Assault rifles.....

[cms]

What are some cold hard facts as to why assault weapons should be banned?

[The Straight Story]

1. Aren't all weapons assault weapons :)

I mean, what else do you use them for but to assault something like a rabbit or target :)

Ok, just some humor before the storm...

[cms]

3. I'm beginning to think...

that everyone almost everyone here thinks like that. I'm being absoulutely sincere...I want to know why you guys believe they should be banned...an no "because they're evil" deals either. Personal experience?

[The Straight Story]

8. I used to work for a reloading company

We sold equipment the world over for ammo reloading. From 20mm lahti's to .50 bmg to .17 hornet. I dealt with a large variety of gun owners, collectors, sport shooters, and milita style folks (we also have a government surplus store).

Personally, I don't think they should be banned. I think they, like cars and such in the US, should be regulated (as are cigarettes, et al) to some degree but not to an extremist level. Guns are not the problem in this society, people, poverty, depression, alcohol, etc are the causes of violent crime (and the government plays a certain role in all that).

Instead of fixing guns, we should fix the problems that lead people to use guns (or other things) to do harm to others. If you don't fix the root cause, no amount of governmental regulations will have any real affect.

Of course if you believe the human animal cannot be 'healed' then limiting what they can do to others by restricting choice is the option you would go with - and because of the state of the human animal we do limit the usage of some things (bombs for instance) by making it harder to make them (ie, you cannot buy such things at wal mart).

If we get to the level that we believe mankind is lost and unable to control himself at all on a large level (ie if government decides that) than we will lose many more freedoms and come to a truly sad state of affairs.

[iverglas]

13. oh, well, damn

"I want to know why you guys believe they should be banned...an no 'because they're evil' deals either."

Well now what's anybody supposed to say, eh? If we can't say "because they're evil", there's just no point in setting finger to keyboard.

"Personal experience?"

Oh look, another option. I can see you've been thinking about this real hard.

Maybe you could put the thinking cap back on and see whether you can come up with any other possibilities. Then you could present us with a larger range of multiple-choice options, for everyone's convenience.

Maybe it could look like:

- because they're evil
- because I was bitten by one
- because my daddy and my granddaddy thought so
- because it was the first thing that came into my head when I woke up on April 27, 1975
- because my big brother has one and he's a psycopath
- because looking at them gives me the vapours
- because I'm too stupid to live
- because I'm a big fan of the Bush régime and I want to make sure that nothing happens to interfere in the ultimate success of its big blueprint for the world and so I don't want all those peace- and freedom-loving elderly disabled unionized lesbians of colour being rendered incapable of making their stand against their friends and neighbours when they come to round them up
- all of the above


(edited to insert word that somehow got deleted; too stupid to live, I guess)

[cms]

44. You're skating the issue...you have yet to give a valid reason...

And how is asking if you have had a negative "personal experience" with an "assault style rifle" an OPINION? I simply wanted a valid reason why you don't like them...not a paragraph long rant trying to wander off of the subject...

[iverglas]

54. scusi?

And how is asking if you have had a negative
"personal experience" with an "assault style rifle"
an OPINION?

Them's some nice big capital letters you got there.

Too bad that I called that having a negative personal experience stuff of yours an option.

So there ain't much point asking me how asking what you asked is an OPINION. I just wouldn't know.

I simply wanted a valid reason why you don't like them...
not a paragraph long rant trying to wander off of the subject...

And -- be amazed now -- I simply don't give a shit what you want.

But, by the way, you did NOT ask me why I don't like something.

You asked some undefined "you guys" why they believe they should be banned.

I don't like licorice, but I don't believe it should be banned.

I believe that driving at 180 km/h should be banned, even though I like it a lot.

I simply wanted a valid reason why you don't like them...

As far as I know, you don't have any idea whether I either like assault weapons or think they should be banned, so who knows why you want this anyhow ...

... not a paragraph long rant trying to wander off of the subject...

... and when I want to know what you don't want, I'll let you know.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[McKenzie]

2. here

http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/content/masterlist.asp#assaultweapons

[cms]

5. But all that site does is...

explain what they are and use scary words like "spray fire". Besides thats someone elses opinion. Why don't you want them available?

