Well there you have it: Assault weapons ban

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Fine by me if you don't want to believe me. It's obviously not illegal to own a burst firing weapon. As I recall it's more similar to the M16A2 linked above than the AK-47. I haven't seen this gun in years and when I was it fired it was at night. Seeing what palehorse just posted that could be the modification. I don't pretend to know.

I think you really misunderstand my intentions in this thread, spidey.

I may have and I apologize for not understanding you.

It's not difficult to make weapons in question to be full auto. It's not difficult at all to modify any weapon.
perhaps; but, doing so without all of the required checks and expenses is already illegal in all 50 states. I believe the minimum sentence for doing so is a hefty fine and 10 years in a Federal-rape-you-in-the-ass prison.

Just wanted to make that clear to anyone who might claim that what you said is reason enough to ban them...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: NeoV
"1) I would like to see some proof that the weapons currently being used in Mexico were obtained through otherwise legitimate -- currently legal -- channels in the United States. "

http://articles.latimes.com/20...ug/10/nation/na-guns10

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...&hw=gun&sn=017&sc=1000

http://www.portfolio.com/news-...he-US-Mexico-Gun-Trade

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WO...n.smuggling/index.html

You get the idea.

"Mexicans must get approval for a gun purchase from the Mexican defense department and are limited to guns with a caliber no higher than the standard .38-caliber. Larger calibers are considered military weapons and are off-limits to civilians."
Thanks for the links!

Something is odd. The thing that doesn't make sense is the transition of the guns from semi-automatic to automatic configuration. Who is doing that? The shops!? If so, shut them down. If not, then the real crime is being committed elsewhere. There is simply no way that they are buying the guns pre-configured for automatic fire, unless the shop owners are breaking the law on a massive scale. The waiting periods and costs associated with every single automatic kit are astronomical. 100 guns would literally cost $800k, or more! And there are simply not that many legal (pre-1986) automatic sear pins available. The only possible explanations are that someone, somewhere, is milling a mass quantity of automatic Drop-in Auto Sears, or the Mexican government is entirely full of shit when it comes to the "tracing" of the weapons or the rate of fire characteristics of each gun found.

I'd also argue that the real issue here is the security of the border itself, not the existence/transport of the weapons.

On another note, I'd be willing to debate the merits of limiting the number of guns an individual could purchase each month... but not an outright ban.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Interesting, all of those links refer to the FN 57 as being popular because its rounds are armor piercing. That brings me to my first problem with the reports, mostly because the ATF tested the FN and its rounds are not armor piercing

Source

The rest of the report, I don't have any sources to contest, but those numbers just sound off to me.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: shocksyde
What is it with people and guns in this country? Yes, I know, it's a right.

I'm with you. I don't get it. It's like you're defending a body part. I just don't get the fanatacism revolving around guns.

Change the assault to the 1st amendment and tell us your opinion on that. It is only speech right? Well guns are a primary defense against the tyranny of govt and defense against criminals. Without the gun you can toss out the rest of your rights.

Right, because we constantly take up arms against the government. That didn't work out so well in 1863...

But it worked great in 1774

In this day and age, handguns aren't state of the art weapons, they are pea shooter compared to the current state of the art weapons.

If the intention of the constitution was that everyone was going to have a chance against the government, you'll need jets and missiles to defend yourselves. I've made this argument before and someone said that then the armed forces would be with the people in which case the people really don't need shit to defend themselves with.

If it's for home defense it's ridiculous, if i lived in a place where i needed a gun to replace the cuddly bear i slept with as a child i would move right the fuck out of that place because it's obviously kinda like downtown Fallujah. Hell i've lived in Brixton and i didn't feel a need to have a gun.

Now, lets go over this "only guns will be illegal guns" idiocy... Take a wild guess where the overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" come from... If you steal a gun, file off the serial number you have an illegal gun. So your legally purchased firearm might be an illegal gun today if you, kinda lost track of it somewhere or didn't keep it disassembled with the active parts in a gun safe and YOU are responsible for that.

The TRUTH is that boys and their toys are being parted and everyone is going waaaaaahhh.

It's fucking pathetic.

