And... it's back: The ASSAULT weapons ban

[blankslate]

Originally Posted by xj0hnx

If you're squeezing off 4-6 rounds per second, you are not putting down accurate fire, or anything close to it, area/suppression fire yes, accurate, no.

An AR-15 that doesn't have a collapsible stock and has the recoil buffer and the buffer spring that the military M-16 has can be accurate enough depending on the target distance which in this case wasn't farther than the size of a typical classroom.

they have very little recoil

[BladeVenom]

Originally Posted by SheHateMe

Why do Civilians needs Assault Rifles?

In the last century, governments have murdered 262 million people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Politicians are the ones who can't be trusted with guns.

[exdeath]

Originally Posted by silverpig

The problem in the US is that the weapons are already out there. Making them illegal now won't change much now. If you ban them and then do a 10+ year campaign of confiscation and destruction of the weapons, you may see some effect down the line.

Do this and 26 will seem like a very tiny number... And unlike Friday, the tsunami of deaths created by this will be justified.

[xj0hnx]

Originally Posted by blankslate

An AR-15 that doesn't have a collapsible stock and has the recoil buffer and the buffer spring that the military M-16A1 can be accurate enough depending on the target distance.

they have very little recoil.

Not to squeeze of 4-6 rounds per second with any accuracy. As the NCOIC at the qualification range, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that that you will miss more than you hit firing that fast. Even with the M249 we trained for short burst fire, even for suppression fire, as opposed to dumping.

Ever wonder why during drive by's less gangsters get hit than innocent civilians? It's because you don't hit shit when you spray and pray. Slow controlled, aimed fire is WAY more devastating than uncontrolled automatic, or spazticly pulling the trigger as fast as you can.

Now, I, or someone else that has trained to fire one could make that case, but some kid that stole his moms gun isn't going to. The person that is trained is also not going to be bothered by having to change a mag.

[blankslate]

Originally Posted by xj0hnx

Not to squeeze of 4-6 rounds per second with any accuracy.

Accurate enough to kill classrooms of children.

[OutHouse]

Originally Posted by blankslate

An AR-15 that doesn't have a collapsible stock and has the recoil buffer and the buffer spring that the military M-16 has can be accurate enough depending on the target distance which in this case wasn't farther than the size of a typical classroom.

they have very little recoil

???? dont they all have a buffer and buffer spring?

[blankslate]

The answer is simple enough.

You don't want to accept bans on weapons that can be used for massacres like these.

Accept that we need to find ways to keep mentally ill people from them.

That unfortunately doesn't leave much room for austerity when it comes to the funding of mental health care. Or loopholes buying weapons without background checks at gun shows.

[blankslate]

Originally Posted by OutHouse

???? dont they all have a buffer and buffer spring?

I'm not familiar with every civilian variant (or user modified version) of the AR-15.

So I didn't discount the possibility of a version without one out of hand.

[Texashiker]

Originally Posted by SheHateMe

Why do Civilians needs Assault Rifles?

I subscribe to the theory that every citizen is a soldier, and every home is an armory.

Our forefathers did not beat the British with sticks and stones.

The war of 1812, who defended New Orleans? It was volunteers.

[OutHouse]

Originally Posted by xj0hnx

If you're squeezing off 4-6 rounds per second, you are not putting down accurate fire, or anything close to it, area/suppression fire yes, accurate, no.

I was a M-60 (pig) gunner and my 5-7 round burst were pretty fucking accurate.

Loved shooting it but HATED lugging hat 23 pounds of metal around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxY3tG7E43E

[FerrelGeek]

Originally Posted by Don Vito Corleone

I am ambivalent about whether more gun restrictions are ethically the right thing to do - I see pros and cons to both sides of that discussion - but I am 100% convinced that they will have no beneficial effect, and other things being equal I don't favor creating new laws that don't help the American public. I'd much rather see the focus placed on revamping our mental health laws to allow for more commitment of violent, scary mentally ill people like James Holmes and Jared Laughner.

TOTALLY AGREE!

Originally Posted by bozack

The one restriction I heard the liberals on the radio speaking of today was magazine size, and how if the assault weapons ban were in effect the shooter wouldn't have had access to 30 round magazines and his ability to do as much damage would have been limited.

Personally as someone who does not own, nor has any intent to own a firearm I just don't see the logic, you can swap a clip in a matter of seconds, so having one clip that holds 30 rounds, or a few which hold ten would seem a wash....

