Why I love the 2nd Amendment......

[Panzerkamfwagen]

No idea.

Man, you've just proven that I'm not an expert on firearms! What a coup, I've only been saying that all along!

-- A2SG, care to explain what point you think you're making?

The firearm in the top picture has a pistol grip, 50 round detachable magazines, and a detachable bayonet lug.

The one in the bottom picture doesn't.

Which one is more dangerous and should be banned?

 

[mzungu]

The firearm in the top picture has a pistol grip, 50 round detachable magazines, and a detachable bayonet lug.

The one in the bottom picture doesn't.

Which one is more dangerous and should be banned?

The word "Dangerous" is totally misleading; A baseball bat is dangerous and so is a fork. What you totally fail to understand is that a firearm capable of mass killings in a very short period of time is a firearm that should be banned. Sporting guns that have a small magazine capacity (up to 3 rounds) is much less likely to kill as many people in the same time period as a 30 round magazined self loading gun.

If we compare a .460 bolt action hunting rifle to an M16 shooting .223 rounds then obviously the 460 will be more dangerous PER ROUND than the smaller calibre M16 NATO round. But I guarantee you anyone who is crazy enough to go on a shooting rampage will be an idiot to take the .460.

Why do you think armies use high capacity magazined rifles that are self loading? Why don't they use hunting rifles instead?

 

[A2SG]

The firearm in the top picture has a pistol grip, 50 round detachable magazines, and a detachable bayonet lug.

The one in the bottom picture doesn't.

Which one is more dangerous and should be banned?

Again, no idea.

Then again, that's not a problem, since I, personally, am not going to be making that determination.

-- A2SG, do you think you're accomplishing something here? Just curious, cuz all you're doing is making a point I've made clear over and over again....

 

[DuneSoldier]

As I understand the law, it banned semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Semi-Automatic and automatic weapons can fire more bullets in less time than other guns, and that, by definition, makes them deadlier.

-- A2SG, that's about as specific as I can get. If you want to argue the specifics of the ban beyond that, you'll have to speak to your elected representatives....

You are incorrect. The law banned neither semi-automatics nor automatic weapons. Automatics are regulated under the 1986 Hughes Amendment and aren't on the block for further regulation.

It also was not a semi-automatic ban. It was a ban of specific manufactures/models by name, and certain cosmetic "features". They chose to go after cosmetic features because it's impossible to differentiate an "assault weapon" from a normal weapon based on mechanical features.

 

[mzungu]

You are incorrect. The law banned neither semi-automatics nor automatic weapons. Automatics are regulated under the 1986 Hughes Amendment and aren't on the block for further regulation.

It also was not a semi-automatic ban. It was a ban of specific manufactures/models by name, and certain cosmetic "features". They chose to go after cosmetic features because it's impossible to differentiate an "assault weapon" from a normal weapon based on mechanical features.

Can you differentiate between a murderer and a soldier who has killed people? This is the problem with America and the gun issue; The NRA gets away with technicalities while the opponents sit by and watch "OJ" get away with murder based on technicalities.

Like I have said before; Americans should have the right to bear any gun they want so long as those firearms remain within US territory. You people can kill each other's children in schools all you want. Someday when you decide to become a civilised nation then perhaps you may reconsider the 2nd amendment and capital punishment!

 

[DuneSoldier]

Can you differentiate between a murderer and a soldier who has killed people? This is the problem with America and the gun issue; The NRA gets away with technicalities while the opponents sit by and watch "OJ" get away with murder based on technicalities.

Like I have said before; Americans should have the right to bear any gun they want so long as those firearms remain within US territory. You people can kill each other's children in schools all you want. Someday when you decide to become a civilised nation then perhaps you may reconsider the 2nd amendment and capital punishment!

I'm not sure what you are getting at comparing murders and soldiers. Soldiers are people, I think that just like the general population most of them are good people. Some of them are evil people, do I think some soldier's murder people? Probably, but that doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.

Do I think soldiers are more trustworthy than civilians when it comes to using weapons? No, I doubt that they are.

I support owning semi-auto military look-alikes. I have one based on the AK. It's very enjoyable.

I DO NOT support capital punishment.

 

[QR1]

Yes, he "had" one in the same sense that he probably had a stuffed toy at home, it wasn't used in the crime, so it is irrelevant and demonizing said possession is clearly more about seeking to control that item than anything justified by the crime. . . which did not involve the AR15.



