"no purpose.... for any person to own a dangerous assault weapon" says police chief

[leftjohn]

If it is irrelevant, why do we need these huge guns?

 

[Pommer]

And there is no "any gun" that will do "the job" for every particular person who wants a gun for a particular purpose.

Right.
Which is why people who have a gun usually have several...because not every gun is suited to the "particular purpose".

And let's face it, guns and rifles are adult (where "adult" does not mean "sexual"), toys. They're cool, they're loud (when they go off) and they're constitutionally protected.

I, myself, prefer mechanical music, but hey, that's my gig.

 

[Schneiderman]

If it is irrelevant, why do we need these huge guns?

Where did I say I needed it? I want it, and I'm an American with still some freedoms left, and I had the money for it, so I bought it. I'm not going to let you and your emotional objections and fear stop me from doing what I want to do or owning what I want to own.

I also own a motorcycle and two classic cars. You wanna complain about those too? I don't need them. They might scare you. Not gonna stop me from owning them, and your objections don't mean I shouldn't own them.

How would you like it if there was a strong political push to ban your favorite hobbies?

Maybe someday when I make more money I'll buy one of these. What is your objection to this, exactly?

 

[JustOneWay]

If it is irrelevant, why do we need these huge guns?

There is no reason for an individual to own them. Some people need these things to feel like a man, and wield a little power.

 

[BoltNut]

Such weapons are far too large and unweildy for personal protection or home defense... particularly in Hoboken.

I would agree that a handgun would be somewhat less cumbersome but the Police Chiefs comments pertained to the magazine more than the weapon itself. That's what makes his comments misleading and irrelevant to those of us familiar with these types of weapons. When we speak of gun control in general (nationally) many of us live in more rural areas where these weapons are used for purposes other than shooting at people. Home defense in these areas can be provided by a shotgun, pistol or even one of the weapons like the one confiscated from the guy in New York. The danger I see in a place like Hoboken, is that people live so close together. A bullet discharged from a weapon could possibly go through a wall and hurt someone else. This has more to do with the caliber or velocity than anything to do with the magazine.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I would agree that a handgun would be somewhat less cumbersome but the Police Chiefs comments pertained to the magazine more than the weapon itself.

I'm not sure if that's so, but if it is, whether we're talking hunting or home defense, if you can't hit what you're shooting at with the first 15 shots, there's a problem.

That's what makes his comments misleading and irrelevant to those of us familiar with these types of weapons. When we speak of gun control in general (nationally) many of us live in more rural areas where these weapons are used for purposes other than shooting at people. Home defense in these areas can be provided by a shotgun, pistol or even one of the weapons like the one confiscated from the guy in New York. The danger I see in a place like Hoboken, is that people live so close together. A bullet discharged from a weapon could possibly go through a wall and hurt someone. This has more to do with the caliber or velocity than anything to do with the magazine.

True enough... but what's in my mind (and possibly the police chief's) is large number of bullets = large number of targets. which doesn't bode well for either hunting or home defense.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I had two so called "assault weapons". I sold one of them because I never shoot it. I may get rid of the other one. I'm not really a big fan of guns anymore. I'm not an absolute pacifist but in theory at least I would not kill another person simply to save my life. The life of my son is a differnt story though. Honestly I think the world would be a much better place if people stopped building and using weapons. If the military and police are not going to give up their weapons too what good is it to simply disarm the civilians though? I naturally mistrust people who call for the disarment of civilians and who do not also call for the disarmament of soliders and the police*. In a perfect world no one would have weapons. But to use that fact to say "therefore we should disarm the civilians [and only them] " is misguided because the ones who do the most damage with weapons have always been the people working for the governments and empires of the world and not the civilians. Why don't we have a campaign for gun control for the government and it's agents?

* I'm not specifically targeting police in the US but rather the police of the various states of the world. Some of them can be very oppresive and violent. Look at what took place in Iran around the time of the election for example.

 

[BoltNut]

My point was, why do we need these huge assault rifles when most any gun will do the job.

