Wow, pretty strong promise, can it be backed up?Quote:
"Utah has a high suicide rate. If we want to prevent suicides in Utah, perform background checks," Holyoak said.
Printable View
Wow, pretty strong promise, can it be backed up?Quote:
"Utah has a high suicide rate. If we want to prevent suicides in Utah, perform background checks," Holyoak said.
Great video showing what could happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTyCD2n6HAQ&sns=em
Wonder what the date of the video is?
Seems amazing to me that in 2010/2011 58 people were killed by guns in homicides. Total. .1 per 100k.
Interesting to consider the British situation. Not sure its apples to apples for us here in the colonies...
From the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom
A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England and Wales remained a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes.
In the year Apr 2010 to Mar 2011 there were 11,227 recorded offences involving firearms, broken down as follows.
By weapon type:
- Long-barrelled shotgun = 406
- Sawn-off shotgun = 202
- Handgun = 3,105
- Rifle = 74
- Imitation firearm = 1,610
- Unidentified firearm = 957
- Other firearm = 670
- Air weapons = 4,203
Only those items proven to be "imitations" (which includes BB/soft air types) or air weapons are classed as such, otherwise they are placed by default in the main "live" categories, e.g. an imitation pistol not proven to be such would be counted as a live "handgun." "Other firearm" includes CS gas (223 crimes), pepper spray (118), and stun guns (149).
By crime type:
- Violence against the person:
- Homicide = 60
- Attempted murder/GBH with intent = 757
- Other = 3,317 (1,212 of which involved imitations)
- Robbery = 2,965
- Burglary = 151
- Criminal damage = 3,287 (2,916 of which involved air weapons)
- Other = 690[80]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU
OMG!!! This video is AWESOME!!!! Mow 'em down!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
This attachment I cannot 100% verify and am not willing to spend much time. If it is wrong or offends anybody, then disregard it
Attachment 64051
Another fake founding fathers quote...heavy sigh...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinio...-gun-quotation
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...bertyquotation
So you are using CNN and Monticello.org to refute a quote. I can't argue 100% that its a true statement from Jefferson, but if I was going to use something I would at least use Wikipedia. There you have at least a 50/50 chance of factQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Henry Waxman Facts:
HR 4296 - Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Henry Waxman voted Yea (Passage) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made in this general time period.
HR 6842 - Repealing Portions of the D.C. Firearm Ban - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Henry Waxman voted Nay (Passage) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made in this general time period.
S 397 - Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Henry Waxman voted Nay (Passage) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made in this general time period.
HR 424 - Minimum Sentences for Gun Crimes - Key Vote
National Key Votes
Henry Waxman voted Nay (Passage) on this legislation.
Read recent statements Henry Waxman made in this general time period.
100%? My bet is you can't argue it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
The "fact" that Monticello has a page refuting it doesn't deter you from thinking its a real quote? Wow.
Attachment 64052
Monticello.org - good source. Reputable. Lays out the argument well, has footnotes to original sources. Hard to do better than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
Tom
I got back involved in this thread in a moment of weakness. Monticello could be, I don't know. It was hard to past the CNN referral though
Why are they called "assault" weapons unless they are intended to be used to assault people? :assault:
If you are asking a serious question... An "Assault Weapon" is a military weapon that is not easily avaiable to the American public... the term is applied by pro gun control groups to numerous semi-auto (hunting and sporting) rifles sold in the US to try and inflect fear and terror into those who are ignorant on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob L
:cool2:
So...assault weapon?
Attachment 64078
Says, "restricted military/government law enforcement/export use only". But, legally ownable by a civilian, yes? Its a Colt LE6920.
And, the clones of the above share how many interchangeable parts? 100%?
Are these, then, by your definition, "assault rifles"? If not, then, what's the diff?
Military version of the above is an M4? Has the same except, what, a couple parts (shorter barrel, auto sear)? Photo below?