[benEzra]

49. Now THAT article was written by a gun expert...

http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/content/masterlist.asp#assaultweapons :eyes:


"rapid and accurate spray firing" from the hip? :eyes:

Forward handgrips, barrel shrouds, and magazines protruding in front of the trigger, allowing the shooter to hold the firearm with two hands for greater control during rapid fire

Yes, those forward handgrips on rifles and shotguns that allow you to hold the gun with both hands are SO dangerous. We all know that the proper way to use a rifle or shotgun is one-handed, as Gun Safety Expert Ahnold the Governator has so ably demonstrated...

and of course it's IMPOSSIBLE to shoot a conventional handgun with both hands on the grip--all the pictures you've seen of police and civilian training materials and cops on TV and people at the shooting range are figments of your imagination...

(when the muzzle of the gun can quickly get too hot to hold)

Holding ANY firearm by the muzzle is not recommended. The problem isn't the heat, it's that little projectile exiting the muzzle at Mach 1 to Mach 4...

[cms]

50. "Spray fire"...thats a funny phrase...

I hear it spewed out of the mouths of many ignorant and ill-informed anti's, 99% of which probably never laid their hands on a semi auto rifle. Please refer to the post below titled:

"yeah, and a bolt action 30.06 is is more deadly than the..."

[NEEDLE DRIVER]

4. First, please define

in clear, unambiguous terms, just exactly what an "assault rifle" is.

Then, explain why an outright "ban" is preferable to restriction.

[cms]

6. Use the definition given by the 94 Ban...

as to what an AW is. I'm trying not to be bias in this particular thread. I personally own a few and enjoy using them, but I'd like to know why some people are dead-set against anyone owning them. I understand restrictions in cities, but I don't live anywhere near one...

[The Straight Story]

10. To clarify

And I am just guessing on this - I think you can own them in the city but not fire them (or any other type gun really).

Of course, I used to make blanks in the office and shoot em off for fun, but no one was close enough to our building to hear :)

[iverglas]

14. good one!

No one -- including rkba-heads -- should be allowed to get away with slips of the tongue!

No, the fact that the body of the post referred to "assault weapons" is no reason to imagine that the post was actually about "assault weapons" and that the use of the term "assault rifle" (a thing which has not recently been the subject of any legislative "ban" or any proposal for such a "ban") in the heading was a mistake.

But why would anyone imagine that the author of the thread in question believes that "an outright 'ban' is preferable to restriction"?? Somebody's reading comprehension seems to be about on a level with somebody else's proofreading skills.

Oh, heck, maybe I'm just butting into a private conversation. Abbott, meet Costello?

[cms]

31. Hence the "quotation marks"...

Thats why "assault weapons" was in quotations. Thats how they're referred to on this forum.

[Jack_DeLeon]

7. There is no such thing as an assault weapon...

the law that defined them no longer exists.

I dont see any reason why semi-automatic rifles should be banned.

[NEEDLE DRIVER]

9. Oh, really?

Try that in California.

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. Individual states should not be able to to exceed Federal firearms laws.

[slackmaster]

39. I have some rifles that switch back and forth

If they're in California they are assault weapons.

If they're in Nevada or Arizona they aren't assault weapons.

Isn't that amazing? :crazy:

[Maria Celeste]

11. Depends on what you mean by Assault Rifle

If you are using the term correctly, it means a selective fire clip fed weapon that fires from a closed bolt and uses rifle ammunition. They are not generally available to the public. Military models include, the AK-47, M-16 and M-14. They represent very serious fire power, but I see no valid reason not to allow civilians owning them. The Swiss being a prime example of having them in homes without serious issues.

If you are using the term as the mainstream media and anti gun bigots define it, it means any self loading weapon (rifle, pistol, or shotgun), or one that looks scary, or that they dislike (which is all of them). According to them traditional hunting weapons are marginal in some cases.

Needless to say, my feelings on this matter are fairly strong...

