What is the definition of an assault weapon?
Should they be banned?
Printable View
What is the definition of an assault weapon?
Should they be banned?
So many murders have been committed without an "assault" style weapon.. OK City bombing, 9/11, ad nausea.
For the sake or argument, let's say the POTUS gets away with yet another ban. The last ban grand-fathered existing assault-style weapons, so whats to prevent a lunatic from using one of those? Additionally, the crazies and criminals don't care about a "ban".. If they have one, or have access, they're still going to use it.
Per the FED, an assault weapon is classified as:
Quote:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
- Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
- Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
- Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
- Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
- Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
- A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
- Detachable magazine.
:annie:
FYI, this is an assault weapon: My AR-15:
http://www.xmission.com/~jamesk/guns/ar2.JPG
Hey Brute...that's a beautiful firearm. Funny thing is, I don't know you nor have ever met you, but I have trust that you'll never use that weapon to kill anyone. Some may say it's naive of me to give you the benefit of the doubt...but I can't help but feel that you're responsible.
I own firearms too, and the last thing I would ever do is turn on on someone unless I was defending myself. All these shooters have one thing in common...they're crazy. Angry crazy people with guns, knives, baseball bats, car bombs, ice picks...a slingshot, they don't mix.
Speaking of slingshots, I had one and never did anything bad with it. If some punk kid down the street uses his to take out windows and shoots at dogs then why should my parents take away mine? It's a knee jerk reaction.
There are probably millions of people in this country alone barley surfing on the edge of sanity...these types of things will never end. It's awful, yes...I was looking at some of the pictures of the kids and it made me sick to my stomach, but life can be harsh and we'll never have a perfect society, never.
I understand that criminals will get them anyway. However, would the gunman in the recent shooting (with no criminal record) have had access to an assault weapon if the laws were different? If they were not so readily available would that decrease some of the violence? The gun used was licensed and legal, etc. Of course the shooting could still have happend, but obviously an assault weapon is much more deadly when used. I guess I dont understand why the public needs them? For the record, I do own as described above assault weapons. Maybe a certain caliber is not allowed? I understand that there is very little middle ground...
Totally playing devils advocate here. It is a sensitive time of course. I had to send two of my kids to elementary school today and it certainly made me think after what happened.
Yes he would have had access. After he murdered his mother, he stole her weapons (per the news media). He was denied a purchase, but stole/took his mother's -- so, even if a ban existed, all existing weapons are generally grand-fathered in and still legal to own/use.Quote:
Originally Posted by accadacca
I too hope that's the case. I bought my AR-15, as an "FU" to the government and as a precaution against another pending ban. I don't anticipate ever having to use this AR, except for target shooting. The AR would not make a reasonable home defense weapon, so instead I use my "assault weapon style" shotgun for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
For the record... the military considers a high powered rifle (deer rifle) to be the most deadly weapon available to a single soldier, not an assault rifle.
The reason being is a single man can snipe from a safe position, cause destruction over a wide area and than vanish to strike again.
The Texas bell tower, the DC sniper, and Kennedy assassination are a couple of examples....
Sent using Tapatalk
There is no nationwide average as it varies greatly for obvious reasons, but let me ask you--what is the police response time to your house?
Would the terror of standing by unarmed and watching your wife/husband/children being raped, murdered;be more powerful than the terror of stopping one of these acts?
If you have a tool that is going to have a chance of saving your families life, wouldn't you want the best tool available? Our police and military use AR type rifles so they must be pretty good, right?
Police generally arrive at a violent crime in time to gather evidence and document said crime. Up to the point of their arrival, your on your own.
But hey, nothing terrible could happen in 3-10 minutes, right?
the guy was sick, he was evil. hard to legislate against evil.
any legislation is only going to effect the law abiding citizens not the nut jobs and criminals.
Response times to 911 calls normally take more then 10 minutes and response times of under 9 minutes are rare. So something to consider, if things go really bad you are probably on your own for at least the first 10 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Question----
Would an assault weapon ban have stopped the Newtown shooting?
Not at all, as I've previously responded. This person still had access to these weapons and would have probably reverted to the two pistols (not on the pending ban list) in his possession. Again, the LAW will not stop a criminal or nut-job.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I have a bit more than this, I'll hold on for a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BruteForce
There IS an absolute answer(hint)
I am doing my first triple quote... :stud:
I wasn't talking about a gun ban across the board. I was asking about assault weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Nope. Next time...Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I guess it depends, but I wonder if more people could be killed in 10 minutes with an assault weapon...Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
So was I, it is addressed in the next paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by accadacca
Scott
You often advocate getting the newest high tech Apple devices--Why?
What's wrong with the Apple I or II?
The first problem with your question is please describe and identify an assault weapon for me? The last time the Feds tried to ban assault weapons the firearms manufacturers just looked at the definition and designed around the issue....Quote:
Originally Posted by accadacca
For example.... bayonet lugs were removed (who cares, no one uses bayonets in modern warfare), the folding stocks were pinned (but could be turned into a folding stock by drilling out the pin), 10 round magazines were required (but the guns were designed to work with older 20 round magazines that were in plentiful supply), yada, yada....