Attachment 64079
Civilian version:
Attachment 64081
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is it still only a kitten?
Ha ha.
The point really is, that even if it is a duck. How is banning them going to serve any purpose when these types of firearms really aren't even the problem?
Ahh..."the problem". Mass shootings? Which is the only demographic of homicide by firearm that hasn't seen a fairly constant decline over the last couple of decades?Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
Unfortunately, they kinda are "a" problem. Maybe not "the" problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIqESwzCGg4
That was stamped on all outlawed "assault rifles" during the last ban. The firearms covered by that ban were pretty arbitrary, but you already know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
The historical military definition of an assault rifle has always included full auto capabilities.
The Ford or Chevy you drive to work is not a NASCAR racer, even if it passes your walks and quacks test...
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
Awesome! :roflol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
What folks seem to reference as the "military definition" is this 1970's document for identification of small arms in Eurasian Communist countries, which, is the reference that most folks point to. The "assault rifle" definition is buried beneath the AK-47 description.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
http://www.scribd.com/doc/117824077/...nist-Countries
Which, is a pretty narrow source for this "historical military definition".
Attachment 64082
Pretty amazing that folks are hangin' their hat on this. There's no "assault rifle" definition in any mil spec type or general training document on the M4, M-16, etc, it seems. You get one document published by the DIA of the US Army, buried under a section on the AK-47, and, that's the definition for everyone for an "assault rifle"? That's just silly.
You want a definition that's been codified? Here's a source:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...3hr3355enr.pdf
[LEFT]DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2].
http://youtu.be/cKxhlXZ3hcY
I have always wondered why "assault" or even semi-automatic needs to be attached to any firearm. It seems to me the majority are, wouldn't it make more sense to add bolt action rifle and use that more frequently and just assume that if it isn't specified that it is semi-automatic or and "assault rifle" whatever that means.
A "semi auto assault rifle" is not an "assault rifle" by definition..... thanks for proving my point.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
Uhh...like this, "hey, what kind of assault rifle is that?" "Why, its a semi auto".Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Still an assault rifle.
Kinda like your car analogy.
ATF definition with regard to the import restrictions from 1989:
For purposes of this suspension, assault-type rifles were rifles which generally met the followingcriteria:a. military appearanceb. large magazine capacityc. semiautomatic version of a machinegun
Yup... kinda.... they are both called Corvettes... and they are both yellow..Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
The first was used to win the 24 hours of Le Mans and the GT Manufacturers Championship.
The second was used to pick up a six-pack of beer at the local 7-11 and to fingerbang the divorcee down the block.
They are not the same thing in either case... but you and the guy that just picked up a sixer are welcome to think so...
Attachment 64084
Attachment 64085
But both the grocery getter and the semi-auto assault rifle are useful...
You are welcome to call your rifle anything you wish, that is really of little importance to me... we both know why the pro gun control folks refer to them as "assualt" rifles, and it's to scare and intimidate. Same reason the NRA refers to them as Black Rifles.
Anyhoo.... I'm more interested in the "will not be infringed" part of the discussion... and less with the color of your rifle.
:cool2:
Yes, it was a serious question, and thank you for the reply. Which itself raises my next question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Bydo you mean groups that are in favour of gun control, or do you mean gun groups that control themselves [in a sensible manner]. Sorry if I can't explain myself well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
I have no issue one way or the other myself...I don't own a gun, nor am I a member of a gun club, but I used to shoot targets at Bisley. Here in the UK we have our fair share of death shootings & gun crime just like you do in the USA.
Rob
More like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Attachment 64087
And:
Attachment 64088
Both NASCAR...
Just like ya got your military assault rifles and your civilian assault rifles.
More of an issue with the "anti gun control" folks making a deal out of folks calling them "assault rifles". I'm assuming they don't like the term 'cause once defined, its an easy thing to "deal" with.
Just like they way the US dealt with the import of rifles from out of country. Drove the darn prices up...check out HK 91's for example. At least home grown is affordable...sorta...