*edited to fix a misspelling

[jody]

12. I don't believe "fires from a closed bolt" is essential. n/t

[-..__...]

20. But, IIRC...

the BATFE treats any semi-auto that fires from an open bolt as an NFA item. So, I guess while the capability of firing from a closed bolt on a semi-auto isn't essential to the definition, it can mean the difference between range time and jail time. :7

[jody]

21. I believe the definition was for an"assault rifle" and that means

automatic, not semi-automatic. Your point about "open bolt" is interesting because such firearms can easily be modified to fire full auto.

[-..__...]

22. Shhhh...

Some of the anti-gunners here are quick to point out how easily full-auto
conversions can be made. B-)

"Your point about "open bolt" is interesting because such firearms can easily be modified to fire full auto."

That's why the BATFE treats them the way they do.

[Maria Celeste]

34. As I understand it

full auto weapons (machine guns) use an open bolt to simplify things. The monkey motion required to have a hammer/firing pin independent of the bolt is not needed if the weapon is full auto only. Also there is less likelihood of a cook off.

My understanding of the nomenclature is that if it uses a pistol round like 9mm its a sub machine gun, so would not technically be an assault rifle.

I was trying to answer the query as to what an assault rifle was. Not my intention to hijack the thread

[Lefty48197]

15. Actually, that's not entirely true

Whenever I've heard the media mention "assault weapons" they are usually referring to the exact weapons you mentioned, or else their "civilian counterparts", e.g. the Colt AR-15, or the SKS. Although not "select fire" and not capable of firing fully automatic, without modification, the last two weapons are still every bit as deadly as their select-fire cousins.
"The media" also seems to toss in smaller caliber select fire weapons like all those cute little 9mm grease guns on the streets today. They certainly don't fire rifle ammunition, but they're still the weapons of choice for people that want to kill lots of other people in a very short period of time.
I guess that last sentence would be my personal definition of "assault weapon".

[jody]

16. I believe Maria referred to "assault rifle" not "assault weapon".

Assault weapons are an invention of the Brady Bunch to instill fear in the public. That's an effective tool as shown by Bush and his Republican cronies but then Sarah Brady is a Republican also.

[iverglas]

18. blah de blah de blah

Sarah Brady is a Republican

And as long as one doesn't read anything that might be to the contrary, one can just keep covering one's eyes and going wah wah.

I'm pretty sure that I've read authoritative reports that Sarah Brady is no longer registered as a Republican. I couldn't tell you how she votes (that's a secret, right? or at least not provable). Is there some other criterion for being a Republican? Can one just say "Josephine Shmoe is a Republican" without fear of being proved wrong, since it's impossible to prove that someone is not a Republican?

Heck, if that's the case, I think I'll make a list, for the purpose of which I won't bother looking too far afield ...



"Assault weapons are an invention of the Brady Bunch to instill fear in the public."

Yeah, and "squares" are an invention of mathemeticians to instill conformity into the lay population. Who the hell are mathemeticians to say that squares are two-dimensional things with four equal sides and four equal angles, and make us play along? That's just some hokey definition. We don't need no stinking definitions. And if you want to talk about two-dimensional things with four equal sides and four equal angles, well from now on you'd better just say two-dimensional things with four equal sides and four equal angles, or I'll figure you're just part of that mathemetician conspiracy they don't want us to know about ...

[Retired AF Dem]

24. What an outstanding

contribution to this thread.

[-..__...]

25. And that was a brief one.

B-)

[Lefty48197]

27. actually, that blah de blah post

was one of the better things I've read in the dungeon.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skippythwndrdog]

55. Much shorter than usual.

Maybe we'll start seeing ones that are even shorter and more relevant. I thought this forum was about gun rights and control, not squares.

[iverglas]

58. do re mi fa

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~jimmyd/summaries/winston1980.html

Analogy seems to be a natural and widely used way of accomplishing many tasks requiring intelligence. Therefore, analogy is a method used for different classes of cognitive tasks including learning and reasoning.

http://www.riverpub.com/products/clinical/unit/unit_comp.html

... Intelligence Measures

... Reasoning by Analogy ...

http://academics.tjhsst.edu/psych/oldPsych/intelligence/ability.html

Intelligence Theories

In his theory there are six or seven primary mental abilities that determines a person’s intelligence. ...