The only thing pathetic is you don't even recognize how a group of insurgents with much inferior weaponry than American sportsman and with less places to hide due to being a desert are giving the best army in the world all they can handle. How would they confront say 1,000,000 Armed American with weapons that could penetrate body armor @1000 yards? Couldn't get out of tanks ever thats for sure. Not that tanks and APCs would be any good either due to a full chemical industry we have and garage machinists in every 10th house that would put all armor at risk. You have no clue super spy discounting an armed populace.

Nuke em' would work but I bet 99% of our forces would just quit turn their guns on commanders than genocide their own people.

Not that I think will ever get to armed resistance movement unless things get really bad an states start succeeding like that Russian predicted but govt would stand zero chance.
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
No way the government could stop a full blown insurgency here. The government would have to protect vital resources and infrastructure by actually having a on the ground force. At some point of time that government force would need to conduct door to door operations to try to stop the insurgents.

The only way the government could slow it down is if it started to carpet bomb and kill everyone everyone around.... in which case it would be pointless for the government. Since resources and infrastructure that the government uses would be destroyed.
 

BuckNaked

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,211
0
76
Originally posted by: daishi5
Interesting, all of those links refer to the FN 57 as being popular because its rounds are armor piercing. That brings me to my first problem with the reports, mostly because the ATF tested the FN and its rounds are not armor piercing

Source

The rest of the report, I don't have any sources to contest, but those numbers just sound off to me.

Depends on which round is being used. The SS190 is an AP round, but like most AP ammo, is restricted to Law Enforcement and Military only. Again, journalists would like most people to believe otherwise...

As for the performance of the 5.7, quoted from Dr. Gary Roberts, one of the nations foremost wound ballistics experts:

FN 5.7 x 28 mm
Several papers have described the incredibly poor terminal performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm projectiles fired by the FN P90:

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: ?Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.
--Fackler M: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.
--Fackler M: "More on the Bizarre Fabrique National P-90", Wound Ballistic Review. 3(1):44-45; 1997.
--FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.
--Hayes C: ?Personal Defense Weapons?Answer in Search of a Question?, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.
--Roberts G: ?Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant?, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.

The current 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet has nearly adequate penetration, but the wound resulting from this projectile has a relatively small permanent crush cavity, as well as an insignificant temporary stretch cavity. Although the 5.7 x 28 mm penetrates soft body armor, wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum. Even 9mm NATO FMJ makes a larger wound--and we are all aware of the awe inspiring incapacitation potential of M882 ball from the M9......

A few large U.S. LE agencies adopted 5.7 mm weapons--after being involved in several OIS incidents with P90's, 5.7 mm usage in these agencies plummeted as a result of the poor terminal performance.

It is all basic physics and physiology. Look at the surface areas in contact with tissue for 9 mm FMJ and JHP compared to 5.7 mm. When both are point forward, the 9 mm FMJ crushes more tissue than the 5.7 mm; for the short time that the 5.7 mm is at FULL yaw, it crushes a bit more tissue than the 9 mm FMJ. At no time does the 5.7 mm crush more tissue than the expanded 9 mm JHP--even when the 5.7 mm FMJ is at full yaw, an expanded 9 mm JHP crushes more tissue. The relatively small temporary cavities produced by both the 9 mm and 5.7 mm projectiles are not likely to cause significant injury to the majority of elastic structures of the body. As with any penetrating projectile, if either a 9 mm or 5.7 mm bullet is ideally placed to cause significant damage to the CNS or major cardiovascular organs, a fatal result is likely.

The P90 can definitely penetrate soft body armor, but then so can 9 mm AP rounds. The greater momentum of 9 mm bullets allow them to defeat vehicles and other intermediate barriers better than the 5.7 mm bullets. Standard 9 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP JHP loads crush more tissue, offer ideal penetration, and are equally likely to not exit the opponent as the 5.7 mm. 5.56 mm and 6.8 mm weapons offer significantly superior terminal effects compared to 5.7 mm. Bottom line?what does the P90 offer that is not already available?

