Assault weapons ban

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: K1052

The weapons used in the 1997 LA shootout were illegal before the AWB.

Another good point - they were illegally-modified full-auto AK-47 variants IIRC.

They weren't modified, they were imported. Can't remember which was from where, but the rifles and vests came out of South America and Mexican police issue.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: sward666

Attorney General Bill Lockyer planned to be on hand for a news conference this morning to support renewal of the federal law. Also expected to attend were Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn, Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

The news conference was planned outside the Bank of America in North Hollywood -- the scene of a 1997 robbery that culminated in a shootout between two heavily armed gunmen and LAPD officers.

The federal law was passed in 1994. Fat lot of good it did the LAPD, huh?

And CA has had much more restrictive legislation on their books since then. What's the point in pushing for a federal renewal. CA will be safe anyway, right?

Because certain people in California feel the need to push even more restrictive legislation on the rest of the US for thier own personal agendas.

*cough*Feinstein*cough*

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

The truth is that the federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on looks.

Fvcking morons.

I was reading that exact same thing on AR-15.com. It's ridiculous really. Isn't LA SWAT armed to the tooth anyway? Of course the avg traffic schmuck cop's 9mm isn't going to do shlt against robbers going full auto with armor. It was funny when I heard they raided a gun shop

very true. if the average schmuck cop could actually shoot accurately, body armor wouldn't do a thing for armed robbers (read: headshots). i had a cop that coached my hs swim team. we asked him about his gun and said, "Spray and pray, eh Gary?" He just knodded and smiled

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

Hell, try and hit a car at 100 yards with a 9mm handgun while under stress. That's an aweful long range for a handgun. I would say 25 yards would be about the max for a reasonable shooter with your typical semi-auto sidearm.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

The truth is that the federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on looks.

Fvcking morons.

I was reading that exact same thing on AR-15.com. It's ridiculous really. Isn't LA SWAT armed to the tooth anyway? Of course the avg traffic schmuck cop's 9mm isn't going to do shlt against robbers going full auto with armor. It was funny when I heard they raided a gun shop

very true. if the average schmuck cop could actually shoot accurately, body armor wouldn't do a thing for armed robbers (read: headshots). i had a cop that coached my hs swim team. we asked him about his gun and said, "Spray and pray, eh Gary?" He just knodded and smiled

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

Hell, try and hit a car at 100 yards with a 9mm handgun while under stress. That's an aweful long range for a handgun. I would say 25 yards would be about the max for a reasonable shooter with your typical semi-auto sidearm.

I would agree, anything past that and it is rifle time.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Thera
I'll support anything that will result in less police getting killed, but I generally support the military and the police anyway.

Then congratulations, you are against the AWB.

Odd, the article says "Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca." are for the renewal. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing that fact that those two are complete idiots with their heads so far up their asses it isn't even funny. Especially, Lee Baca.

 

[booger711]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

The truth is that the federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on looks.

Fvcking morons.

I was reading that exact same thing on AR-15.com. It's ridiculous really. Isn't LA SWAT armed to the tooth anyway? Of course the avg traffic schmuck cop's 9mm isn't going to do shlt against robbers going full auto with armor. It was funny when I heard they raided a gun shop

very true. if the average schmuck cop could actually shoot accurately, body armor wouldn't do a thing for armed robbers (read: headshots). i had a cop that coached my hs swim team. we asked him about his gun and said, "Spray and pray, eh Gary?" He just knodded and smiled

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

Of particular concern to those who will have to take
responsibility for stray shots is the tendency for some people
under stress to "hose the foes," a habit known in combat shooting
circles as "spray and pray."

This is typically seen in people who acquired the high
capacity pistol with the feeling that it's large magazine was the
guns RAISON D'ETRE. They feel consciously or subconsciously that
if they can just get fifteen pieces of brass over their heads and
fifteen pieces of lead heading downrange, whatever is giving them
a problem is likely to be taken out of the fight and they will be
safe.

History shows us that this is wrong. Undirected full-auto
M-16 fire in Vietnam proved it. From South Africa to Britain's
SAS, battle-hardened troops made it policy to fire semiautomatic
only to force the combatant to be cool enough to aim and make
each shot count. The motto of the U.S. Army's Advanced
Marksmanship Unit, headquartered at Fort Benning, starkly
underscores this philosophy: "one shot, one kill."

Alas, not every combatant can live up to that philosophy in
the real world of lethal violence. This is why U.S. troops still
have M-16s, albeit with three-shot burst controls, instead of
having reverted to bolt action Springfield rifles. This is why
police are turning away from six-shooters to magazine-fed semi-
automatics, and not toward two-shot derringers.