Verbal comprehension (or Verbal Ability): Found in such things as verbal reasoning, reasoning by analogy, and reading comprehension. It is "characterized primarily by its reference to ideas and the meanings of words."

http://www.cogsys.wiai.uni-bamberg.de/research/analogy/

Reasoning by analogy is an approach to problem-solving and learning where knowledge aquired in previous problem solving episodes is applied for solving new, similar, problems. ... In cognitive science, the ability <engage in> to analogical reasoning is seen as one of the central characteristics of human intelligence.

And oh, look:
http://www.wellesley.edu/CWS/students/lawrecgs.html

Law schools look for: motivation for law, high intelligence, superior analytical and critical thinking, curiosity, persistence, realism, flexibility, independence, self-discipline, stability, high competitiveness, and integrity. The views below, taken from "Recommendation Letters," written by Richard Badger, Assistant Dean, University of Chicago Law School, express the sentiments of many admissions committees:

Legal education demands well developed analytical skills and the ability to juggle multiple variables. Legal reasoning at one time or another involves deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and reasoning by analogy.

http://www.nbu.bg/cogs/personal/kokinov/COG501/ANALOGICAL%20REASONING%20IN%20CHILDREN.pdf

The central role of analogy in human cognition underlines the importance of understanding the development of reasoning by analogy in children.

... according to Piaget's general theory of logical development, the ability to see relations between relations (to use 'higher-order relations') was a hallmark of the final stage of logical reasoning, called the 'formal operational' stage.

For example, if the child is given the items 'cat is to kitten as dog is to ?', she is expected to generate the solution term 'puppy'.

So c'mon now ...

"Assault weapons" are to legislation
as
"squares" are to ___________.

That's right! Mathematics!

And the common factor is: they are terms adopted by people who work with the subject matter to simplify their lives, so that they don't have to go around saying two-dimensional objects with four equal sides and four equal angles, or ... you go ahead and give the definition of "assault weapons" now, I know that's not my job.

See that? "Definition". Definitions. They're just the damnedest things, aren't they?

[skippythwndrdog]

65. What a crappy analogy, should've said it to begin with.

As for what I have to say about you...well...I'll defer to what my mother taught me. The original analogy is, in my opinion, as shitty as the job of a honey dipper. Of course, you don't really give a shit what I think, while the regard I give to your opinion is pretty much the same regard I give to the opinion of Belarussians on US policy. Your airs of intellectual superiority tire me in much the same way that the whining of a three year old does. Similarly, your lack of the ability to converse in a polite manner is as irritating as nails on chalkboard. Moving on, the square analogy is plain and simple, a poor one. Your analogy, relating a tangible object to the intangible, relating a tool to a measurement of theoretical two dimensional space is, although attempted in good faith, a poor representation. Sure, both involve definitions, but ineffective legislation and the measurement of space are really quite far apart. You an make a better effort next time to be relevant and show that intelligence that you like to flaunt.

[Mark H]

26. "but then Sarah Brady is a Republican also."

And Zell Miller is a democrat. They're both wrong. Just on different things.

[Maria Celeste]

17. And when they do they are dead wrong

First some factual corrections:

The SKS is not a semi version of an AK-47. The original SKS did not have a detachable magazine and is the equivalent of the M-1 Garand from WWII.

The grease gun is a cheap horrible thing that was never made in 9mm. Its auto only. Perhaps you mean submachine guns like the MP-5 or Uzi. Neither of which were ever sold in this country (barrel too short). I have been told that short barrels were available for the Uzi (before I got into firearms)


The media seems to categorize anything semi, selective fire or not, as an assault weapons. Seen it in both in the papers and the national media. Then again, I don't have a lot of faith in the media on any topic.

Weapons that are designed to kill people (pistols, semi rifles...) are the ones we need more than hunting rifles. While they can be used by criminals, they are also the only effective means of defense against criminals, especially for women and minorities whose areas are chronically under served by by police. I have no problem with them being available to us. We need them.

