 years now. When the bill went into affect I was not old enough to worry about it much. As I got older, I started to worry about it more and more and pick it apart. Personally I own a pre-ban AR-15 and see no reason why the cosmetic features should be banned.

I dont know how much longer I can keep going with these points:

Your mom analogy doesn't square with what happened. If we want to keep using it we'll need to modify it to read: if she said I couldn't have a candy bar and I picked up a chocolate covered trail mix bar, yeah, she'd probably have to let me eat it by her rules but next time the shit won't fly very far despite being within the limits of the rule because it'll be pretty clear that I'm not supposed to be eating chocolate or sugar or whatever. I don't know of any parent who would agree with me that the rule was silly because, after all, it didn't prevent me from getting a similar type of bar than the one prohibited. They'd think I was being a smartass--and I would be just because I'd want a candy bar. That's skating the line.


A gun can't have a folding stock without a pistol grip. How would you hold it and shoot it? Perfectly legal and perfectly unusable. I'm going by your comments here, but in Oregon it wasn't legal to buy a foldable stock at all--so I'm not sure if that was state law or if you are incorrect about whether a folding stock is perfectly legal.

Both guns allow me to "spray" just as quickly as I can pull the trigger. The bottom one, however, runs out of bullets faster than the top one and I have to unlatch the clip before changing it instead of just popping a latch. My SKS with the legal clip was a pain in the ass to change. My folding stock, which I illegally converted from a non-foldable stock with a plastic pin in it (yeah, the manufacture is certainly partly culpable knowing full well anyone is going to just grind the pin out) was easily concealable in a T-shirt. And it was a snap to use out of the side of a car (from what I hear, anyway :{}).

Neither my sks (which eventuallly looked and acted just like your 'ak-ish' example) nor my Tech-9, nor the AR-15 we had use of were 3K. More like $50-100. I should mention that while they were street purchased and used illicitly, they have since been destroyed by law enforcement. Until this ban expired, those three weapons could never be obtained legally again.

btw, thanks for the discussion, too. We can't seem to see eye to eye on some of our points and I'm gettin frustrated. If it came through in my post, sorry. I'm going to bow out of the discussion now.

This would be a state specific law.

That's the thing when buying on the street...prices are much cheaper because the guns are already illegeal. If you are buying an illegeal gun what difference is a ban on that gun going to do. Besides, after the ban went into affect, you could still buy the same guns, they were pre-bans. And if you were that bent on getting one you could get a post ban and modify it.

Yes, the point I was making was that after the police cleaned those guns off the street they were no longer available ever again.

Now they will be.

I understand that pre-bans and modifications were and are available. I'm posing the scenario that over time the availability dwindles. With a cap on the current supply, as demand increases, so does scarcity and price--even for those cheapo sks's.

One of the main issues I had with the week's current public debate was the constant citation that gun crimes had remained static over the course of the ban, as if that illustrated the uselessness of the ban. By itself, that number means nothing and to most people watching the news in their living rooms it probably meant the opposite--that the ban had kept the numbers from rising.

And just how successful have they been at cleaning Ganga, Horse, and Ex off the street, eh?

I realise this is a little off topic but someone mentioned that the gun ban and buyback in australia resulted in an increase in crime.
This is disputed here. It appears that like any other survey, you don't actually know the truth unless you collected the information yourself as someone always has something to gain by distorting the results.

It seems most people use the argument that the AWB only bans guns that "look" scary. And because of this it shouldn't exist. Well then would you support a extension to the bill that banned more than just the scary looking weapons?

Nope. Once again, that pesky Constitution getting in the way...

Pesky Constitution doesn't stop the patriot act, it doesn't help those people in guantonimo, but I don't see conservatives complaining about that.

Where the difference with fully automatic weapons com e in is when some lunatic walks into a crowd of people. At close ranges fully automatic weapons deal loads and loads more damage in a certain period of time than a semi-automatic ever will be able to.

Call me dense, but I don't see where the difference lies. You could buy a pre-ban gun and modify it, or you could buy a post ban gun and modify it. You still have not solved the problem, only made it slightly harder to do what you want.

a bit OT but I found this quiz:
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm
you have to guess if a gun is legal or illegal
since I'm not a gun nut I scored a 0, it was impossible for me to tell the difference.

As for gun control I'm still undecided, personally I don't see much reasons why someone should own a gun.

Great link. I took the test and am familiar with the AR-15. I missed a couple of them because things you can't tell in the picture. Like the one that (Spoiler: has the telescoping stock welded open, can't tell that in the pic.)

Pretty good overall.

Well, I'm not going to call you dense, bro, but I'm not sure how I can make my point any more understandable:

If the supply of a given item is held static (via regulations banning the manufacturing and/or sale of it), and the demand increases (due to increased population, demand, etc.), then the ability to acquire the item will be reduced over time.

Making it slightly harder for people to obtain these weapons was the point, as I understand it.

