Harris: ‘If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot’

[dogs4thewin]

But we have created an arms race that feeds the problem.

In that case and n that sensewe are really too "far gone" to get certain "good" people to not have guns.

 

[comana]

In that case and n that sensewe are really too "far gone" to get certain "good" people to not have guns.

We aren’t too far gone, just unwillingly to make the hard choices to fix it.

 

[dogs4thewin]

We aren’t too far gone, just unwillingly to make the hard choices to fix it.

Ther are people who would not trust the government to give up ther guns which means I have a strong feeling the government trying to would lead to more violence.

 

[comana]

Ther are people who would not trust the government to give up ther guns which means I have a strong feeling the government trying to would lead to more violence.

Fears no doubt bolstered by the gun lobby that profits off said fears.

 

[Bradskii]

Ther are people who would not trust the government to give up ther guns...

This is simply paranoia.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It is correct.
All of the examples listed meet the legal definition of an assault weapon.
In the USA assault weapon ≠ the military term assault rifle in legal terms.
This is something I did not know two hours ago.

Adding to the list, the assault weapon used in the nearby Covenant School shooting in my neighborhood, killing six including three 8/9 year old children was purchased by the perpetrator legally.

What really happened is they changed the definition of the word assault rifle so that these rifles would be included so when they talk about banning them they get more support. The fact is that these rifles were altered from their original design so that they wouldn’t fit into that definition.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's a ridiculous term. Every weapon is an assault weapon, that's what makes them weapons, they're used to assault people.
A knife, a tire iron, a slingshot are all assault weapons.
If only military style rifles are assault weapons, what are other weapons? Non-assault weapons?

That’s a good point. My point is that these rifles were specifically redesigned so that they didn’t fit into that category and people started incorrectly referring to them as assault rifles so now they’ve redefined the word. These weapons are very affective for killing that’s why people buy them but once you remove the most effective weapons then another weapon becomes the most affective and that’s will be the next preferred weapon of these criminals and they’ll ban the next category, most likely semiautomatic pistols. The problem is, according to the Constitution the government isn’t supposed to be able to have any regulations regarding owning firearms.

 

[Bradskii]

The problem is, according to the Constitution the government isn’t supposed to be able to have any regulations regarding owning firearms.

Or cars. Or aircraft.* Or food additives. Or power tools. Or...well, you get the idea. They didn't know that transport might consist of cars that can do 150mph+ or that you'd be able to fly to the UK in a few hours. Or that a gun could fire many hundreds of rounds per minute.

*Trump might be confused about that one.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Exactly, it then becomes a semiautomatic version of a military weapon.


As long as it doesn't meet the definition of an assult weapon, they would be free to do that. What defines an assault weapon varies by state, but the description below includes the most common features that determine whether or not a rifle is considered to be an assault weapon.

A semiautomatic rifle that— has the capacity to utilize a magazine that is not a fixed magazine; and
does have any 1 of the following:

• A pistol grip.
• A forward grip.
• A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
• A grenade launcher.
• A barrel shroud.
• A threaded barrel.

The AR-15 was initially designed for the military. The M-16 is based on the AR-15 design. The AR-15 was designed to kill enemy combatants in the most efficient way possible. There's no reason for weapons like the AR-15 or those similar to it to be in the hands of civilians. Currently the law allows these assault style weapons to be sold to the general public, and that needs to change.

The AR15 was not designed for the military the M16 was the original design that was designed for the military then it was redesigned into an AR15 for the sole purpose of meeting the requirements for lawful purchase and ownership for civilians. The pistol grip is irrelevant, every pistol has a pistol grip and ergonomics is not just a matter of effectiveness but also safety. It’s never a good idea to intentionally design a firearm to be more awkward to carry and use. Every rifle has a forward grip, so now all semiautomatic rifles are assault rifles? There are zero rifles that don’t have a forward grip, none of them are designed to be used one handed. A barrel shroud is completely irrelevant, it just keeps someone from burning their hand on a hot barrel. Someone using a rifle and burning his hand on the barrel could result in an accidental discharge. A grenade launcher is ridiculous because no one can buy a grenade launcher or grenades to launch from it. Threaded barrels are often used to install muzzle breaks which reduce recoil, if the gov doesn’t want people to attach suppressors or other attachments they can make the attachment itself illegal which most states already do.

 

[JosephZ]

What really happened is they changed the definition of the word assault rifle so that these rifles would be included so when they talk about banning them they get more support.

Actually, it was the gun industry that changed the definition; just look at some old gun magazines from the 1980s where the AR-15 and similar guns were referred to and marketed as assault weapons at that time.

The AR15 was not designed for the military the M16 was the original design that was designed for the military then it was redesigned into an AR15 for the sole purpose of meeting the requirements for lawful purchase and ownership for civilians.

This is incorrect, the AR-15 was designed and developed for the military in the 1950s by Armalite, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt, and in 1963 the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the M-16, which was based on the AR-15 design.

THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE M16 RIFLE

The innovation in rifle design that became the M16 had its origins in aviation industry by a company named ArmaLite. In October 1954, Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation established the ArmaLite Division. ArmaLite’s purpose was to take cutting edge aviation industry technology, namely in non-ferrous metals and polymers, and introduce it into the firearms industry. Their goal was to lower both weight and production cost. ArmaLite engineer Eugene Stoner developed the AR-15 to meet a 1957 Continental Army Command (CONARC) requirement for the next generation infantry rifle. The prototype rifle did well enough for the US Army Infantry Board to order ten rifles for testing and evaluation

When the AR-15 appeared in 1957 amidst acceptance of the M14, it provided the opportunity for small caliber proponents to again voice their preference for change. Because the AR-15 offered superior performance over many of its competitors and it utilized revolutionary enhancements to rifle design it was a perfect cornerstone to the revisited argument for small caliber rifles capable of high rates of fire.