So called journalists like to portray this as some magical round capable of stopping everything short of a tank, but the truth is somewhat less than whats portrayed in print...
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Fuck that lying sack of shit Obama. The Democrats are going down in 2010 with this kind of bullshit. Apparently they don't really like winning elections because they have nothing to bitch about.

With that level of vitriol you sound like you voted for him...spurned:laugh: J/K



 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
How about just aim high? Banning AP is nothing than more of the same - to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Maybe update OP?

Of all people to kill this idea quickly, Nanci freaking Pelosi?

Even though she is doing it because she doesnt want another 1994, its fine with me. I dont care what the reason is. The dems dont want to lose congress over this issue.
 

fisheerman

Senior member
Oct 25, 2006
733
0
0
Our biggest threat in america is going to come from america itself.
Civil unrest is what I think is the biggest threat to the well being of our nation.

Most major city are one a minor disruption away from disaster.
When you have large parts of society dependant on government any breakdown in social programs or supplies results in segements of our population rioting, looting, lawlessness etc.

This is my concern with any type of weapons ban is that it strips the individual from providing a means to protect oneself with superior force.

Don't believe it can happen to you? Wait and see what happens when the next hurricane strikes a major city.








 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Posting from the safe confines of his cubicle by: BiitterBober
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So all those reports of drive byes with Uzi's was just Left Wing Propaganda?

Full auto Uzi's cost ten of thousand dollars or more. They are not used by gang bangers. If they used an automatic then it was one that fell off a cargo ship, which a weapon ban will not stop.

You used to be smarter than this. Is it Massachusetts turning you into the worlds biggest pussy or just senility?
:roll: A flabby Nerd IT worker who dons leather chaps on the weekend and does his best impression of Tim Allen being a biker calling me a pussy?

If you were to pull that festering gob you call a head out of your ass and read my posts you'll see where I retracted supporting this ban.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: lupi
Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades

All of which are routinely bought in US guns shops and whose reinstating the ban would go ever so far to curtail their use.

Do you have any comprehension, at all, of what it actually takes to purchase a legal automatic weapon in the United States?

If not, then I suggest looking back through my posts here. I've explained it at least twice already. Get yourself educated...

Give it up palehorse. They have no fucking clue. "assault weapons" means what they see in the movies = full auto.

That evil black rifle destroys everything!!!! Nevermind that the weapons used in mexico have nothing to do with US.

I think he was sarcastic .... I mean common, gradnades in gun shops?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Ohh I get the arugment now - mexicans buy guns in the US (AKs in particular), drag them back down to mexico and do the sear mod for full-auto operation. I guess they do have a point there.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Originally posted by: BuckNaked


Actually a foreign made automatic weapon had to have been imported prior to 1968 to be a transferable weapon. This was a result of the Gun Control Act of '68. Pre '86 applies to domestically produced weapons, or foreign weapons that were imported in a semi-auto configuration, and then domestically altered to an automatic configuration, but again prior to 1986, to be transferable... Transferable meaning that the weapon can be owned by a civilian, having paid for the tax stamp and having undergone an extensive background check, prior to taking possession.

True, I was taking the latest possible path which would have been a pre-may dealer sample by an SOT (who could get post 1968 imports) that after relinquishing their license became transferable. Since none were ever imported before 1986, there aren't any pre-may dealer samples to be had and later become transferable :(
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Maybe update OP?

Of all people to kill this idea quickly, Nanci freaking Pelosi?

Even though she is doing it because she doesnt want another 1994, its fine with me. I dont care what the reason is. The dems dont want to lose congress over this issue.

That's only is you ascribe to the belief that R's are still able to use BS manufactured "cultural issues" like this to win elections and scare people.

I'm not so sure sane people are going to continue to vote on cultural issues to the detriment of their economic well being. The portion of the electorate that cares so much about this gets smaller every single day.

 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: BuckNaked
Originally posted by: daishi5
Interesting, all of those links refer to the FN 57 as being popular because its rounds are armor piercing. That brings me to my first problem with the reports, mostly because the ATF tested the FN and its rounds are not armor piercing

Source

The rest of the report, I don't have any sources to contest, but those numbers just sound off to me.