But to answer your question, the AR is a handy little rifle with good ergonomics which is easy for beginners and women to shoot well, excellent in home defense when equipped with a white light and red dot of some variety, the fragmenting nature of the rounds means they will likely go through one side of a wall and frag before meaningfully penetrating the second as most walls in homes have two sides AR15's can be fired with lower risk than weapons such as a shotgun where the weight of buckshot can carry through with enough velocity to seriously injure people on the other side of walls. They are used extensively in shooting sports. They have become increasingly popular among hunters who enjoy the modularity of the AR, allowing them to switch from a long barrelled .223 for prairie dog to an acceptable deer caliber carbine like 6.8SPC. There really isn't any gun on the market that has the ability to as easily switch between various calibers and usage (upper) while retaining the same gun (lower) almost like a golfer's bag of clubs. They even have blank firing attachments for launching golf balls for that matter! Since pretty much nothing on the market matches its versatility the short answer would be a responsible gun owner could fill any lawful use need with an AR.

I accept your statement:

Man, you've just proven that I'm not an expert on firearms! What a coup, I've only been saying that all along!

But please respond to my response to you. I mentioned the fact that the AR15 was not used by Adam Lanza, and I would love to hear why they should be banned based on that. . . . . or what the "come back" is for my explanation of why they shouldn't be banned.

 

[mzungu]

I'm not sure what you are getting at comparing murders and soldiers. Soldiers are people, I think that just like the general population most of them are good people. Some of them are evil people, do I think some soldier's murder people? Probably, but that doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.

Do I think soldiers are more trustworthy than civilians when it comes to using weapons? No, I doubt that they are.

I support owning semi-auto military look-alikes. I have one based on the AK. It's very enjoyable.

I DO NOT support capital punishment.

I am referring to the "what is an assault rifle" definition debate. Common sense states that a weapon that has a high capacity magazine and is semi or full auto is basically an assault weapon. Hunting or sporting firearms do not fall into this category. Why do you thing the militaries of the world use such weapons as the AK47 and M16? Both these weapons and others have the above mentioned characteristics. If pro gun proponents want to play the semantic game then they are doing so at the expense of the victims of such weapons!

 

[QR1]

I am referring to the "what is an assault rifle" definition debate. Common sense states that a weapon that has a high capacity magazine and is semi or full auto is basically an assault weapon. Hunting or sporting firearms do not fall into this category. Why do you thing the militaries of the world use such weapons as the AK47 and M16? Both these weapons and others have the above mentioned characteristics. If pro gun proponents want to play the semantic game then they are doing so at the expense of the victims of such weapons!

Not really. Only one legally owned assault weapon has been used in one murder since 1934. It wasn't the definition of assault weapons that cost that police informant his life, it was the crooked cop that gunned him down. Failure to have full auto capability is failure to be an assault weapon. No auto capacity, non-assault weapon. Doesn't matter what kind of icing you put on a chocolate cake, if it isn't chocolate cake, it isn't. . . if it is chocolate it is. The only people playing semantic games are the people trying to shoehorn other guns into the same category as full auto guns in order to make them sound scary and ban worthy.

 

[DuneSoldier]

I am referring to the "what is an assault rifle" definition debate. Common sense states that a weapon that has a high capacity magazine and is semi or full auto is basically an assault weapon. Hunting or sporting firearms do not fall into this category. Why do you thing the militaries of the world use such weapons as the AK47 and M16? Both these weapons and others have the above mentioned characteristics. If pro gun proponents want to play the semantic game then they are doing so at the expense of the victims of such weapons!

I'm not playing the semantic game. I am talking about semi-automatic rifles and pistols. I'm NOT talking about the full-auto AK47 or M16. While I would support civilian ownership of these weapons, that is not relevant to this discussion because that is not being talked about at a State or National level.

I contend that there is no difference in capabilities from one type of semi-automatic that accepts a detachable magazine and another. I also contend that semi-automatics are useful for sporting purposes. Because I use them for sporting purposes.

Just as an aside: The rifle pictured earlier is the Ruger 10/22. It is chambered in 22lr and has 10 to 100 round magazines. They have been legal in this country since the 1960's and according to wikipedia over 5 million have been built.

Ruger 10/22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But please respond to my response to you. I mentioned the fact that the AR15 was not used by Adam Lanza, and I would love to hear why they should be banned based on that. . . . . or what the "come back" is for my explanation of why they shouldn't be banned.

I've heard this a couple of times. Is there a final police report available on the exact weapons Lanza did use?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So? Unless responsible gun owners are going out and stopping crimes like Batman, that has nothing to do with the statistics on crime.

The point is that while anti's are advocating reducing the number of gun available in America we are increasing the number of guns rapidly, mainly due to the perceived threat to ownership.

Once again, not responsible gun owners. The problem is when those guns fall into the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Criminals steal guns, often at gunpoint. These guns enter the 'black market' where most criminals obtain them.

I know you think you're helping your case, but you're not.

I'm using absurdity to illustrate how absurd new guns laws would be.

 

[Loudmouth]

The firearm in the top picture has a pistol grip, 50 round detachable magazines, and a detachable bayonet lug.

The one in the bottom picture doesn't.

Which one is more dangerous and should be banned?

