Are "assault weapons" anymore dangerous than a regular gun?

YOUR arbitrary 'sniper range" of 1200 yfs is just bs. and no 30=30 has anything like the effective range of the 223. No sniper would bet his life on a hit, under realistic field condtions, beyond about 400 yds, 4 seasons, any given day (ie, rain, snow, gusty winds, mirage etc) you want to cherry pick your times and shots, but for realistic evaluation of the utility of a rifleman, you have to allow for normal firing conditions. People do MOVE, you know, and that complicates things a lot. People sneeze, cough, bend over, turn sideways, etc. Each of those things can be done in 1/2 second., and each such move can cause you to miss, too.

NO bullet, from any rifle or load, covers more than 500 yds in half a second. It's very easy to take one step in 1/2 second, and 1/2 step is enough to make you miss (if the man is standing sideways to you) Yes, people have been hit at ridiculous ranges, by PURE LUCK, So what? It's pure luck, if, when you NEED to hit somebody, that they are fully-exposed, stationary, that the wind isn't gusting, that there's no mirage, etc. and those ideal conditions that you MUST have to get reliable hits at more than 500 yds. I don't care who you are or what rifle/scope/load you use. Those are the facts. You want to CLAIM that snipers can make RELIABLE hits, under any conditions, at even 1/2 mile, you're deluded. Also, snipers don't CARE if they miss, but if you NEED to make that hit, it's a different story about how far away you dare to make the attempt.

- - - Updated - - -

then ask google for the ethnic % and the average income of those same 20 cities. then you'll know why canada is lots less violent, even in the same density. the type of people involved make a huge difference.

 

e

what is a militia in the colonial context?

well they existed before the declaration of independendence
and even in britain for that matter

but in the colonies, were a self defense force that recognized that the english could not garrison sufficient troops to offer protection or fight during the french and indian wars. so that is the context of what militias were

so when the 2nd says the militia is necessary for a free state---- it seems clear to me that this was a major consideration, albeit perhaps not the exclusive rationale

if i said "a car being necessary to get to work, the right of a citizen to own a car shall not be infringed"
the intent is pretty clear. it is not intended to protect car clubs and car collectors it is intended to make sure people can get to their job!

in addition, the framers wanted to avoid the expense and the risk of a large standing army,
and again the militia was the alternative solution that protected the nation without the need for the large standing army

and the one point i will grant you is that they saw some risk that the large army could be perverted to facilitate tyranny and so the wanted to avoid that risk

whether we like it or not
we now have a very large and capable standing army
and imo an armed population provides no protection against tyranny using that army
if we want to accomplish that objective
then we need to defang the army so that it could not dominate the armed populace

but that aint gonna happen


btw
please note i have not argued against a right to keep and bear arms
only that the primary, but perhaps not exclusive intent of the 2nd, was to address national security
as was our historic experience during the french indian wars

 

What we are doing here is allowing you to come up with a list of features that you say make a firearm an "assault weapon" and I'm going to show you why it's dumb. So you say that high velocity is a criteria, what else you got? Let's hear it.

It damn sure wasn't luck when that guy shot exactly what he wanted to at more than double the range you would enjoy. How do you explain that?

You didn't watch the video did you? If you are a sniper, the wind is just another factor to consider, it doesn't prevent you from hitting your target. Have you ever served in the military at all?

So now you are backing away from your claim that an "assault weapon" is one that can pierce a vest? Now it has to be one that and shoot 600yds? Is that it? Or do you have more?

 

i DID explain that it was luck. You just don't understand the facts of reality. cherry picking results and CLAIMING that said results are typical performance is a lie, plain and simple I"ll pick say, 4 days of the year, in 4 locations in the US, at given times of the day. YOU find a rifleman who will bet his life that he can hit a man's (sideways) torso (walking along) with any rifle, at more than 400 yds, at those times and places. i"ll be ready to pull the trigger on him when (not if) he misses. I"ll just pick typical winter, spring, summer days in typical parts of the country. any rifleman will know that he'll have a very high risk of geting his head blown off due to his missing and he'll refuse. As I said, all it takes is wind, mirage or target movement, and you'll miss.

I never said a word about defining assault rifles. I said you're full of it about your claims of effective range, and i"ve proven it. You have to cherry pick your shots, to hit beyond 1/4 mile, so what good is such "ability?, hmm? Its just a fantasy. When you need to hit some warlord, you're not going to HAVE ideal conditions, his security team will see to that. If the target is just some flunky, why bother with the entire exercise? Why handicap yourself with something as silly as a bolt action?