Police firepower http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/lfnv/firepowr.txt

many american policemen are not adequately trained with their sidearms http://www.pointshooting.com/article.htm

possible effects of gun control on police http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Gayder/Is_Gun_Control_Hazardous_to_Police.htm


check those out. there was recently an article poste on OT about a jersey man who had 40 some bullets in his body after he shot at one single police officer. way too many hits (and also way too many shots fired). skilled policemen could do the same job with fewer shots. if soldiers can do it in higher stress situations, so can policemen

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Thera
I'll support anything that will result in less police getting killed, but I generally support the military and the police anyway.

Then congratulations, you are against the AWB.

Odd, the article says "Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca." are for the renewal. Am I missing something?

yeah i find that incredibly odd also - police officers are generally aware of what the AWB is. I dont see why they would support it

They aren't police officers, they are politicians with a badge. And not very good politicians either.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

The truth is that the federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on looks.

Fvcking morons.

I was reading that exact same thing on AR-15.com. It's ridiculous really. Isn't LA SWAT armed to the tooth anyway? Of course the avg traffic schmuck cop's 9mm isn't going to do shlt against robbers going full auto with armor. It was funny when I heard they raided a gun shop

very true. if the average schmuck cop could actually shoot accurately, body armor wouldn't do a thing for armed robbers (read: headshots). i had a cop that coached my hs swim team. we asked him about his gun and said, "Spray and pray, eh Gary?" He just knodded and smiled

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

Of particular concern to those who will have to take
responsibility for stray shots is the tendency for some people
under stress to "hose the foes," a habit known in combat shooting
circles as "spray and pray."

This is typically seen in people who acquired the high
capacity pistol with the feeling that it's large magazine was the
guns RAISON D'ETRE. They feel consciously or subconsciously that
if they can just get fifteen pieces of brass over their heads and
fifteen pieces of lead heading downrange, whatever is giving them
a problem is likely to be taken out of the fight and they will be
safe.

History shows us that this is wrong. Undirected full-auto
M-16 fire in Vietnam proved it. From South Africa to Britain's
SAS, battle-hardened troops made it policy to fire semiautomatic
only to force the combatant to be cool enough to aim and make
each shot count. The motto of the U.S. Army's Advanced
Marksmanship Unit, headquartered at Fort Benning, starkly
underscores this philosophy: "one shot, one kill."

Alas, not every combatant can live up to that philosophy in
the real world of lethal violence. This is why U.S. troops still
have M-16s, albeit with three-shot burst controls, instead of
having reverted to bolt action Springfield rifles. This is why
police are turning away from six-shooters to magazine-fed semi-
automatics, and not toward two-shot derringers.

Police firepower http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/lfnv/firepowr.txt

many american policemen are not adequately trained with their sidearms http://www.pointshooting.com/article.htm

possible effects of gun control on police http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Gayder/Is_Gun_Control_Hazardous_to_Police.htm


check those out. there was recently an article poste on OT about a jersey man who had 40 some bullets in his body after he shot at one single police officer. way too many hits (and also way too many shots fired). skilled policemen could do the same job with fewer shots. if soldiers can do it in higher stress situations, so can policemen

Dunno where you live, but policemen and soldiers have entirely different duties.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

The truth is that the federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on looks.

Fvcking morons.

I was reading that exact same thing on AR-15.com. It's ridiculous really. Isn't LA SWAT armed to the tooth anyway? Of course the avg traffic schmuck cop's 9mm isn't going to do shlt against robbers going full auto with armor. It was funny when I heard they raided a gun shop

very true. if the average schmuck cop could actually shoot accurately, body armor wouldn't do a thing for armed robbers (read: headshots). i had a cop that coached my hs swim team. we asked him about his gun and said, "Spray and pray, eh Gary?" He just knodded and smiled

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

Of particular concern to those who will have to take
responsibility for stray shots is the tendency for some people
under stress to "hose the foes," a habit known in combat shooting
circles as "spray and pray."

This is typically seen in people who acquired the high
capacity pistol with the feeling that it's large magazine was the
guns RAISON D'ETRE. They feel consciously or subconsciously that
if they can just get fifteen pieces of brass over their heads and
fifteen pieces of lead heading downrange, whatever is giving them
a problem is likely to be taken out of the fight and they will be
safe.

History shows us that this is wrong. Undirected full-auto
M-16 fire in Vietnam proved it. From South Africa to Britain's
SAS, battle-hardened troops made it policy to fire semiautomatic
only to force the combatant to be cool enough to aim and make
each shot count. The motto of the U.S. Army's Advanced
Marksmanship Unit, headquartered at Fort Benning, starkly
underscores this philosophy: "one shot, one kill."