The definition of what is, and, what isn't an assault rifle seems to be a crux deal when it comes to the issue. The more confusing it is, the harder it is to legislate...
Anyhoo..."assault" is definately a word tossed around as a form of propaganda on both sides.
I think events like three gun comp's, etc, have helped legitimize sporting use of "assault" rifles, which, helps the "no ban" cause. Don't infringe on my legitimate sporting use of my military style assault rifle!
When I say pro gun control I mean those that want more restrictions on firearm ownership.
FWIW - supporters of the 2nd amendment often refer to these so called assault rifles as black rifles, for the simple reason they are normally painted black.
Yo Brian... you can put black lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Hahaha. ..
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
I don't think it matters as it appears an "assault weapons" ban is not going to pass.... "Universal Background Checks" seems to be the big prize at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
I think gun control advocates want Assault Weapons, Magazine capacity and Universal Background Checks all to come before a general vote. That will allow represenatives to vote against the first two items and vote for Universal Background Checks. Then they can still tell their constituents that they did nothing to impede the 2nd amendment, which is just anther word game of spin the story....
YMMV :cool2:
FWIW: The two Corvettes are more closely related, at least they share a name, a manufacturer and a heritage, along with some parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
The two race cars you posted share nothing in common. One is a Ford, the other a Chevy. One is a Cup car, the other is a Natainwide Car. Outside of the NASCAR sticker there is not one item or part that is interchangable, not even the tires.
Don't be fooled by looks alone. :haha:
It's all about the magazines, man...at least here in Colorado.
Once a month, Mike Rosen, a radio talk show host that I'm a big fan of, has an hour long segment with both the mayor of Denver and the Governor. Listeners can call in with questions. For the mayor, it's mostly stupid stuff like potholes and parking tickets, for the governor, the questions are mostly about energy policy and state spending.
Hickenlooper, the Gov., was on today. As you know, the gun debate is huge here with legislation that passed recently...as the Democrats run the state. All it needs now is his signature...and he's going to sign.
Mike asked him straight up, "Why do you support these things" and to Lickenpooper's credit, he gave a straight up answer....
It's all about the mags. He doesn't care about the "appearance" of the firearm. Handgun or rifle. They (he and his comrades) firmly believe that if the gun has a limited amount of ammo, people will be able to scurry to safety as the shooter is changing clips, or tackle the guy. That's it...period. Their most logical answer.
Fortunately, they aren't banning guns "by the way they look"...there are no specific models on a "can't own it" list. However, I've heard the is a certain Glock that can only be used with the stock mag that holds 15 rounds. I can't recall the model number. Anyway, you're allowed to own it, but you can't fire it.
I wonder what would happen to someone who uses one of these to defend themselves against a home invasion? Someone asked that question today, and he said they have to "work out the details" about what is grandfathered in, etc, etc...more committee meetings, more restrictions, more "this OK, that not", more brain damage...just like what they're doing with the marijuana.
The solution from the conservative/libertarian politicians and taking heads around here? Buy a gun. Get a CC. Take out any psycho that starts going off the deep end...justice served.
I'll take the conservative solution, thank you.
I think the bolded section below pretty much sums it up.
Modern Sporting Rifle Facts
The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood. Why? Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles. Remember, that if AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.
- AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.
- The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."
- AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.
- If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.
- AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
- Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.
- Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.
- These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.
- Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.
- These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.
- AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
- The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different "uppers" (the barrel and chamber) to the "lower" (the grip, stock).
- And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!
http://www.nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm
FYI: I understand Magpul Industries Corporperation is now selling "high capacity" magazines to Colorado residents on-line and all their production is going to CO. Magpul is calling it Fight for Freedom in Colorado.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
Nothing like anther couple million high capacity mags in CO before the ban takes effect.