Depends on which round is being used. The SS190 is an AP round, but like most AP ammo, is restricted to Law Enforcement and Military only. Again, journalists would like most people to believe otherwise...

SS190 isn't legally restricted, it's sale is just regulated by FN themselves. They try to keep it out of civilian hands. Of course, when local LE agencies get tired of their P90s, and PS90s in favor of something new to buy with their grant money, they sell their SS190 to whoever wants to buy it. And usually it's got two thumbs and a big smile. This guy! :)

Oh, and this ban is going nowhere. In case you guys haven't been paying attention to the news, the senate just passed a bill allowing DC residents to buy assault weapons.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Fine by me if you don't want to believe me. It's obviously not illegal to own a burst firing weapon. As I recall it's more similar to the M16A2 linked above than the AK-47. I haven't seen this gun in years and when I was it fired it was at night. Seeing what palehorse just posted that could be the modification. I don't pretend to know.

I think you really misunderstand my intentions in this thread, spidey.

I may have and I apologize for not understanding you.

It's not difficult to make weapons in question to be full auto. It's not difficult at all to modify any weapon.
perhaps; but, doing so without all of the required checks and expenses is already illegal in all 50 states. I believe the minimum sentence for doing so is a hefty fine and 10 years in a Federal-rape-you-in-the-ass prison.

Just wanted to make that clear to anyone who might claim that what you said is reason enough to ban them...

Oh absolutely! That's the thing with most all gun owners and "assault rifle" owners. They like their rights and won't do things to make them lose them (like commit felonies).
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Posting from the safe confines of his cubicle by: BiitterBober
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So all those reports of drive byes with Uzi's was just Left Wing Propaganda?

Full auto Uzi's cost ten of thousand dollars or more. They are not used by gang bangers. If they used an automatic then it was one that fell off a cargo ship, which a weapon ban will not stop.

You used to be smarter than this. Is it Massachusetts turning you into the worlds biggest pussy or just senility?
:roll: A flabby Nerd IT worker who dons leather chaps on the weekend and does his best impression of Tim Allen being a biker calling me a pussy?

If you were to pull that festering gob you call a head out of your ass and read my posts you'll see where I retracted supporting this ban.

Yeah, that's me. The flabby nerd biker wannabe. :roll:

Take your saggy old man tits and eTough bullshit elsewhere gramps.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Well then, tell me with what weapon, what caliber and what you kept on doing afterwards.

Nuckfut accidentally with a .38spl to the bottom of my right leg from a few feet away. I drove 25 miles to the hospital. Never felt it until they were running gauze through it (clean through on both sides) like a piece of dental floss.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: ayabe
What's cool about using assault rifles for home defense is that they're awesome in confined spaces with the added bonus of shooting your kids through the walls when your unloading your full auto at the perp with the dragonskin body armor who needs to steal your TV for crack.

.223 round has less penetrating power indoors then most handgun rounds. This round is used in the majority of AR-15s.

No it doesn't, it's a smaller round with a LOT more penetrating power than any handgun round that i know of.

.223 fragments instantly at ranges under 100m. It breaks apart in drywall quickly.

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

This is ridiculous.

Why then are so many police departments and entry teams using rifles then instead of submachine guns? It's not a capacity issue. Rifle cartridges are a completely different world of incapacitation compared to handgun rounds. Fragmentation at close rage also reduces the chances of over-penetration.

1. most handgun cartridges will do a lot less than a full metal jacket .223 going through regular drywall, i'm willing to bet you £1000 on this. My weapon of choice is a G3 but that doesn't mean i haven't fired many thousands of .223 rounds and many hundreds of 9mm rounds.

2. so you got an accidental shot by a moron, in the case of firing on a target you aim for center of mass and if you hit, it's not really going to matter if you got a Sig 226 or whatever, it will stop him. Get yourself some SPEER gold dot and that 9mm is way more than enough (it won't penetrate your target or any normally built dry wall either).

3. This makes no sense what so ever, are you talking about shotguns vs sub machine guns?
AFAIK, bolt rifles are only used in missions where accuracy is a need, both in police and in military and both in the US and the UK.