Sorry Scott, no intent to pile on just offering a different perspective.
Click this link when you have time, it is current CT law
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/gl...aultweapon.htm
It appears it wasn't effective.
On a positive note--my daughter and I just went out and shot the mean AR
We both had a ball, there was some significant wounding of dirt though.
nuther note--We kept checking each other to make sure but neither of us felt compelled to commit a felony while in possession of said gun...
on another note(I know, lotsa notes)
We did have police show up at the scene of our shooting, the local on duty officer.
He was greatly interested in our .22 conversion kit. We talked for quite awhile.
He said they will have to bring in the un, if they want to confiscate guns, law enforcement won't partake.
Did I mention the whole time we were talking my daughter was holding a loaded AR? Weird huh.... Not everyone who shoots AR's is a criminal.
Sadly, I've had to start locking up all my guns as I found them trying to sneak out of the house after midnight to commit wanton murder! Bad guns..:nono:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I'm glad you had a good time shooting and I don't doubt for a second that responsible people can handle guns. Also that Brute's guns wont wander out on their own and murder people. Pretty silly arguments... :lol8:
I grew up shooting guns, own several and my Dad has a safe full of them. Guns obviously dont transform normal people into killers. However, easy access to killing machines by crazies is what I am afraid of... :scared:
And your solution is what? How do you keep legally owned guns away from nut-jobs? I have a gun safe, but I'm sure it can be forced open with enough effort and the right tools (sadly, its not a high-end gun safe, something that I hope to rectify soon).Quote:
Originally Posted by accadacca
I agree--after Oklahoma city bombing, I faught hard to get Ford econoline vans bannedQuote:
Originally Posted by accadacca
Agreed. Mass bombings happen every few months in the US. :fitz:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Nobody has thrown any fancy charts into the mix yet...
http://www.motherjones.com/files/ima...ilians_225.gif
http://assets.motherjones.com/intera...ate_121712.gif
http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_51/fatalities3.png
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-investigation
But, seriously--What Constitutional right do you or others possess that trumps my constitutional right to go out and shoot a legally obtained firearm with my daughter?
Most recent Supreme court ruling, since you want to dig up facts and stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.[2]
Would you give up that right if 20 children could have been saved?Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/e...el-800x800.jpg
Acca, you're a troll now.
This lady nails it in the last ~4 seconds of the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFA...ature=youtu.be
Good clip. I wish she would have had her gun too and I fully understand her point. There certainly isn't a black and white answer.
Stats prove that where guns are banned (schools, churches, gubm't offices, etc) there are more weapons related crimes. Where those restrictions don't exist, less so. You do the math: Potential for CCW carriers = less crime/gun violence. No CCW allowed = FAR MORE GUN related violence.
'Nuff' Said!Quote:
An armed society is a police society!
Completely agreed. I'm pro gun and pro concealed carry.Quote:
Originally Posted by BruteForce
I'm going to go buy an "assault riffle" soon before they are banned. Any suggestions?
Hit Cabelas, and if they're still on-sale, spend $600 on the DPMS, then outfit it via Cheaperthandirt.com and opticsplanet.com..Quote:
Originally Posted by live2ride
:lol8:Quote:
Originally Posted by live2ride
I'd imagine that the gun manufactures are loving the publicity and they'll ramp up advertising. There will be plenty of deals!
Come on, Scott----hundreds of thousands of American soldiers HAVE died so WE do have that right.Quote:
Originally Posted by accadacca
Do you suggest we minimize their contribution to a free society? It is not easy to be a free society, there are many things that trip us and make us want to take the implied easy exit.
No murder is right, no slaughter of innocent children should be tolerated, I am sickened by this event. But not sickened to the point of giving up on this Country and what has stood for since it's inception along with the Constitutional rights it guarantees us ALL. If we go down this path of under cutting and changing Constitutional amendments, which one do you prefer to lose next? So I suggest you either support them all, even when it's inconvenient to do so, or we abolish the Constitution and start over, I was never made aware that our Constitutional rights were to be ala-carte.
There is absolutely no possible way to prevent an evil person from committing a crime, your the Dutchman sticking his finger in the dike, there will always be a method for those who seek it out, to inflict massive casualties upon society.
I have no real answers how to stop this kind of heinous event but I would venture a guess that banning guns won't slow the flow, rather just change the impetus of it's delivery.
Careful.... that's a very slippery slope you are heading down....Quote:
Originally Posted by accadacca
The short answer is "NO" I would not give up any of my rights to save 20 children. Freedom has never been free.
9-11 killed how many in the name of religion? What about Waco? Jim Jones? How many young girls raped by FLDS? Maybe we should outlaw certain religions?
Here is the deal as I look at it. The right to keep and bear arms in guaranteed in the bill of rights…. The same document that says you have freedom of speech and religion, among other things.
The minute you allow anyone to take one of those rights from you the method of taking the rest of your rights has been paved as you now have a precedent. So if you believe in firearms or not, you need to fight to protect them if you value maintaining the rest of your rights.
Or as the old saying goes…. I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.