[jody]

19. Maria, I believe the M3 "grease gun" was made in 9mm and dropped

to guerrilla forces in Europe.

It certainly is a "cheap horrible thing" but it does its job very well.

[Maria Celeste]

33. That was the British Sten

Grease gun was 45 cal only:
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_smg_m3.php3
Though adaptations could have been made.

I think you meant the Sten.
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/sten.htm

It was cheap horrible in the sense that it was mostly stamped, tended to jam, and was less that accurate when compared to the Thompson. Spoke to a couple of people who used them before I posted. One described them as "a noise maker that sprayed bullets randomly down range and and never at the target"

[jody]

35. I've shot the Sten and M3. Here is a link to an article describing the

M3 in 9mm.
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg32-e.htm

[MrSandman]

23. Do you have a source...

They certainly don't fire rifle ammunition, but they're still the weapons of choice for people that want to kill lots of other people in a very short period of time.

Or can we trust your experience?

[Lefty48197]

28. Here's my source:

http://www.theinternet.com

You can read all about instances of people being killed with those weapons, if that's what you're questioning.

As for your question, Mr Sandman, "Or can we trust your experience?",
Why don't you just go $%&#!@* yourself?

(edited to remove the venom from my response)

[MrSandman]

45. My apologies, if you honestly...

thought I did not mean experience, or maybe, expertise in criminology.

The last I saw, the weapons of choice were .22 rimfires, cheap revolvers and pistols, pump shotgun, no AW made the top 10.(This I know was discussed in a past thread on the top 10 guns used in crimes. Most of them would be a POS, not a AW.

Average number of rounds fired in a crime was well under 10.

Poor showing for the weapons of choice.

[MrSandman]

63. But the BATF(E) says...

Handguns on page 11.

[-..__...]

30. "What we have here..."

"is a failure to communicate".


"The media" also seems to toss in smaller caliber select fire weapons like all those cute little 9mm grease guns on the streets today. They certainly don't fire rifle ammunition, but they're still the weapons of choice for people that want to kill lots of other people in a very short period of time.

[benEzra]

37. No, actually they're not...

Whenever I've heard the media mention "assault weapons" they are usually referring to the exact weapons you mentioned, or else their "civilian counterparts", e.g. the Colt AR-15, or the SKS. Although not "select fire" and not capable of firing fully automatic, without modification, the last two weapons are still every bit as deadly as their select-fire cousins.

An AR-15 is the counterpart of an M16 just like your grandmother's Ford Taurus is a counterpart of the NASCAR "Ford Taurus." Look very similar externally, but huge differences under the hood...

Ditto for civilian AK-47 lookalikes like mine vs. real (NFA Class III restricted) AK-47's. A real AK is a machine gun, whereas my AK lookalike works just like a self-loading hunting rifle. It allows me to own a gun that looks and feels like a real AK, but it doesn't WORK like a real AK.

With a real AK (or other true assault rifle) set on Auto, you can fire aimed bursts of two to four rounds before recoil pushes the gun off target, which multiplies hit probability at distance or increases lethality at more moderate ranges. Or you also sweep a short arc on full-auto and have a decent chance of hitting anyone in the arc at across-the-room distances. That's not practical with a civilian AK lookalike or any other semiauto, period.

My SAR-1 is functionally IDENTICAL to a traditional-looking, non-"assault weapon" rifle like a Ruger mini-30, it just LOOKS different.

Ditto for a civilian Uzi lookalike; it looks just like an Uzi submachine gun, but FUNCTIONS just like an ordinary 9mm handgun like your local police officer might carry (well, your local police officer probably carries something more powerful than 9mm, but you get the picture).

[Speak soft carry Big]

72. To much factual information

To much factual information in this post to garner a reply from them.