Alas, not every combatant can live up to that philosophy in
the real world of lethal violence. This is why U.S. troops still
have M-16s, albeit with three-shot burst controls, instead of
having reverted to bolt action Springfield rifles. This is why
police are turning away from six-shooters to magazine-fed semi-
automatics, and not toward two-shot derringers.

Police firepower http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/lfnv/firepowr.txt

many american policemen are not adequately trained with their sidearms http://www.pointshooting.com/article.htm

possible effects of gun control on police http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Gayder/Is_Gun_Control_Hazardous_to_Police.htm


check those out. there was recently an article poste on OT about a jersey man who had 40 some bullets in his body after he shot at one single police officer. way too many hits (and also way too many shots fired). skilled policemen could do the same job with fewer shots. if soldiers can do it in higher stress situations, so can policemen

You have drifted totally out of context.

In the LA shooting the main problems were range, armor of the gunmen, and the weapons they used.

The LA police (nor anyone else) could resaonably be expected to make headshots on the gunmen from the distances they were at with the weapons they had at their disposal, not to mention that they were under fire from autmatic rifles.

 

[booger711]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

The truth is that the federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on looks.

Fvcking morons.

I was reading that exact same thing on AR-15.com. It's ridiculous really. Isn't LA SWAT armed to the tooth anyway? Of course the avg traffic schmuck cop's 9mm isn't going to do shlt against robbers going full auto with armor. It was funny when I heard they raided a gun shop

very true. if the average schmuck cop could actually shoot accurately, body armor wouldn't do a thing for armed robbers (read: headshots). i had a cop that coached my hs swim team. we asked him about his gun and said, "Spray and pray, eh Gary?" He just knodded and smiled

Please visit your local range and try to get consistent headshots at 100 yards with a 9mm pistol while under no stress whatsoever.

Hell, try and hit a car at 100 yards with a 9mm handgun while under stress. That's an aweful long range for a handgun. I would say 25 yards would be about the max for a reasonable shooter with your typical semi-auto sidearm.

did i say anything about the distance between cops and robbers? i'll let these articles speak.

Shooting Distances

From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%
3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Contact to 10 feet ... 51%
10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%

http://www.pointshooting.com/sop9.htm http://marylandcops.org/Articles/Shootout.htm

Research also indicates the most effective distance for training police officers at combat shooting is at the 7-foot line since that is the range at which most encounters are experienced.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect02a.htm

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

I didn't misread. The last line of my post addresses it. It doesn't have to be in conjuction with. Across all boards the interpretation is that any detatchable mag would be considered an assault weapon. Would be amended to include all detatchable mag weaps.

I know what you are saying, and in a better position to say what it means, but from the thousands of posts about it, everyone is focusing on the detatchable mag.

With all due respect to the many posters, the draft law doesn't say this, plain and simple. This sounds like paranoia by 2nd-Amendment zealots. As I said above, I own guns and oppose the law, but the draft bill (at least as you've quoted it) does not ban all weapons with detachable magazines - the word "and" is critical here. The existing law has similar language.

What does concern me about it, however, is that it appears it would ban nearly any rifle with a detachable magazine, because it prohibits any semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine that also has "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip," a characteristic of pretty much any semiautomatic rifle.

 

[booger711]

Originally posted by: K1052
You have drifted totally out of context.

In the LA shooting the main problems were range, armor of the gunmen, and the weapons they used.

The LA police (nor anyone else) could resaonably be expected to make headshots on the gunmen from the distances they were at with the weapons they had at their disposal, not to mention that they were under fire from autmatic rifles.

if i have, direct me to the specifics of the 97 shooting. of course what i've said does not apply to every situation, but it does to the majority of police encounters.

o btw, the movie heat was great. wonder if it had any effect on the actually perps

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: K1052
You have drifted totally out of context.

In the LA shooting the main problems were range, armor of the gunmen, and the weapons they used.

The LA police (nor anyone else) could resaonably be expected to make headshots on the gunmen from the distances they were at with the weapons they had at their disposal, not to mention that they were under fire from autmatic rifles.

if i have, direct me to the specifics of the 97 shooting. of course what i've said does not apply to every situation, but it does to the majority of police encounters.

o btw, the movie heat was great. wonder if it had any effect on the actually perps

First link I found here.

 

[booger711]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: K1052
You have drifted totally out of context.

In the LA shooting the main problems were range, armor of the gunmen, and the weapons they used.