 

I asked what quantifies an "assault weapon" and you get all pissy. Grow up. My question has nothing to do with effective range, my question is, again, how is an AR any more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle, you draw a line at .22's and you say it's because they can't punch through a vest. So apparently velocity is important to you and I offer up some of my more powerful rifles, whose velocities should qualify them in your opinion as a "assault weapon" because they can punch through a vest. Make a stand, quit wiggling like a spineless jellyfish.

It's definitely not luck when one can consistently make those shots, it's skill, regardless of what you say especially if you go around saying things like you don't think bolt guns are any more accurate than auto-loaders, I'm likely to dismiss your opinion entirely.

So you want to take the .22 off of the table, fine. How about my Mini 14 Ranch Rifle? How is an AR any more lethal than my .223 Mini 14?

And as a matter of fact, your list of criteria regarding "assault weapon" features don't appear to apply to the AK47 given it's maximum effective range isn't much farther than 400 or so yards.

We're defining the difference between "assault weapons" and "regular guns" as per the thread title. Please stay on topic.

Thanks.

 

Such a mentality only applies to an enemy force that values life. Certain enemy combatants, such as those in the middle east, that have no problem with blowing themselves up, do not value life, and will likely not stop to assist a fellow combatant who is injured.

A six hundred yard range.

 

"Assault weapon" is a legal term, you only need to look at the law to define an assault weapon.

"Assault rifle" is a select fire rifle that is smaller then a machine gun.

Your Mini 14 Ranch Rifle isn't either,(I assume) it doesn't have the features that make it an assault weapon under the law, nor is it an assault rifle as it's not select fire.

The bullet from an AR15 is no more lethal then one from your Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. Some would argue a few features make an AR15 more lethal though.

I don't see how this is complicated enough to be arguing over.

 

What makes the .223 round effective is tumble. It hits the target at range after it starts tumbling and usually splits into 3 parts, causing the most damage. What makes it less valued at close range and especially with a shorter barrel is that it does not start to tumble and just penetrates without tumbling.

My daughter could make consistent head shots at 500 yards with an M16 in the Marines.

 

Again, is that what makes an AR more dangerous than regular guns like my 10/22. Or my Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. They both have similar range, more so than a 10/22, but yet you hesitate to call my Mini an "assault weapon".

Understand my point?

 

Exactly what I'm trying to get them to explain. What feature makes an AR more dangerous than my Mini?

No argument there, they just can't answer the question.

 

Nice, I can't wait to stretch the legs on my Stag15. We have a 1,000yd range nearby, will actually get around to going someday.

 

What actually makes them more lethal or why do politicians perceive them as more lethal?

Actually, it could be said that a few things make them slightly more lethal but really just a convenience thing. They're more popular, parts are universal, they are the small block chevy of rifles. Being direct impingement with the center of mass of the bolt carrier in line with the barrel they're more stable. For the most part the features of an assault weapon under the law are standard for ARs where they'd be unusual or custom on a Mini 14.

 

I'm responding to the initial post which asks "Are "assault weapons" really anymore dangerous than any other gun? What exactly is an "assault weapon" ? Is it just a gun that looks scary?"

For example?

 

You normally make better sense than this. If you read through the recent threads here, you see quite an extensive rundown on the M193 round. It fragments much more reliably than the M855, within the effective range of the bullet. The damage is NOT caused by "tumbling". This has been a misperception for as long as the .223 has existed, and it's at the level of urban myth.
The original M-16 had a twist rate of 1 turn in 14". This was done to stabilize the bullet just enough to fly straight, but to be unstable, so that it would yaw upon impact. That way, even if the bullet were flying too slow to fragment, it would "corkscrew" a bit, thus inducing a larger wound cavity.
Modern M4 carbines have a twist rate of 1 turn in 7". Since the first M-16's were made, we've learned that it's a characteristic of bullets with an ogive to tend to yaw upon impact anyway, as the larger mass of the rear section tries to go to the front. This tendency is enhanced with velocity. Because bullets slow down over distance, the effective range of the M4 carbine with M855 ammo is only around 140 meters. It can still poke a very small hole beyond that distance, but it does very little damage.
NO, your daughter can NOT make consistent head shots at 500 meters. NO ONE can, with an M4 carbine. The Mil Spec for M4 barrels is accuracy not worse than 5" @ 100 meters. Carbine barrels normally run closer to about 2" @ 100 meters. 5 times 2 = 10". That's what the carbine is capable of. Mil Spec for the ammo is 2" @ 100 meters. That's 10" @ 500 meters. Those parameters don't "cancel each other out", but rather accumulate somewhat, so that the best that can be expected from an M4 carbine, firing Mil Spec ammo from a machine rest would be more like 15". Therefore, if she can hit a man sized silhouette target 6 times out of 10 @ 500 meters, she's doing very well.