Maybe you do need a little more than a .22, but do you really need something that can kill someone 3 miles away? Does the home you are protecting have a 3 mile wide living room?

What do we mean by "huge"? If we say "a little more than a .22", that may mean a .223. These guns people call "assault weapons", very often, are .223. This is only a slight bit bigger than a .22, but because they are called "assault weapons", they are considered "huge" simply due to the terminology used to describe them.

 

[Schneiderman]

Who says you need to load 30 rounds into a 30 round magazine? For Saiga and other AK pattern rifles, 30rd magazines are cheaper than magazines that hold fewer rounds (again, 30rd is STANDARD for these rifles, anything less is "low capacity" and is more expensive since they are specialized and there are fewer of them made). 30rd AK magazines can be had for under $10, while the factory 10rd magazine for my saiga is $30!.

And if you couldn't figure it out, you can load 1 round into a 30rd mag, or you can load 10 rounds into a 30rd mag, or you can load 30 rounds into a 30rd mag... a 30rd magazine in a rifle does not mean it is loaded to 30 rounds. So why shouldn't someone be allowed to hunt with a 30rd magazine? (yes this is the law in many places).

And in the case of self defense, why would you want to limit someone's magazine capacity? You never have any idea what kind of threat anyone is going to face. NY has an unconstitutional limit of 10 rounds for handgun magazines. But just recently, NYPD officers shot a man twenty three times and he lived. So why does anyone think that a 10 round limit on magazines is "reasonable"?

And of course you are ignoring (intentionally, I think) the fact that hunting and self defense are not the only reasons to own a gun. For some people it is simply a hobby. Some people own guns who do not ever intend to use them for self defense. And it is simpler and more fun to have a bunch of 30rd magazines to bring to the range with you ready to go, instead of bringing a couple 10rd mags and spending all day reloading them (remember, RANGE TIME COSTS MONEY).

 

[BoltNut]

I had two so called "assault weapons". I sold one of them because I never shoot it. I may get rid of the other one. I'm not really a big fan of guns anymore. I'm not an absolute pacifist but in theory at least I would not kill another person simply to save my life. The life of my son is a differnt story though. Honestly I think the world would be a much better place if people stopped building and using weapons. If the military and police are not going to give up their weapons too what good is it to simply disarm the civilians though? I naturally mistrust people who call for the disarment of civilians and who do not also call for the disarmament of soliders and the police*. In a perfect world no one would have weapons. But to use that fact to say "therefore we should disarm the civilians [and only them] " is misguided because the ones who do the most damage with weapons have always been the people working for the governments and empires of the world and not the civilians. Why don't we have a campaign for gun control for the government and it's agents?

* I'm not specifically targeting police in the US but the police of the various states of the world. Some of them can be very oppresive and violent. Look at what took place in Iran around the time of the election for example.

Because, as you correctly pointed out, we don't live in a 'perfect world'.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Because, as you correctly pointed out, we don't live in a 'perfect world'.

I also see that problem with the idea of disarming civilians though. If disarmament is going to take place it will either have to be a personal moral disicison that an individual takes "I will no longer perpetuate this" (Monastics make this decision for example) or something unilateral with both the state and the people disarming. To focus on forcibly disarming the people only seems misguided to me. My question was more posed to those who call for the disarmament of civilians. Why don't they also call for the disarmament of the state?

 

[BoltNut]

I'm not sure if that's so, but if it is, whether we're talking hunting or home defense, if you can't hit what you're shooting at with the first 15 shots, there's a problem.

Maybe in an apartment in Hoboken. Besides, just because you 'hit your target' doesn't mean that target can't continue to shoot back at you.

True enough... but what's in my mind (and possibly the police chief's) is large number of bullets = large number of targets. which doesn't bode well for either hunting or home defense.