I understand the concept you describe, however that is not what the ban did. It banned guns based on cosmetic features. Manufacturers changed these features to continue to produce these firearms. A gun with the same functionality still existed after the ban as before.

We may be arguing semantics, like after the band a telescoping stock could not be sold on the rifle therefore the function is different. A bayonet lug could not be included, therefore the function is different. However, I see the function of the working of the gun the same...same size bullet, same velocity, same mechanism to fire the bullet.

Doesn't this assume that people who support it sunsetting are republican or leaning to the right?

According to this quiz. I'm a upper left leaning centrist. Just something to think about.

Remember, we all support the same overall goal. We all want our loved ones and ourselves safe from harm; we just have a different way of going about it.

So hrdwareguy, your issue was that the ban wasn't effective enough? If it had, say, banned all weapons with the ability to fire a three-round burst or greater with a single trigger pull, or with a magazine greater than 15 bullets, then you'd be for it? Because that wouldn't touch cosmetic features, just a gun's effectiveness at propelling lead. I agree the AWB was toothless. I know why, and so do you. That it didn't go far enough is a reason to replace with something better.

those people in guantonimo aren't u.s. citizens. why should it?

Rekna,
Where did you get the idea that I was some sort of Bush-bot? I preserve my 2A freedoms largely to defend myself from people like him and his crowd of traitors!

My issue with the ban is that it was toothless and the anti-gun crowd is touting it's sunset as the end of society as we know it because Ak-47's and Uzi's will now flood the streets.

With that said, let me also clarify that I would not support the bans you propose either. If a ban such as that passed, I would live with it, but I would not support the legislation. I would support gun control through education and a national firearms permit, but not the removal of any type of firearm from society.

To play the devil's advocate though, you are correct, since it didn't go far enough is reason enough to let it sunset and attempt to replace it with something more restrictive. (Keep in mind, I'm playing devil's advocate and would not support such a legislative measure).

And what about commercially available devices such as these
http://www.ak-47.net/images/hellstorm.jpg
These little gems use spring tension around the trigger to make it fire almost as fast as a full auto and are perfectly legal to own and use.

Anyone searched google forassult rifle ban recently?

What deer fire back ??
 

I'm a police officer, my wife is a police officer.
We both have come into contact both assault weapons and automatic weapons. And the NRA distinction is quite correct that many people do misconceive the two.
However, one little omission that I noticed in the NRA's reasoning is that one of the most defining factor of an assault weapon is the ability to carry armour piercing ammo.
NOT that this means that everyone who owns one wants to kill cops. Point of fact nearly all legal owners are Nascar dads and such (not to say hick/country-ass/redneck... but c'mon), and can not be held accountable for the actions of those who use assault weapons outside of the law.
The only questions I would pose are that what manner of game wears a bullet proof vest or fires back ?,
And for those that have them for home invasion/protection purposes... who do you think is going to invade your home... the Terminator ??
For home protection (if that is REALLY what it is to be used for), a 9mm handgun would be the most convenient and effective for of weaponry, and as far as game hunting... if you need a 3-burst to put down a deer, or a duck or whatever... then you REALLY need try another sport 'cos you suck at marksmanship.
And for the constitutional aspect of the argument... then as upholders, protectors and idolisers of the constitution... then they should be 100% supportive of the indiviuals rights to freedom, and whole heartedly embrace gay marriage ???
(I'm gonna go ahead and assume our country bretherin are gonna still object to that one)

Not everyone in the NRA is nuts, just most of them.

deegin:
Actually, yes. I support Gay marriage, as I believe that the State has no cause to be in the marriage buisness.
Armor-piercing ammo: Anything can penetrate anything else if it's moving fast enough. A plane-Jane 30-06 softpoint will punch through anything up to III-A, and 30-06 Ball will penetrate IV-A, if I'm not mistaken. "Armor peircing" ammunition is not limited to "Assault weapons." My single-shot Contender G2 can fire AP-06 ammo with a tungsten-carbide core which will penetrate any wearable body armor on the planet: A level-IV vest will stop the steel-cored stuff, but not tungsten.
Point is, "Assault weapons" are no deadlier to police than any other firearm.

Lastly ( and please do not interpret this as a threat against yourself ) the Second Amendment has -nothing- to do with hunting, target-shooting, or any other "Sporting purpose." It's intended, stated purpose is to provide for a heavily armed Citizenry, in the event that the Government were to grow too powerful and tyrannical. As a consequence, "Assault weapons," machineguns, RPGs, etc etc etc are totally -CONSTITUTIONALLY- legal for citizens to own. Any laws which infringe upon this right are illegal, null, and void. Any officer or official who enforces said laws is violating their Oath Of Office.

In that case, let's keep the example in the same class of distinction. rather than bopping over to homosexual marriage.

Why does that line of logic not declare prohibiting felons from firearms as null, void, against the natural law, and etc?

Or would you support a removal of such restrictions?