 

It's a legal term, and for the most part just looks scary.

Pistol grip, collapsible stock, picatinny rails, and threaded barrel.

 

No, "Assault Rifle" is a political term, based upon what the gun looks like. Nothing else. And though the classification varies a lot by state and towns, the California definition is what most people consider.

BTW, most of those are cosmetic only, and have no effect on how "deadly" the weapon is.

Now a sub-machine gun is something else totally separate. It is basically an Assault Rifle, that uses a pistol cartridge (9mm, .45, etc) instead of a rifle cartridge. And quite a few of them are much smaller then a traditional "Assault Rifle". A Machine Gun is a weapon that fires in a fully-automatic mode from the open bolt position. It can be as large or small as needed, but as a general rule any MG under 7.62mm is a "sub machine gun".

Wow, you really do not know much about weapons, do you?

 

Thanks for providing a list of features that you believe quantify an "assault weapon". Now that we have some tangible things to talk about, can you show me how any of those features make an AR more lethal than any other rifle that lacked such features.

 

he didn't SAY "more lethal", he said "more dangerous". So stop lying about the issue, ok? more dangerous can be interpreted in many more ways than just 'more lethal", or "more powerful". Some of use don't have Freudian hangups about our "power". making a weapon more effective can be achieved, in some cases, by making it easier to conceal. A removable pistol grip, and collapsible stock certainly make a short barreled carbine a lot more concealable, and are easy to reverse at the scene, right before you "go postal". you'd be wise to not further this exposure of your ign0rance, by the way.

 

You want to re-establish what "more dangerous" is, fine, no problem. Is that the position you wish to take, that "more dangerous" equates to "concealable"? Let's get it nailed down so we know what we are talking about here.

 

How is any weapon "more dangerous" then another?

Do some weapons magically stand up and start firing at random? Sorry, I can not comprehend any difference in "danger" between one weapon and another.

 

It isn't an issue of lethality. Military style weapons have become the fixation of these mass shooters, so that is why they are being pursued. The best thing to significantly reduce gun deaths would be the complete ban on handguns by non-LEO/military, but that realistically will not happen. Unfortunately we are seeing a lot of people legally justifiably killed because they could have had a gun, could have been a threat, more so than evidence supports them actually having been a threat. If I could pull out a wand from Hogwarts, handguns would be outlawed completely. I would likely allow an exception for those european guns if they are what I think they are. I forget the detail but I think they have some guns that are only lethal at very close rangebut are non-lethal otherwise. They fire compressed air or something like that. I forget the detail. I would be fine with rifles and shotguns traditionally used for hunting to remain available as long as their barrels were not shortened. I would support a 10 round magazine limit, and I would allow certain things like AR-15's and such provided some additional requirements were placed on their purchase and possession to deter them from being as easily accessed by mentally ill people.

Since I do not have a Hogwarts magic wand, if my only two choices are where we are now or no guns, I am still going to support no guns.

 

good point. the target environment has much to do with answering a question as to "what weapon is more deadly"/ If your target is 800M away, a snub nosed revolver isn't particularly "deadly". a 338 caliber SAKO sniper rifle might well be-assuming someone has the skill to interdict a target at that distance. In an elevator, that SAKO rifle isn't very useful but a 38 caliber 2" barrel revolver is a rather effective weapon. A man fleeing in an automobile has little to worry about from a man armed with a 12" Randall Fighting knife: that same knife fighter in a small room can wreak lots of death and destruction.

I always laugh at moronic politicians or news types claiming an AR 15 or a Semi Auto AK is so deadly. Such comments prove massive ignorance or outright dishonesty

- - - Updated - - -

since the war on drugs has proven so successful, we have to assume your desired ban on guns will be as useful in preventing thugs from being armed as the laws that ban cocaine have done in ending drug abuse

 

Can you point to a single law out there that has been successful in 100% stopping people from breaking it?

 

The second law of thermodynamics.

 

That remains to be proven given the recent modeling of the universe as having no beginning and no ending. The violations could be happening right now as we type.