[cms]

47. Yeah, and a bolt action 30..06 is more deadly than the...

Colt AR-15, SKS, and their select fire relatives. If knew much about these firearms you'd know that they are not accurate when fired rapidly, and almost all of them fire intermediate range cartridges which are illegal to hunt with because of their small size. The only exceptions would be the .308 semi-auto's which are even less controlable when firing rapidly. If I had to take the choice of a man firing one aimed shot out of Grandpa's run of mill "deer rifle", and an entire magazine out of a AR-15 "spray fired from the hip", I'd pick the AR-15.

[sierrajim]

51. Actually, that's not entirely true

All SKS rifles are semi-auto including military issue and as for a M3A1 grease gun it ain't the choice of people out to kill do you know how much one of those cheap little pieces of junk cost now? This is kind of cheap compared to some of them I've seen.http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=5343&query=retrieval

[benEzra]

52. SKS's weren't affected by the AWB

because they have fixed magazines. They are affected by the arcane import regulations stemming from 18 USC 922(r), though.

[Union Thug]

68. I thought Norinco SKS rifles had detachable mags?

[benEzra]

69. A few--very few--did have detachable mags...

these were sometimes called SKS-D's to differentiate them from the ordinary Norinco Type 56 SKS (a straight reproduction of the Russian SKS45, except with a cruciform "spike" bayonet instead of an unsharpened blade). I've shot a couple of Norinco SKS owned by friends, and both came over in fixed-magazine configuration.

Before 18 USC 922(r) was enacted (1989 or 1990?), it was legal to convert an SKS to take detachable magazines, and a few were (my best friend's father had switched his to a detachable). But the "conversion magazines" were clunky affairs with a half-hinge on the front (designed to be a straight replacement for the nondetachable 10-rounder), and I think you could probably sustain a higher rate of fire with the factory 10-round fixed mag and stripper clips than with the 30-round "detachable."

I think SKS-D's used AK magazines; they had an entirely different magazine well. They were never very common due to the price premium over standard fixed-mag SKS's, I think. (Remember when Norinco Type 56's were $79 and pristine Russian examples were $99?)

[Union Thug]

70. Thx for the clarification. btw: $99 for a russian sks...

Wow.. I do remember, and wish I would have purchased then! A clunker will run 165 and a nice example up to about 250-300 bucks these days.. oy!

[benEzra]

71. Possibly more than that, now...

I saw one still in the cosmoline retailing for $325 at a gun store a year or two ago, and it wasn't even in the best shape.

My wife has a beautiful 1952 Tula that she purchased for $99 around 1996. She suggested at the time that I pick up one for myself, and I'm still kicking myself for not doing so.

[Charon]

73. Assault Weapons

If memory serves me correctly both the Wehrmacht MP-41 and the schmeisher (sic)were 9 mm assault weapons.

[benEzra]

74. If full-auto 9mm's, then they were submachine guns...

not "assault weapons."

The term "assault weapon" was coined to describe civilian NON-automatic firearms that are styled to resemble military guns, but which function like ordinary civilian self-loaders.

The guns you describe are NFA class III submachine guns (a submachine gun being a full-auto firearm chambered for a pistol cartridge instead of a rifle cartridge).

[cms]

32. I didn't start the thread to argue the definition of AW's...

, I simply wanted to hear some valid arguments as to why I shouldn't be allowed to own these guns. I'm surprised to see that even though most of you feel strongly on this topic, you have skated the issue. Call me a militant or a RKBA-er or whatever you wish, but this is the reason the ban has expired.

[Maria Celeste]

36. It expired as an election year maneuver

Call me cynical, but I believe it was enacted for political purposes at the time and allowed to expire for the same reason. Then again, I don't trust any national politician to understand things from the perspective of the rest of us, be it Barbara Boxer or Zell Miller.

I think the ban was ineffective and without merit. I believe laws like it should have a sunset clause in it, forcing revalidation at regular intervals.

[aikoaiko]

41. U R US

CMS,

I think what you're failing to see is that many (but definately not all or even most) of the people who post in this forum agree with you that assault weapons shouldn't be banned and/or that the 1994 AWB was a bad law.

You may be us.

Welcome to the Gungeon.

[Wickerman]

42. Welcome to the Gungeon

no AW thread can be started without a fine nit-picking of just what defines an Assault weapon and what is an assault rifle. Hit the books, as there will be a quiz.