If there is any 'logic' at all in this ordinance, this would absolutely be the only "reason" for it, but the logic still doesn't make sense. People who obey the law would have 10 round magazines but the people who set out to kill people will continue to have 30 round magazines. This ordinance does nothing. If some crack-head breaks into my home and threatens to kill my family, I want as much of an advantage as possible in order to protect them. If that means a 100 round magazine, fine. I shouldn't need any more than one or two, but why take that chance? Some crack-heads can move around pretty fast and I might miss a couple of times. It might even take more than one 'hit' in order to get him to stop moving. I'd rather have more than I'll ever need to subdue the threat. And I don't want some 'do gooder' crackpot politician telling me I can't do that.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Rifles might be ok for home defense if you live in an area that isn't that populated but shooting off rounds of .223 or 7.62x39 in a residential area is probably not that safe for your neighbors. If you are going to use a gun it would probably better to use something with a little less penetration and range like a shot gun with the proper shell or a hollow or soft point 9mm or whatnot. Thats why you don't see the cops shooting off rifles in public places that often except maybe for the snipers who put one shot right on target. It's one thing to have a so called assault rifle but please be smart enough not to shoot it off in a residential area. You might end up killing some grandma or kid trying to defend yourself.

I'm hoping that less than lethal weapons will keep improving so that people can effectivly defend themselves with them and not have to kill people to do it.

 

[BoltNut]

I also see that problem with the idea of disarming civilians though. If disarmament is going to take place it will either have to be a personal moral disicison that an individual takes "I will no longer perpetuate this" (Monastics make this decision for example) or something unilateral with both the state and the people disarming. To focus on forcibly disarming the people only seems misguided to me. My question was more posed to those who call for the disarmament of civilians. Why don't they also call for the disarmament of the state?

It makes about as much sense as disarming the citizens. I get your point but it's more far fetched than even the Police Chiefs comments.

 

[BoltNut]

Rifles might be ok for home defense if you live in an area that isn't that populated but shooting off rounds of .223 or 7.62x39 in a residential area is probably not that safe for your neighbors. If you are going to use a gun it would probably better to use something with a little less penetration and range like a shot gun with the proper shell or a hollow or soft point 9mm or whatnot. Thats why you don't see the cops shooting off rifles in public places that often except maybe for the snipers who put one shot right on target. It's one thing to have a so called assault rifle but please be smart enough not to shoot it off in a residential area. You might end up killing some grandma or kid trying to defend yourself.

I'm hoping that less than lethal weapons will keep improving so that people can effectivly defend themselves with them and not have to kill people to do it.

I think you are correct. I've been around weapons of all types as I imagine you probably have too. I compare them to tools. Every 'tool' has a specific application, so to speak. My old Mossberg 12 gauge pump shotgun was a good home defense weapon since it could handle the "application" while confining the collateral damage to area in which it was being used. I also have a 9mm semi-auto handgun. It, too, works well for home defense with the proper shells. Someday, I may pick up one of these so called "assault weapons" to use for protection against 'varmints'. I live in the mountains and we have mountain lions, bears, coyotes and other critters that usually keep to themselves, but occasionally have attacked people around here.

Weapons that are "less than lethal" are, so far, a bit lacking. I hope the technology is improved enough someday where people in more urban areas could feel confident enough in them to where they wouldn't need to discharge firearms in self defense. If they could actually subdue a threat instead of just getting them mad, I might invest in one too.

 

[chaz345]

If it is irrelevant, why do we need these huge guns?

Define huge? What do you mean by that? You do realize that most military style "assault weaons" actually use a relatively small caliber bullet, right? Not as small as a .22 but often not a whole lot bigger.

Also go look near the end of the video on the first page. The guy takes a perfectly ordinary hunting rifle and turns it into an "assault weapon" in about a minute. The point being "assault weapon" is an entirely meaningless term with no purpose other that to inject more emotionalism.

 

[Protocol11]

The biggest obstacle for discussion in this topic is mostly the anti-gunners who don't know anything about guns other than what they've heard in the news or seen on tv. Everyone clamours about assault weapons when most people can't even tell what one is, much less that that term "assault weapon" is a meaningless, vague, misnomer. Every weapon is an assault weapon.

 

[armyman_83]

 

[JustOneWay]

you live by the gun you will die by the gun.

 

[armyman_83]

Just because you don't live by the gun, that doesn't mean you can't die from one.