If you were a military general, which one would you want your soldiers to have if those were the only two choices, and why that rifle?

 

[DuneSoldier]

If you were a military general, which one would you want your soldiers to have if those were the only two choices, and why that rifle?

It's not a choice, they are the same rifle. One has polymer stock, the other has a wooden stock.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not a choice, they are the same rifle. One has polymer stock, the other has a wooden stock.

Then why do we consistently see soldiers with one type of gun, but not the other? Are all of those features completely useless?

 

[DuneSoldier]

Then why do we consistently see soldiers with one type of gun, but not the other? Are all of those features completely useless?

No. I mean they are the same gun, probably even the same model. Those are both Ruger 10/22's. The first one has a polymer aftermarket stock that takes approximately ten minutes to put on it.

The both accept the same magazines.

As for the other features. They don't really add or subtract much from the usefulness of the weapon as far as I can tell. We don't use bayonets much at the range. I doubt soldiers do either. They look cool, but that's about it.

I have one on my mosin to make it be historically accurate.

Pistol grips feel more comfortable. I can't say that it improves accuracy in any meaningful way vs. a featureless stock. I also think that this is probably more of a personal thing.

Barrel Shroud - That's a banned feature that really shouldn't be. It's a safety feature, it prevents you from burning yourself when touching the wrong part of the gun.

Folding or Telescopic stock - Useful if you are going to let others shoot the weapon as they can configure the stock to be the proper length. Folding stocks could help concealment or storage.

Threaded Barrel - Can be used to accept flash hiders or more commonly suppressors or muzzle brakes. Suppressors and Flash Hiders require tax stamps and are regulated. The muzzle brakes are useful in competition as they decrease recoil which can result in increased accuracy.

 

[DuneSoldier]

From wikipedia on pistol grips.

One of the reasons the pistol grip style is so common in machinery is because it is possible to ergonomically position the operating controls. For example, on the AR-15 and M16 rifle, a right handed user's index finger can control the trigger and magazine release, while the thumb can control the safety or fire mode selector switch, all without needing to remove the palm from the grip.

 

[Loudmouth]

From wikipedia on pistol grips.

That makes a lot more sense. I would hope that they are not adding things on to a rifle for no reason.

I would also think that a pistol grip helps in controlling the gun if it is being fired from a non-standard position, such as "firing from the hip" or from cover. I think there is a reason that modern weapons no longer look like the BAR.

The fact of the matter is that these features are put on the rifle to make them more effective in combat. They are offensive weapons, not defensive. While I can appreciate people wanting to shoot them for sport and collect them, we have to ask the question if this is worth risking public safety, or does it risk public safety at all. Asking if a ban is consistitutional really gets us away from the questions we should be asking, IMHO.

 

[DuneSoldier]

That makes a lot more sense. I would hope that they are not adding things on to a rifle for no reason.

I would also think that a pistol grip helps in controlling the gun if it is being fired from a non-standard position, such as "firing from the hip" or from cover. I think there is a reason that modern weapons no longer look like the BAR.

The fact of the matter is that these features are put on the rifle to make them more effective in combat. They are offensive weapons, not defensive. While I can appreciate people wanting to shoot them for sport and collect them, we have to ask the question if this is worth risking public safety, or does it risk public safety at all. Asking if a ban is consistitutional really gets us away from the questions we should be asking, IMHO.

I don't believe a ban is consistitutional. But I feel that this is a lot of mis-information and assumptions going around about the capabilities of these weapons. I don't think we can have a constructive dialog without getting everyone on the same page as to the purpose of features.

As someone who has fired an AK based rifle (Saiga 7.62) I will say that firing from the hip is absolutely worthless in just about all cases. The sights on a rifle exist for a reason. If you are shooting from then you have no control over where your bullets go.

EDIT:

My "fire from the hip" rant's tone looks wrong to me. Basically I just find the idea of firing from the hip to be silly. It's hard enough to hit a point on the target when you are using a pistol or rifle correctly.

 

[Crusader05]

That makes a lot more sense. I would hope that they are not adding things on to a rifle for no reason.

I would also think that a pistol grip helps in controlling the gun if it is being fired from a non-standard position, such as "firing from the hip" or from cover. I think there is a reason that modern weapons no longer look like the BAR.

The fact of the matter is that these features are put on the rifle to make them more effective in combat. They are offensive weapons, not defensive. While I can appreciate people wanting to shoot them for sport and collect them, we have to ask the question if this is worth risking public safety, or does it risk public safety at all. Asking if a ban is consistitutional really gets us away from the questions we should be asking, IMHO.

A pistol grip on a rifle does not make it more deadly or dangerous, they are helpful with stabiling the rifle which is why many target rifles use them. Look at the rifles used in olympic shooting competitions and many have pistol and thumbhole grips.
Olympic Shooting Photos - Shooting Photo Galleries | London 2012