They also went on about how guns are sold at Walmart etc, but again in this case I fail to see how that is an issue, nor should it matter so long as all retailers selling firearms are licensed to do so and follow the proper procedures.

I do feel that if they springboard off of this tragic event they will have enough steam to get another AWB into effect, but I doubt it would do anything to curtail gun violence and is more of a token showing of them doing something in the wake of the killings.

Any store that sells guns has to be federally licensed - period. Doesn't matter if it's Wall-Mart, Cabella's, or Joe's Boomsticks.

And what exactly defines an assault weapon? You can doll up a Ruger 10-22 and make it look like a (on the surface) big bad nasty AR-15. And yes, any competent shooter and swap a clip in seconds. Besides that, there are already tons of hi-cap mags/clips out there.

Don's suggestion is the most sane idea mentioned. Pardon the pun.

[OutHouse]

Originally Posted by FerrelGeek

Any store that sells guns has to be federally licensed - period. Doesn't matter if it's Wall-Mart, Cabella's, or Joe's Boomsticks.

wrong.

[dmens]

Originally Posted by OutHouse

wrong.

Wait, you mean I've been paying FFL's for no reason for all these years?

[xj0hnx]

Originally Posted by OutHouse

???? dont they all have a buffer and buffer spring?

Yes, even the pistol versions. The only ones that may not are the new AK piston types.

Originally Posted by OutHouse

I was a M-60 (pig) gunner and my 5-7 round burst were pretty fucking accurate.

Loved shooting it but HATED lugging hat 23 pounds of metal around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxY3tG7E43E

The M60 also weights a HELL of a lot more than the M16 Also, I believe complete working M60's a getting what? $100,000 nowadays?

Edit: Sorry ...$70,000 http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=322003620

Edit 2: Wow a MOD1 M60E4 for only $44,000!!!http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=322392247 Probably don't have to worry about that one showing up at any crime scene.

Originally Posted by OutHouse

wrong.

No, he is correct, any store that sells modern firearms has to have a FFL.

[OutHouse]

Originally Posted by dmens

Wait, you mean I've been paying FFL's for no reason for all these years?

wait if you sell only guns made prior to 1898 then you have wasted your money.

[OutHouse]

Originally Posted by xj0hnx

No, he is correct, any store that sells modern firearms has to have a FFL.

ding ding ding winnar!!

[blankslate]

Originally Posted by Texashiker

Our forefathers did not beat the British with sticks and stones.

They used muskets and probably did not envision the advances in firearms technology that have come to pass.

[dmens]

Originally Posted by OutHouse

wait if you sell only guns made prior to 1898 then you have wasted your money.

Hah. Will somebody please ask the gun control crowd if one can be assaulted with a Nagant revolver?

[Texashiker]

Originally Posted by blankslate

They used muskets and probably did not envision the advances in firearms technology that have come to pass.

So let me get this straight, civilians and the British army had the same weapons? Or basically the same style of rifle?

Isn't that what we are facing today? That civilians have access to weapons similar to what the military uses?

[dmens]

Originally Posted by blankslate

They used muskets and probably did not envision the advances in firearms technology that have come to pass.

Yeah, just like the internet makes the 1st amendment obsolete, or drones make the 4th amendment obsolete.

[dmens]

Originally Posted by Texashiker

Isn't that what we are facing today? That civilians have access to weapons similar to what the military uses?

No, we don't.

[Pens1566]

Originally Posted by xj0hnx

If you're squeezing off 4-6 rounds per second, you are not putting down accurate fire, or anything close to it, area/suppression fire yes, accurate, no.

In a crowded room, no need to be accurate. If the intent is to kill randomly, you're good to go.

[OutHouse]

Originally Posted by dmens

Hah. Will somebody please ask the gun control crowd if one can be assaulted with a Nagant revolver?

THE HORROR!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvF4yurWSc0

[xj0hnx]

Originally Posted by Pens1566

In a crowded room, no need to be accurate. If the intent is to kill randomly, you're good to go.

In a crowded room full of kids a Colt .22 would have been effective, and no one has screamed to ban them.

[Jaepheth]

Originally Posted by dmens

Yeah, just like the internet makes the 1st amendment obsolete, or drones make the 4th amendment obsolete.

Drones make the WHOLE THING obsolete!

Muahahahahahaha!