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

Of course the gun rights people have good arguments.

Since 1992, homicides and violent crime in general has dropped more than 50%, at the same time states have liberalized their gun laws, federal laws have been relaxed, more guns are in the hands of people than ever before.

There are many studies that show guns in the hands of Citizens deter crime and protect crime victims. After Sandy Hook, one of obama's executive actions funded the CDC to do a gun crime study - that study found that guns are used defensively far more than criminals use guns, and crime victims with a firearm suffer less serious injury than unarmed victims. Here is a review to the study http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/
and here is the study http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

And there is Australia, which implemented a gun ban in 1996 after a mass shooting. After the ban went into effect, gun crime (which was already very low)decreased but all other crime soared, even murder increased. By 2001-2002 (the peak of the crime wave), violent crime increased 33%, assault increased 44%, homicide increased 16%, sexual assault up 33%. By 2012, some crimes had dropped back to below pre-ban levels, others are still above the pre-ban level. All of that data is in the Australia Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports.

The gun banners rely on emotion because the data does not support their claims.

 

LOL

Take a big box of cereal, something like a full size Cheerios box, that's a little shorter than an AR15 style "pistol" (which is really just an AR rifle without the stock and a half-length barrel). Put a 10 lb weight in the box to simulate the weight of the "pistol" with a full magazine.

Put that Cheerios box under your jacket and see how well you can conceal it, move with it "concealed", and pull it out and "use" it.


As to the heat shield, ever heard of a forestock? Or maybe you have heard of something called a glove?

 

stock and heat shield, are very very different.

stock does not protect hand from heat like a AR-15 foregrip.

 

NO, full auto guns are not (necessarily) illegal to possess. over 30 states have no laws against them, and these days, 100,000 private citizens legally own one or more. They are one of the very best investments you can make, now that the Fed law says that no more can be produced. Full auto guns, especially the belt-fed variants, average going up in value 20% per year. To legally own one, you have to pay the Feds $200 as a tax, and have a background check run on you, to include photo and fingerprints. this takes about 6 months. Such guns are ridiculously expensive. A full auto M16 runs over 10k US, while the semiauto variant (AR15) costs $600. $100 worth of parts and $100 worth of machining is the only difference between the two. A real belt fed full auto is going to cost you 100k US and some run over 1/4 million $ (each).

 

Multiple issues in your post.

First, the shooter at Sandy Hook did not completely use his magazines, the police found many discarded magazines that were not even half empty. Apparently the shooter reloaded when it was convenient to him, not when he was faced with opposition. Plus, the shooter had multiple firearms. Limiting his magazine size would have had no impact on the shooting.

Not all gun control works. Canada repealed its long gun registry (I think in 2014) because it failed to impact crime. Despite promises that the registry would help catch criminals, solve crimes, and protect police, it did nothing except cost a fortune. Canada learned what everyone knows - criminals don't register their guns. WHile the registry was in effect, less than 3% of crime guns recovered were also in the registry.

Australia is a gun control failure as I just posted earlier in this thread -

 

I guess all those guys in Vietnam that used automatic M-14's burned up their hands, or the BAR before that? No, they did not. A forestock works just fine.

 

Kindly stop spouting debunked and discredited myths about a topic you clearly do not understand.

Blatantly false. You offer zero proof to back up your claim, and leave it purely at your own word as if it were good enough. It is not.

Show us the many countless examples of individuals concealing rifles under their coats to such a degree of success, that it is all but impossible for someone to tell that it is there.

Either present the real world evidence upon which you base your claim, or retract your claim entirely.

The hand guard on the AR-15 serves to house and protect the direct gas impingement tube, that is key for operation of the AR-15. If the tube is damaged or bent, it can no longer function. Prove otherwise, or retract your claim entirely.

- - - Updated - - -

You exercise blatant ignorance. You are either unaware of basic facts, or you simply do not care about them.

 

Excellent points. If you wanted to kill as many as possible in a relatively short range situation, a pump shotgun and bandoleers of shells - 00 Buck. The people that want to ban "assault weapons" are having a knee-jerk reaction about a situation on which they are ignorant. Unfortunately they are the politicians so they have power.