The LA police (nor anyone else) could resaonably be expected to make headshots on the gunmen from the distances they were at with the weapons they had at their disposal, not to mention that they were under fire from autmatic rifles.

if i have, direct me to the specifics of the 97 shooting. of course what i've said does not apply to every situation, but it does to the majority of police encounters.

o btw, the movie heat was great. wonder if it had any effect on the actually perps

First link I found here.

good read, thanks

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Meh. Nothing compared to the amendment to it that would include a ban on pretty much any semi-automatic handgun, rifle, and shotgun.

Bill Summary & Status for the 108th Congress
...
...
...

Full text

Namely, I think you missed an important part of it:

A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event

 

[jyates]

I don't think anyone should have a gun...........



















Except for me

 

[booger711]

Originally posted by: jyates
I don't think anyone should have a gun..........


Except for me

that's right. after we get rid of all guns but one, we'll shove that one up your ass and pull the trigger
:evil:

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: jyates
I don't think anyone should have a gun..........


Except for me

that's right. after we get rid of all guns but one, we'll shove that one up your ass and pull the trigger
:evil:

Bring it on bubba and if you need directions just let me know

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Thera
I'll support anything that will result in less police getting killed, but I generally support the military and the police anyway.

Then congratulations, you are against the AWB.

Odd, the article says "Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca." are for the renewal. Am I missing something?

Just the fact that the AWB really does nothing to protect the police.

The weapons used in the 1997 LA shootout were illegal before the AWB.

Yes, good point. I looked it up, it appears that the FOP supports assault weapon controls but the American Federation of Police, a smaller organization, does not. There are also many different views within each organization.

So, as a liberal gun owner, I say I don't really care as it doesn't effect anything that I would ever own. Thanks for pointing out that information K1052, I retract my support for a 'meh'.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: booger711
that's right. after we get rid of all guns but one, we'll shove that one up your ass and pull the trigger
:evil:

Bring it on bubba and if you need directions just let me know

Oh, I think he knows the way... :laugh:

 

[booger711]

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: jyates
I don't think anyone should have a gun..........


Except for me

that's right. after we get rid of all guns but one, we'll shove that one up your ass and pull the trigger
:evil:

Bring it on bubba and if you need directions just let me know

sure i'll be coming from reamstown, pa

 

[minus1972]

Originally posted by: JDub02
for the past 10 years, the AWB did NOTHING!! Let it die, so I can build my AR the way I want to.

In less than a month, I'm ordering up the rest of the parts to go along with the stripped lower receiver sitting in my closet. M4 style, 16" barrel, flash hider, collapsible stock, and a couple 30 round mags. I'll probably burn through a case of ammo in about a week.

alright...I'm sorry. how the hell do you justify a flash hider as a necessity? I can see absolutely no way anyone could legitemately defend the need for something like a flash hider, shell catcher, or silencer. Someone please enlighten me as to why this is necessary for self-defense and relates in any way to the second amendment.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Do you have any idea what a flash hider does?

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I am a liberal and gun owner, and IMO the AWB is by any reasonable standard an arbitrary and ineffective tool for protecting the public. It substantially relies on aesthetic distinctions between weapons, and I can't see how it makes anyone safer. I would be in favor of allowing it to expire. Unfortunately, the liberal pundits who enthusiastically support it are, in my view, ignorant on the topic of guns, and so they sanctimoniously lobby for this well-intentioned but silly piece of legislation.

Best post out of all the ones here.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: JDub02
for the past 10 years, the AWB did NOTHING!! Let it die, so I can build my AR the way I want to.

In less than a month, I'm ordering up the rest of the parts to go along with the stripped lower receiver sitting in my closet. M4 style, 16" barrel, flash hider, collapsible stock, and a couple 30 round mags. I'll probably burn through a case of ammo in about a week.

alright...I'm sorry. how the hell do you justify a flash hider as a necessity? I can see absolutely no way anyone could legitemately defend the need for something like a flash hider, shell catcher, or silencer. Someone please enlighten me as to why this is necessary for self-defense and relates in any way to the second amendment.

Aside from the words "shall not be infringed"...

A flash hider doesnt hide the flash from everyone. It lessens the flash seen by the person shooting, thus helping to prevent night blindness.

Silencers are very nice if you plan on doing a lot of shooting. Even with ear protection, you can hurt your ears from popping off a couple hundred rounds of ammo in a day. Plus, in reality, silencers are not like they show in the movies. A little 4" long, 1.5" wide silencer does not make a 45 ACP whisper quiet. It still makes a lot of noise. Just not quite as much.

If you know anyone who reloads their own ammo, you wouldnt ask about a shell catcher. Anything that reduces the amount of time I spend policing up my brass is good, imo.

Silencers are not regulated by the AWB. Neither are shell catchers, to my knowledge.