Colt Firearms viewed the AR-15 as a potential key to their future economic success and began to aggressively market the rifle while the original developer, ArmaLite, did not. When the US military required redesign of the weapon, ArmaLite dropped their efforts to develop the rifle, and eventually sold their production rights to Colt.

The pistol grip is irrelevant, every pistol has a pistol grip and ergonomics is not just a matter of effectiveness but also safety. It’s never a good idea to intentionally design a firearm to be more awkward to carry and use. Every rifle has a forward grip, so now all semiautomatic rifles are assault rifles? There are zero rifles that don’t have a forward grip, none of them are designed to be used one handed. A barrel shroud is completely irrelevant, it just keeps someone from burning their hand on a hot barrel. Someone using a rifle and burning his hand on the barrel could result in an accidental discharge. A grenade launcher is ridiculous because no one can buy a grenade launcher or grenades to launch from it. Threaded barrels are often used to install muzzle breaks which reduce recoil, if the gov doesn’t want people to attach suppressors or other attachments they can make the attachment itself illegal which most states already do.

All of the following features of an AR-15, for example, serve a purpose:

The AR-15 pistol grip is designed so the shooter can release the magazine with their trigger finger without ever removing their hand from the grip. This allows someone with a little practice to exchange an empty magazine with a full one in around a second or so. Try doing that with a standard fixed-stock semi-automatic rifle.

Not every AR-15 has a forward grip, but a rifle that is equipped with one gives the shooter more stability and allows them to literally drill bullets accurately into a group of people.

A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock makes a rifle easier to conceal and more effective in maneuvering in closed quarters such as schools, department stores, office buildings, etc.

A barrel shroud, as you mentioned, protects the hand of the shooter from being burned. A rifle lacking a barrel shroud would be a deterrent for a shooter who intends to fire multiple rounds for an extended period of time.

Grenade launchers and threaded barrels, of course, allow illegal items to be attached to a rifle.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is incorrect, the AR-15 was designed and developed for the military in the 1950s by Armalite, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt, and in 1963 the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the M-16, which was based on the AR-15 design.

I stand corrected sorry for the misinformation.

 

[eleos1954]

Could you start the ball rolling and give us your preferred definition?

It needs to be defined/clarified by those introducing laws. It seems a lot of times law is made in somewhat vague terms (perhaps intentionally) and then when the law gets passed it then may get challenged it is a matter of interpretation.

 

[Bradskii]

It needs to be defined/clarified by those introducing laws. It seems a lot of times law is made in somewhat vague terms (perhaps intentionally) and then when the law gets passed it then may get challenged it is a matter of interpretation.

I'm not looking for a legal definition. I'd like your personal definition. I'd like your opinion.

 

[eleos1954]

I'm not looking for a legal definition. I'd like your personal definition. I'd like your opinion.

ok ... I am a proponent of the 2nd amendment ... even so ... do not see the need for fully automatic weapons to be available to the general population.
A bump stock converts a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic machine gun ... so this should not be allowed either.

So, I am for semi-automatic fire arms (of any kind) ... not fully automatic.

Also I would not be against limiting the seimi automatic magazines capacity to 10 for any given fire arm.

As far as defending ones self or perhaps others boils down to immediate threat ... I would consider someone breaking into my home (gaining entry) an immediate threat and would not hesitate to shoot .... would give warning if at all possible beforehand though.

I actually experienced this to a small degree one time .... a person was attempting entry into my home, I grabbed my rifle (he was obvisouly drunk or on dugs - stumbling around ... I loudly and vocally warned if he opened the door I would shoot .... fortunately he choose to leave. It was a sliding glass door so He was able to see me with my rifle pointed directly at him.

Just my opinions.

 

[Bradskii]

ok ... I am a proponent of the 2nd amendment ... even so ... do not see the need for fully automatic weapons to be available to the general population.
A bump stock converts a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic machine gun ... so this should not be allowed either.

So, I am for semi-automatic fire arms (of any kind) ... not fully automatic.

Also I would not be against limiting the seimi automatic magazines capacity to 10 for any given fire arm.

As far as defending ones self or perhaps others boils down to immediate threat ... I would consider someone breaking into my home (gaining entry) an immediate threat and would not hesitate to shoot .... would give warning if at all possible beforehand though.

I actually experienced this to a small degree one time .... a person was attempting entry into my home, I grabbed my rifle (he was obvisouly drunk or on dugs - stumbling around ... I loudly and vocally warned if he opened the door I would shoot .... fortunately he choose to leave. It was a sliding glass door so He was able to see me with my rifle pointed directly at him.

Just my opinions.

Those are fair restrictions.

 

[Pommer]

This is simply paranoia.

Which (not-so-oddly) sort of comes with living in a country where there’s so many shootings that we simply tune most of them out.
We’re aware that guns are dangerous, we just want most people to have access to firearms because we trust our fellow citizens to do right by us by not shooting at people frivolously! Most people are good and never drink too much, or use illicit drugs, or use firearms indiscriminately.

 

[Gene2memE]

This is incorrect, the AR-15 was designed and developed for the military in the 1950s by Armalite, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt, and in 1963 the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the M-16, which was based on the AR-15 design.

You beat me too it.

AR-15 has a long and interesting history, but what's fascinating to me is that it wasn't really successful as civilian rifle until the 1980s, then the combination of Colt's patents lapsing, the assault weapons ban and the import ban created the perfect conditions for AR platforms to grow exponentially in popularity.

They're cheap, accurate, reliable and not unpleasant to shoot. Plus, endlessly modabble.