:cool2:
So,... let me follow the "logic" here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandstone Addiction
"Assault weapon" is a term created by California law, and defined in California law to include AR-15s. Or at least, some semi-automatic 'modern sporting rifles', perhaps ones with a pistol grip and flash suppressor - details not important to this argument.
Sounds like they are saying that California CREATED a clear, well-defined definition of what an Assault Weapon is.
Before that, they say, (and I paraphrase) "they may have created the definition, but they got it completely wrong." Anyone who uses the term as the creators of that term defined it, must either have a different political opinion about guns than we do (ie, communist, suspect, gay, something bad) or "does not understand their function and sporting use, or both."
Interesting logic one develops, when preaching to the choir! :facepalm1:
(not that the lib side is not prone to the same kinda shenanigans... 4 sure it is!)
Tom :moses:
FWIW... the term assault rifle orginated with the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle. It was actually named "assault rifle".Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
The StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44), literally "storm" (or assault) rifle (model 1944) was an assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by most historians to be the first modern assault rifle.
The StG 44 is also known under the designations MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43, Maschinenpistole 44 respectively), which denote earlier developmental versions of the same weapon.
In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
An individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder.
Capable of selective fire (full automatic and semi automatic).
Intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle.
Ammunition is supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Fires from a closed bolt with the breech locked.
:popcorn:
That misinformation thing runs both ways. The pro gun folks blame the anti gun folks for callin' them assault rifles. The ATF calls them assault rifles especially in regard to import. Under the repealed legislation passed in 1994 and now expired, there was "semi-automatic assault rifles". That term "assault rifle" is a tough genie to push back in the bottle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandstone Addiction
"May" look cosmetically the same? Ha ha.
From a fairly spicy interchange awhile back on AR15.com:
In number of "exact parts," even if you ignore the fact that Colt parts are made on the same machinery and are more likely to be correct in terms of tolerance and small, harder to detect parts of the TDP, and ignore individual feature of the rollmarks and proof markings, and only take into account the reported material specs, the Colt SP6920 differs from the military issue M4 Carbine in these parts, minus the lack of an auto sear and the associated parts:
1. stripped barrel assembly
2. hammer
3. trigger
4. disconnector
5. selector
6. stripped lower receiver
7. stock assembly on newer models
So, anyhoo.
Fact? Most "assault rifles" are select fire. They aren't just fully automatic. And, the current M4 in use isn't fully automatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandstone Addiction
My bet is no one could tell the difference between a military M4 or M16 unless they got a good look at the lower for that extra position on the selector switch. Side by side. Up close. They function exactly the same. They take the same magazines, the same ammo, you can swap the bolts, the uppers...
From Colt, ""What differentiates the LESOCOM from the M4A1 platform currently used by the United States Armed Forces is the LESOCOM's longer barrel length and semi-automatic fire controls."
1.6" of barrel length and one less position on the selector switch. From legit assault rifle to sporter? Yeah, right.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...Assault-Weapon
Interesting article on military taking advantage of civilian improvements to their, uhh, "carbine"...ha ha.
http://www.defensereview.com/tactica...bat-crossover/
Attachment 64096
Attachment 64097
Which one is the "assault rifle"?
Geez, they look "cosmetically" the same...
Both from your collection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
I like the less-obvious grain on the lower one, so the upper must be the super-scary Assault Rifle.
:moses:
So, based on that, is the current M4 in use by the US military NOT an assault rifle because it doesn't fire fully automatic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
What's your definition source? If you included "and/or" between fully and semi automatic, I'd agree with it...ha ha.
Oh, you got it from the venerable wiki...must be true! You forgot the range. 300 meters. The references are interesting...
C. Taylor The fighting rifle – A complete study of the rifle in combat, ISBN 0-87947-308-8
F.A. Moyer Special Forces foreign weapons handbook, ISBN 0-87364-009-8
R.J. Scroggie, F.A. Moyer Special Forces combat firing techniques, ISBN 0-87364-010-1
Hey, speakin' of German assault rifles...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2270815.html