Before the election year expiration we actually had folks posting the description at the top of their threads so we could get the prelims out of the way early. :eyes:

And, of course, its a turf thing, since you are a newbie everyone will have to poke and prod to make certain you are a bona-fide gun expert, thus qualified to have an opinion on the AW issue.

:hi:

[cms]

43. Thanks for the welcome...

I'm glad to see that there are so many 2nd Amendment supporters. With topics such as "fuck guns", I was just waiting for a shitstorm to start. I'm surprised. Thanks again for the welcome.

CMS

[slackmaster]

38. Which are you talking about - Assault rifles or assault weapons?

The term assault rifles generally refers to selective-fire shoulder-fired military arms that fire medium-power cartridges.

Assault weapons was a legal term for semiautomatic firearms with certain physical features like pistol grips and folding stocks.

What are some cold hard facts as to why assault weapons should be banned?

I think they shouldn't be banned.

[Buster43]

40. I don't think they should be banned.

I use my AR-15 for coyote hunting. I have several FN-FAL's.

To the uninformed, they look scary, yet function like any other firearm. Pull the trigger and it goes bang.

The BAR fired from an open bolt and it is select fire. The M-3 Grease Gun was made in .45ACP only by GM Headlight company. It was made as a cheaper alternative to the Thompson Sub-machine gun and was used last in the Viet Nam war.

[Columbia]

46. AW's should be banned

Because it makes the populace more readily accept that banning certain types of weapons is acceptable.

After AW's, then you ban handguns because they have no sporting purpose and only gangmembers use them.

Then you ban shotguns because they are deadly "street sweepers" that can blow a man across the street with one blast.

After that, you go after the hunting rifles because they are deadly sniper rifles.

And then pointy sticks...

[MrSandman]

48. Nahhh, they should be banned because....

They are the weapons of choice for.

[iverglas]

53. mind those pointy things now

the ones you put around the words insert least-favorite group, causing them to become invisible.

Of course, having made them materialize, I mourn the seconds I wasted satisfying my curiosity, being now no more enlightened than I was before ...

[MrSandman]

59. My condolences...

I mourn the seconds I wasted satisfying my curiosity

But not so much as to waste more replying.

Then, I have the same feeling when AW's, .50 BMG's, are asserted to be the weapons of choice to kill large numbers, shoot down airliners.....

[iverglas]

60. well then

I have the same feeling when AW's, .50 BMG's, are asserted to be the weapons of choice to kill large numbers, shoot down airliners.....

... you must make haste and tell the people who assert such things!

Truly I did not mourn the spending of my seconds, for I got to be helpful. Being helpful being that for which I live. So of course, you may cry on my shoulder about people who assert things that make you mourn, but just know that there is unfortunately not much I can do about 'em.

[MrSandman]

61. I mourn for the lack of corroboration...

And do tell them so.

Thanks fer the help. (I had to resist intentionally hiding "help.")

[iverglas]

62. grab the pitchfork jody was offering

no , eh?

snork snork. Beats working.

[Torque67]

66. I'm actually really starting to enjoy Iverglas posts :)

I disagree with what I perceive to be your opinion , but you do what you do very well.

But, on to the topic.

The AW ban affected me not, as my AR-15 is set up for highpower competition (service rifle class), so I wasn't terribly upset to not have a bayonet lug (looks odd, gets in the way on a windage adjustble front sight base), or a flash hider (too much torque on the hider causes innacuracy), or a collapsible stock (if i'm going to nap on it for the last few minutes of a stage, it should be smooth and comfy). It has ended up being a 12 pound sucker with a 20 inch barrel. Seeing the most rounds ever loaded in it at a time is 8, or I'm using a delrin single shot sled magazine for single loading stages, the magazine ban didnt bite me either. Either way, I'm glad the ban expired, as it was just an avenue to go after other models and types. I've had the same rifle since before the ban anyway.

[cms]

67. Me too...

They're comical!

[enfield collector]

64. more thrusts per sqeeze?

[anonymous44]

75. lol