Are assault weapons more "deadly"...? As someone already pointed out, most hunting rifles (the kinds the politicians say are safe) have far more fire-power. Hanging on the wall behind me

http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/egrygiel1/media/IMG_6495_zpsr8x8na8a.jpg.html?o=0

is a 1938 designed Springfield Arsenal M1 Garand. Fires a 30-06 bullet from an 8 round clip (yes guys a clip, not a magazine). The bullet has about 2.5 times the muzzle energy of an "assault rifle". This gun, and hundreds of designs like it are not considered dangerous by the gun control advocates, simply because they look less deadly. Yet, I can fire 8 rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger, the clip ejects itself, then you simply slam another clip into the open receiver, and you are good to go for another 8 rounds. To the dismay of the Nazis, Japanese, North Koreans & Chinese, and even some North Vietnamese, it is very good and killing lots of people in a short time.

Fortunately, in my hands, it is going to kill clay and wooden targets......and that is about it. Not a home defense weapon since the bullet would likely go through the intruder, through the house wall, and stop somewhere inside the neighbors house, or perhaps the house down from him.....

 

"Defense Weapons" are much safer....

 

it depends upon what is a "regular gun"
not too long ago a regular gun might be a 45 a 38 revolver or perhaps a bolt action hunting rifle

any of these could easily kill a person
but an assault rifle with a 30 round clip is more dangerous
if this were not the case it would make no sense for the military to switch to these weapons

but as far as i know, these are not the preferred weapon of thugs and criminals
so a ban would have little impact on crime or killings

it might reduce the rare high profile rampages by the mentally deranged
and might reassure some people who think that we should do "something"

over all i conceptually agree with regulating guns
but agree also that most proposed regulations would do little good

i think there should be much better system of registering guns and putting that info into a central database
so that those who buy and re sell guns on the black market can be identified

 

massecre type killers COULD do far more harm (and get away with it, repeatedly) by using methods not involving guns. I"m not going to give anyone ideas with a post here, but such methods are readily employed, with very little risk to the attacker. The anti-gunners don't care about such things, because such methods are not useful against tyrants (they think, anyway) while guns are readily used to make nearly everyone in a certain type of clothing resign

 

especially to the targets

- - - Updated - - -

that assumes the 400 million weapons in circulation could be registered. the requirement of a prescription has done almost nothing to stop drug abuse in this country. Registration only harasses lawful gun owners.

 

it's not 400 million, it's at most 300 million and many of them are antiques or joke pcs of crap, too. like the Judge 410 revolvers, muzzleloaders, single shots, derringers, mini-revolvers and similar things that are basically useless for defense(beyond the "threat-brandishment" level, that is. if you agree with regulation of guns, then you are part of the problem. NObody can be trusted with the power to regulate such a primal right.

 

I do not assume that at all

and what ever the debatable impact on lawful gun owners
that is certainly NOT the ONLY impact

you register your car, why is it such a problem to register a gun?

 

yeah, if the deranged were determined to do something really bad,a gun is not required
but these People are not the most logical, are they

besides which i already said the impact would be small and have little impact

 

because gov't CANNOT take cars from the public, it wouild collapse the economy (and their taxbase), Gov'ts HAVE taken weapons away from the public, all over the world and thruout all history, tho. So no, we're not going to allow any sort of registration scheme, because registration always has led to confiscation and it certainly makes confiscation a lot easier/safer for the tyrants and their thugs.

 

look you have a right to own a gun, you have a right to protect yourself
but as i see it you have no right to refuse to have your guns registered
you dont like it? lots of things in life i dont like its a bummer

 

The term "assault weapons" is ambiguous. The only ones that actually use the term are gun salesmen and liberals. For a liberal, it is used in much the same way they use "middle class". It is a category that can be as small, or as large as they want it to be at any given time.

 

maybe YOU have to allow coercion against yourself and your property, but I have the MEANS to resist your forcing your wishes upon me, and i'm not surrendering those means. I also have the willingness to employ such means in the necessary manner, if you try to force your ideas upon me. Tough stuff, bro. you lose. Protecting myself from common thugs is not the reason for the 2nd amendment. The reason we have the 2nd is to resist tyrants, like you, who are trying to impose their will upon others.

 

Yes I do. Prove that I don't.

 

i dont gotta prove nothin

 

I don't have to register anything either. Your opinion, nothing more, says that I have to register.

In fact, you should register your keyboard because it let's you exercise your first amendment rights.

 

you DO have to prove yourself (and your thugs) bulletproof, if you TRY to take our guns. Ultimately, we have the trump card, and we're not letting you take it from us.

 

i never said that you did have to register, and yes it is my opinion that stronger gun registration laws might reduce trafficking in guns

apparently you find it difficult to accept that others can have an opinion different than yours

 

I point to your first quoted post,

I do have a right to refuse. There is no requirement to register and saying that trafficking would be reduced is purely conjecture. It didn't help with Canada and their long gun registry, which has been scrapped, and it would help here in the United States.