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

you've got real mental problems, jack. Handguns prevent a million crimes in the US every year. i've done so myself, several times nad personally know a score of others (mostly thru my competition days) who have done the same thing). it's actually common place.So put your magic wand where your head is.

 

Well, I am in the military now, so does that mean I get to keep my gun?

Then let's take this a step further. When I leave the military, does that mean I have to turn in my gun?

Figure that one out, please.

 

Actually, I think it has more to do with the stability of the person holding the gun, and their abilities.

Myself, I like to think I am a very stable individual, and would not go off on a crazy rampage shooting whoever I felt like shooting. But on the same vein, if I was to do that I would probably be one of the most "deadly" individuals, because of my training.

One thing I notice in most mass shootings is the almost insane number of rounds fired.

In 1997 in North Hollywood, the criminals fired almost 2,000 rounds, and only managed to injure 18 people. In Aurora, James Holmes fired over 300 rounds from 3 different weapons at close range, and killed 12 and wounded 58. In Columbine, over 120 rounds were fired (once again at close range), and 13 were killed and 21 were wounded (and most of those killed would have survived if medical help had been able to reach them).

One thing that anybody who is trained in the use of weapons knows, is that the faster a person fires, the lower their accuracy. Faster firing weapons tend to be much less accurate, muzzle climb and having to reacquire targets greatly decreases accuracy. Many times (like at Columbine) victims were actually "finished off" with single gunshots after they were already down, something as challenging as touching your finger to your nose.

And the simple fact is, you are still over twice as likely to be killed by a drunk driver then you are with a firearm (even including those killed by police and by acts of self-defense). Makes me wonder why the anti-gun nuts do not spend more time trying to go after drunk drivers instead of my own personal weapon, which has killed less people then Don King or Matthew Broderick.

 

we all know the answer to your question. Cars can't be used (directly) to threaten our oppressors. Guns can. Cars can't be taken from us (and still have an economy) Guns can (or so they think).

 

As usual, you post before thinking.


Lay one of your "assault rifles" on the table. Lay a Remington 600 BDL next to it (a NON "assualt rifle").

Now which one is more dangerous?


Get the point?

It is not the machined piece of steel and springs that makes it dangerous.

It is you Anders.

 

With iron sights at that.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right, tumble was just a bad choice of words.

 

that's not the issue. you all want to pass laws that make criminal behavior that doesn't cause any objective harm in order to stop people who already engage in objective harm and are not deterred by those laws.

 

Indeed I do not. I do not subscribe to the nonsense of politically loaded terminology, crafted purely for the purpose of fooling the unintelligent to supporting a specific policy, by manipulation of fear.

 

Especially with a Noveske upper receiver combo. So head shots with one (scoped, trigger job, match bthps) at 500 yds, could theoretically be attained, by somebody who is a perfect rifleman, from a sandbagged bench press. The army surgeon type, Fackler, claimed to show tumbling and fragmentation of ball ammo in jello. both 62 and 55 gr, altho I don't recall the barrel length for certain, I think that he tested both the 20" and 14.5" barrels.

His pics of such are on the net someplace. I don't trust it to happen, so I load 60 gr Nosler Partition softpoints. I doubt that the M4 will frag the 62 gr rd, reliably, in flesh, beyond 50 yds (if at all). But I've seen an 11.5" barreled AR, with Winchester whitebox 55 gr stuff, put down 2 deer (different occasions, huge bucks) before they could run 100 yds. the shots were at about 100 yds, and one of the bucks only made it 50 yds from going down, hind legs first. He kicked a few times and was gone. Both were shots thru both lungs.

 

That's because gun supporters actually produce our ideas on our own. We base them on our own experiences, rather than by what we are told by the media. I just stated the facts about Newtown--the shooter reloaded his gun before they were empty. I don't own a gun with a magazine of more than 10 rounds (well, except my .22s). I don't feel they are necessary. That said, I don't think we should ban large magazines either. I don't see how that will do anything to stop mass shooters. Gun restrictions aren't designed to stop the bad guys. They are designed to inconvenience those of us who actually follow laws.

 

A barrel shroud is a covering over the barrel. They were invented around WWI, for the M97 shotguns, so that the M97s could be used for bayonets. A barrel shroud is just another name for a heat shield on a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud

 

Please lay the pipe down. The .223 is a varmint round. I am humane. I wouldn't shoot a deer with a .223 unless it was life/death for me. It's just not humane due to it's lack of power.